ML20042B629
| ML20042B629 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1982 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203250466 | |
| Download: ML20042B629 (4) | |
Text
-
Bd 3/23/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION B0[h ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIN Before Administrative Judges:
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman c
Dr. Walter H. Jorda' C ' dj0ch" n
Dr. Linda W. Little St.nyw MAR Z41982 In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY )
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
(4estart)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
m.
March 237'\\1982
':y q.
.]
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
' ' ?>
N
't
, 3Z
.V -j
~
f iS "j?k
- }
- q O
In the Partial Initial Decision of December 14, 1981 the-Board
\\ 'mT, imposed a condition relating to the separation of TMI Units 1 and-2: -
During any Unit 2 fuel' movements Licensee will suspend work in the Unit 1 area of the fuel handling building and whenever Unit 1 fuel movements are in progress the engineered safety feature filtration system for Unit 1 will be in operation.
PID 1 1326(a).
The condition was imposed as practical (but not literal) compliance with short-term item 4 of the August 9,1979 Notice of Hearing relating to the separation of the fuel handling areas of Units 1 and 2.
10 NRC at 145; PID 1 1261.
On March 12, 1982 the Licensee filed its motion for clarification, or in the alternative, reconsideration of the Board's ruling with respect, to O S 8203250466 820323
/ 0 PDR ADOCK 05000289 G
r the fuel-handling building engineered safety feature (ESF) filtration system.
Because the evidence indicated that there would be no fuel handling in the TMI-l ifuel handling area until the first refueling outage after re-start, we approved delayed operability of the ESF filtration until then.
PID 5 1266.
Licensee reports now that the Unit 1 steam generators recent-ly have been observed to be subject to some chemical attack, a circum-stance which has received wide public attention. Concerned that the same situation may prevail within the reactor vessel, Licensee intends to re-
~~ move t :a vessel head for inspection.
Further examination might indicate the need to defuel the core and possibly to transfer the fuel to the spent-fuel pool for temporary storage. The present schedule is to remove the reactor head on April 2.
No schedule has been set for any fuel removal.
The filtration system has not been, and cannot be installed by April 2, or, apparently, in time for any possible fuel removal during the ~
forthcoming inspection.
The first portion of Licensee's March 12 motion is a request that the Board clarify that it did not intend to require operation of the ESF filtration system during fuel movement prior to restart. Licensee cor-rectly observes that the condition taken literally would prohibit fuel movement at any time -, before or after restart -- without the filtration system in operation.
Q The second portion of the motion requests modifications of the condi-tion even as to its application after restart.
The Board discussed.this motion with the parties present at the pub-lic preliminary hearing on another matter on March 18, 1982.
Intervent/s Sholly and Union of Concerned Scientists do not intend to answer the mo-tien.
The NRC Staff orally supported the notion insof ar as it relates to pre-restart fuel movement, but will answer in writing in the normal course with respect to the other modifications requested by Licensee. The Com-monwealth of Pennsylvania, which originally requested the filtration con-dition, has no objection to any aspect of Licensee's motion.
No other party has previously demonstrated an interest in this aspect of the
~~ proceeding. We are therefore ruling on the pre-restart aspect of the motion before the expiration of the normal time afforded parties to answer motions.
The motion as it relates to pre-restart fuel handling is granted on two bases. First,'the Board was not granted jurisdiction in the August 9, 1979 Notice of Hearing to control the Licensee's activities attendant to pre-restart cold shutdown.
10 NRC 141.
Second, jurisdiction aside, imposing the ESF filter system requirement prior to restart would result in a consequence not anticipated at the hearing or intended by the Board's order.
Licensee points out, and the Staff agrees, that the fuel now in the Unit 1 core has passed through a decay time of more than three years; thus movement of the fuel without an operable ESF filter system would not
'present a safety problem.-/
Moreover, neither the Board nor any
~~*/
See affidavit attached to Licensee's motion. The Staff's position was stated by counsel at Tr. 27,020-022.
4-party anticipated the current need for pre-restart fuel movement. There-foce the relief requested by Licensee with respect to pre-restart fuel moverrent is correctly stated to be a clarification,.not a reconsideration, of the condition.
The condition is therefore clarified according to this order. We will later address the balance of the motion.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g(/
8, Chairman IVan W. Srfiifn '
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland March 23, 1982 4
O e