ML20081K028

Response Rejecting Ucs 831018 Motion to Establish Criteria for Judging Reasonable Progress Re long-term Items Necessary Prior to Restart.Motion Does Not Propose Criteria. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20081K028
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	11/01/1983
From:	Trowbridge G METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8311090236
Download: ML20081K028 (7)

Text

- -

November 1, 1983 00CKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION yd N Y -7 Ni:40 BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO.N g g ggg g ,

COCXilihG A SEW ..

Uf.A NCH In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

LICENSEE RESPONSE TO UCS MOTION TO ESTABLISH CRITERIA FOR JUDGING

" REASONABLE PROGRESS" On October 18, 1983, UCS filed with the Commission a motion entitled UCS Motion to Establish Criteria for Judging

" Reasonable Progress" with respect to the long-term items found to be necessary and as to which reasonable progress must be shown prior to the restart of TMI-1 pursuant to the Commis-sion's Order and Notice of Hearing dated August 9, 1979 (CLI-79-8).

The title of the motion is a misnomer. UCS does not either dis-cuss or propose criteria for determining reasonable progress.

It simply moves that completion of all long-term items be man-dated prior to restart without regard to the nature or urgency of the requirement, the length of time which NRC has required to define certain of the requirements, or the engineering and l

procurement time involved.

36 831102 h$kA$$g{K05000289 G

PDR 99

Since UCS does not identify or discuss any specific lcng-term requirement Licensee can only respond to the general-ities advanced by UCS and correct some of the premises and misconceptions implicit in the motion.

1. Implicit in the UCS motion is the assumption that all of the long-term requirements have long since been well defined such that Licensee could have proceeded promptly with their implementation. In fact, however, the identification of post-accident requirements was an evolutionary process, with changing priorities and schedules set by the NRC, frequent revi-sions to the criteria established to meet individual requirements, and the addition of new requirements. It was not until the pub-lication of NUREG-0737, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Re-quirements" (November, 1980), that the Commission expressed its own endorsement of the Staff's TMI Action Plan (NUREG-0660),

as clarified in NUREG-0737. Previously, all licensees were l

faced with a number of often conflicting directions from the agency in the form of bulletins, orders, and generic letters.

Changes continued to be made after NUREG-0737 was issued, but in a more coordinated fashion. Even now, a number of NUREG-0737 items are open pending further NRC review. As the NRC Staff

testified before the Licensing Board in March, 1981

Many of the items in the Action Pla'n provide significant and well understood l safety improvement, as well as being prac-tical to accomplish in a relatively short l period of time. Other items in the Action j  !

Plan are not as narrowly defined, specific, or urgent in nature. Many of these items require detailed and complex engineering analyses by vendors, licensees and/or the NRC prior to identifying if any additional changes or modifications to plant systems or components are necessary. Certain hard-ware modifications will require the pro-curement of components or systems that are still under technological development. Other items require rulemaking on the part of the NRC and still others require research or studies to identify what remedial measures, if any, should be taken over the next several years to provide more comprehensive or more desirable solutions to interim improvements.

D. Ross, ff. Tr. 15,555, at 5-6.

The pace at which the NRC Staff proceeded with the development of long-term requirements also reflected the Com-mission's own observations as to need for a balance between safety significance and available NRC and industry resources:

As discussed above, many actions were taken to improve safety immediately or soon after the accident. These actions were generally considered to be interim improve-ments. In scheduling the remaining improve-ments, the availability of both NRC and industry resources was considered, as well as the safety significance of the actions.

Thus, the Action Plan approved by the Commis-sion presents a sequence of actions that will result in a gradually increasing improvement in safety as individual actions are completed and the initial immediate actions are replaced or supplemented by longer term improvements.

Revised Statement of Policy on Further Commission Guidance for Power Reactor Operating Licensees, 46 Fed. Reg. 7540 (1981).

2. The UCS motion implies that Licensee has deferred until after restart the completion of a large number of lessons

learned requirements which have been accomplished by other oper-ating reactors at the first or second refueling after establish-ment of the requirement. It further claims that Licensee has taken the position that long-term requirements can be postponed until after restart no matter when restart occurs. This simply is not true. In fact, Licensee has already completed most of the lessons learned requirements.1/

3. The UCS motion implies that because some of the long-term items may not be completed until the first refueling after restart, Licensee has fallen behind other operating re-actors in the implementation of the long-term lessons learned requirements. In fact, while a detailed point-by point compar-ison of TMI with other Operating License plants is difficult to make based on NRC published summary status reports, TMI-l will upon return to service be comparable with the modification status of other similar operating plants.

The UCS motion should be summarily rejected.

Respectfully submitted, j SHAW, PI MAN, POTTS & ROWBRIDGE l

By M/ 1M /

GedgeF. Trowbridge P.C.

Dated: November 1, 1983

! 1/ Licensee recently reported to the Commission the status of all short and long term requirements. See Licensee Comments on Commissioner Gilinsky's Tentative Conclusion, dated August 4, 1983, pp. 36 et seq. and Appendix A.

l

\

DOCKETED l USNRC l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '

13 NOV -7 21:42 BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION GFr_e.

e . OF SE (.e_2./,r.

00CKETmG & SERTD SRANCH In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee Response to UCS Motion to Establish Criteria for Judging ' Reasonable Progress'," dated November 1, 1983, were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 1st day of November, 1983.

$ //

n N //

V ceofe F. Trowbridge,[C.

l Dated: November 1, 1983

WITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY CONISSICN BEEDRE '1EE CCPHISSION In the Matter of )

)

MEIROPOLITAN EDISCN CCMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

SERVICE LIST Chaiman Nunzio J. Palladino Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atcznic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccunission Ccmnissioner Victor Gilinsky Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ivan W. Smith, Esquire Comnissioner Thcmas M. Ibberts Chairman, Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Ccmnissioner James K. Asselstine Sheldon J. Wolfe, Alternate Cruiman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ccmnissioner Frederick M. Bernthal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Wa.3hington, D.C. 20555 Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Docketing and Service Section (3) Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Joseph Gray, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of Executive Iagal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Gary J. Edles, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Chairman, Atcmic Safety and Li nsing Appeal Board John A. Ievin, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Assistant Coursel Washington, D.C. 20555 Pennsylvania Public Utility Ccmnission P. O. Box 3265 Dr. John H. Buck Harrisburg, PA 17120 Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Marjorie M. Aa:rodt U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission R. D. 5 Washington, D.C. 20555 Coatesville, PA 19320 a

4 Douglas R. Blazey, Esquire Steven C. Sholly Chief Counsel Union of Concerned Scientists Department of Envirorur.2ntal Resources 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., #1101 514 Executive House, P. O. Box 2357 Washington, D.C. 20036 Harrisburg, PA 17120 ANGRY /'IMI PIRC Ms. Louise Bradford 1037 Maclay Street

'IMI ALERT Harrisburg, PA 17103 1011 Green Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Chauncey Kepford Judith H. Johrtsrud Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Environnental Coalition on Nuclear Power Harmon & Weiss 433 Orlando Averrae 1725 Eye S*c. , NW, Suite 506 State College, PA 16801 Washington, D.C. 20006 l

i I

1 I

l i

)

)

1 l

1 l

. . , - . . , - - - -- - , - - - - .