ML20054H589
| ML20054H589 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1982 |
| From: | Trowbridge G METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8206240236 | |
| Download: ML20054H589 (9) | |
Text
~
c.
1,,
I
- s '.
r
?
.Licensco 6/18/82
.tg t
n o
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' 2'
' 'O 4
II BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
- f
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No.'50-289
)
(Restart) i (Threb Nile Island Nuclear
)
_ Station, Unit No. 1)
)
r LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO PANE REQUEST FOR HEARING ON LICENSE AMENDMENTS AND CONDITIONS t
REQUIRED PRIF RESTART OF TMI-l 1'
r On June 3,,
1982, People Against Nuclear Energy (PANE) filed with the Commission a request for hearing on license r
l amendments and conditions required prior to restnrt of TMI-1.
PANE's request, as explained by PANE, is a companion to a l
response by PANE, filed the same day, opposing j,icensee's 8
i
- y'1 1
l motionYated May 24, 1982, to proceed wit the pI;ycholegical e.
t
- /
f health review mandated by the Court of Appeale for the D,istrict of Columbia Circuit, without fthrther adjudicatory
?
t trial-type hearings, on the, asis of the environmental assess-6 y
benDand/or statement and opoortunit'y for'/public participation
,s and comment prescribed by NEPA.
See" Licensee's Motion with l
s j
Respect to Psychological Health Issue, dat'ed May 24, 1982, and 4
t l
PANE Response to Licensee's Mo ion 3with Respect to Psychological l
+
~
l l
8206240236 820618 h
PDR ADOCK 05000289 l
t 9
l t
g O
Health Issue, dated June 3, 1982.
PANE does not in reality seek additional hearings on the health and safety issues already considered in the restart proceeding.
It would prefer to treat the hearings already held as satisfying its claim that hearings must be held on any amendments to the TMI-l operating license resulting from those hearings.
PANE's hear.ing request with respect to the license amendments is filed solely to establish that such a hearing has been formally requested by PANE under Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act and in support of its argument that either the hearing already held or a new hearing must be considered a non-discretionary hearing legally required prior to the re-start of TMI-1.
From this proposition PANE moves to the fur-ther proposition that such a hearing is part of the " existing agency review process" and that any environmental statement issued by the Commission with respect to psychological health effects must therefore be considered in such a hearing.
We do not agree that PANE can bootstrap a discretionary NRC hear-i ing into a non-discretionary one by filing a hearing request after the hearing is completed.
More importantly, Licensee submits that PANE builds its legal syllogism on an incorrect l
- premise, i.e. that a hearing is statutorily required if re-quested by PANE on the license amendments contemplated by the Licensing Board's initial decisions.
PANE does not dispute, either in its own motion or in response to Licensee's motion, the basic position taken by l
l i
Licensee and the NRC Staff that hearings are.not required, whether or not requested by a third party, prior to lifting an imnediately effective suspension order once the NRC has determined that conditions necessary to resolve the bases j
for suspension have been satisfactorily met.
PANE appears to argue, however, that because in this proceeding a number i
of restart requirements recomment'ed by the Board are to be reflected in amendments to the TMI-l license or technical-j specifications, and because PANE has requested a hearing on i
the amendments, Section 189 of tne Atomic Energy Act requires i
a hearing before the amendments.are put in place.
~
t The difficulty with PANE's argument is that it not only uses the license amendment issue as a bootstrap to force continued suspension beyond its intended and authorized pur-i pose, but it ignores the character of the license amendments l
t recommended or approved by the Licensing Board.
The TMI-1 restart license amendments simply reflect, and facilitate enforcement of, Licensee commitments and Board requirements which have been found by the Board to be necessary in the interest of increased safety.
They are not amendments which either authorize Licensee to engage'in activities not previously authorized by the TMI-l operating license or which present any significant potential for new or increased hazards to the public.
As such it is highly questionable whether the amend-ments are of a character which gives rise to any legal interest by PANE in their adoption.
It is not necessary for the.
Commission, however, to decide this latter point.
PANE's hearing request can be dismissed on other grounds.
The deci-sions of the Licensing Board provide a firm foundation for a Commission determination that the proposed amendments do not involve "significant hazards considerations" as that phrase has been cor.sistently interpreted by the NRC, i.e. that the amendments do not " involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evalu-ated, create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, or involve a significant reduc-tion in a margin of safety."1/
Such a determination would eliminate any requirement for hearing prior to adoption of the amendments.
Licensee is, of course, aware of the decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Sholly v.
NRC, 651 F.2d 780 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 19, 1980), ruling that hearings in advance of license amendments are required if requested by an interested person notwithstanding a no L
significant hazards determination.
The Suoreme Court has granted certiorari in that case, the mandate of the Court of Appeals has been stayed, and the ruling is not presently bind-ing on the Commissiun.
In any event the license amendment involved in the Sholly case was altogether different from the proposed TMI-l license amendments.
It involved a license 1/ For a description of NRC practice, see Proposed Rule on No Significant Hazards Consideration, 45 F.R.
20491 (March 28, 1980).
I i
e e
amendment which would enlarge the licensee's authority by permitting the licensee to discharge radioactive effluents at a rate greater than permitted under its existing license.
It was not an amendment which the Commission had found to be necessary for the public health and safety.
Indiscriminate extension of the Sholly ruling to amendments which the NRC itself finds necessary in the interest of public health and safety and which involve no new safety risks would create an intolerable situation.
NRC must retain the authority to issue immediately effective amendments without waiting on a hearing, whether requested by the licensee or a third person, when it determines such amendments to be necessary for the public health and safety.
Otherwise, any interested person could delay issuance of the amendment simply by requesting a hearing.
The only choice which would then be left to the NRC during the pendency of the hearing process, short of allowing continued operation without an amendment considered necessary by the NRC, would l
be to suspend operation of the facility until completion of j
the hearing.
Licensee does not believe the Atomic Energy Act l
was intended to leave the NRC with only such a drastic remedy.
l The same considerations apply to the amendment and reinstatement of a license which has already been suspended.
Once the Commission has decided on amendments which it con-siders necessary for safe operation and which do not entail l
significant hazards considerations, the Commission must be l
in a position immediately to issue the amendments and to reinstate the license.
There is no more reason in this situation to force the Commission into a continuation of the suspension of a license than to force a suspension in the first instance.
In fact, to do so would constitute an unwarranted extension of the Commission's immediately effective suspension authority.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By lA)/d S
/
ge [ Trow Nidge, P.[
i I
j Dated: June 18, 1982 l
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Response to PANE Request for Hearing on License Amendments and Condi-tions Required Prior to Restart of TMI-1," dated June 18, 1982, were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the U.
S. mail, postage prepaid, this 18th-l day of June, 1982.
NJ
./
Y
[GeorgeY.Trowbridh I
Dated: June 18, 1982 l
t l
l
UNITI'D SIATFS OF AMERICA NOCT.IAR RIG.E;<IOR:( CCZHISSICN BEFORE SE CneCSSION In the Matter of
)
}
- h. mPJr.2 TAN EDISCN CniPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Bestart)
(?.ree Mile Island Nrlear
)
Statica, Lhit No.1)
)
SI WICE LIST Wanrio J. PallaM no, Chai= nan Admirdstrative Judge Gary J. If.les U.S. Nuclear Pegulatcry Ccmnission Cbai= nan, Attrnic Safety and Licensing
~
Washing ca, D.C.
20555 Arpeal Boa _M U.S. Nrlear Regulatory Cmeission' victer c4 ' % sky, nw-4 =sicner Washington, D.C.
20555
? U.S. N= lear Pegulatcry Cu.6issica
~%shing:cn, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge John H. Buck Atric Safety and Licensing Anpeal Board Jares K. Asselstine, C:r:rtissicner U.S. Nuclear Begula* wry C:mreissian -
U.S. Naclear Begulatory C:Irissica Washington, D.C.
20555 Washin g, D.C.
20535 Administrative Judge Chim N. Kohl John F. Ahearne, Ca..issicner Atric Sadety and licensing Arpeal Board U.S. Nrlear Beg"'atcry Camission U.S. Naclear Begulaary C:xrtission Washin g, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Trras M. R:berts, Omtrissioner Administrative Judge reginald L. Gotchy U.S. Nuclear Pegulatcry Omrissica At:ric Safety and licensing Appeal Board Washin g, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nrlear Regulatory n,nmi=sica Washing, D.C.
20555 Ad.inistrative Judge Ivan W. Smith CbM-ran, Atcreic Safety and Joseph Gray, Esycire Licensing Board Office of the Stecu-dve Iagal Direc:cr (4)
U.S. Naclear Peg"'* ::'y C:rrtission U.S. Nrlear Pegalatory C:rreission Washing, D.C.
20555 Washing:en, D.C.
20555 Ai-i-istrative Judge Walter H. Jordan Drxeting and Se:vice Section (3)
A :ric Sadery a.d Iicensing 3 card C334 ce cf the Se=e ary 881 West Octer Drive U.S. Nrlear Pegula. -f Carissicn Cak Pidge, Tennessee 37830 Washin g, D.C.
20555 Ad:-i.istra-dve Judge linda W. Iittle A :rtic Safety and Lice sing A7-1 Pcard Atcrtic Sa#ety and Lice _ sing Scard Panel 5000 Her:-i2:e Drive U.S. RJ lear FeTalatory Carissica Rileigh, Nerih Carcli-2 27612 Washing cn, D.C.
20555
Armic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Illyn R. Weiss, Esgaire U.S. Tuclear Fr.galatory h4 esian Ma m & Weiss L> +4ngton, D.C.
20555 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 Mbert Adler, F. squire Farin W. Carter, Esquire Steven C. S% 11y Assistant Attorney General Unica of NE M. Scientists 505 Dcecutive Faase 1346 C=nnecticut Averraa, N.W. (1101 P. O. Bcx 2357 Washing:ca, D.C.
20036 Barrisbarg, PA-17120 Ma iin I. Ieais Atteney General of New Jersey 6504 Bradford Terrace A -a Baras J. Ge=ine, Esquire Philadelphia, PA 19149 Deputy Attorney General Division of law - Pcan 316 Gail Phelps 1100 Payn:nd Boulevard AIM
~
- Newark, New Jersey 07102 245 West Phi'ada'pM = Street Ycrk, PA 17404 John A. Ievin, Escuire Pssistant Coansel Mr. and Mrs..lb=:an Aanoft
' Pennsylvania Public-Utility Ca rissica R.D. 5 P. O. 3:< 3265 Coatesv4'1 e, PA 19320 Harrisb r g, PA 17120 Icaise Bradford John E. Minnich, C2.i.=an
'IMI PTM Dauphin County Beard of Carissioners 1011 Green Stree-Dauphin County Carthouse F r M c.rg, PA 17102 Fr^r.t and Market Streets F2.rr % rg, PA 17101 C2uncey Fepford Judith J. Jc'.nsrud Walter W. Cohen, Esqaire E:W h.4cntal Coalitica on Nuclear Power Consumer A&:veate 433 Orlando Avenue Office of Ccas=er Advecate State College, PA 16801 1425 Strasterry Sgaare P r M rg, PA 17127 Pobert O. Folla-d 609 M=tpelier Street Jordan D. Cr.in#2:n, Esgaire Baltincre,.c 21218 Fox, Far & Cr.inp2:n 2320 Nc:-2 Secend Street F2r: _sbrg, PA 17110 W4 ' ' 4
. S. Jordan, III, Isq'4 e
- c7 & Waiss 1725 Iye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washing:.cn, D.C.
20006