ML20197H475

Responds to 840531 Ltr Re Commission Intentions to Pursue Tentative TMI-1 Restart Schedule Announced in Apr 1984. Decision by June 1984 No Longer Possible Due to Need for Addl Comments by Interested Parties.Served on 840618

ML20197H475
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	06/15/1984
From:	Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Bevill T HOUSE OF REP.
References
NUDOCS 8406180428
Download: ML20197H475 (3)

Text

-

(/tk 4

[o aeg4S .

UNITED STATES

!" n NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION i WASHINGTON,0. C.E555

g DOC ken-U5hRC'

• • • • • June 15,1984 cHmmN '

'84 JUN 15 P2:53 0FFFi C.: m; :

0 0 c n a n s A 3Ei.,c;.-

The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chaiman BRMCH Subcomittee on Energy and Water Development Comittee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives ,_

I.......,

Washington, D.C. 20515 g ,,, .....

7.;, y Q, - M b

Dear Mr. Chaiman:

SERVED JUN 181984 This is in response to your letter of May 31, 1984 asking whether the Comission still intends to pursue the TMI-1. restart tentative schedule announced in April. In light of the Appeal Board's May 24, 1984 decision on management, ALAB-772, on June 4 the Comission issued an order to the parties requesting their. comments on whether the Comission should lift the effectiveness of the 1979 shutdown order. Tne Comission additionally advised the parties that after receiving th:se coments it would decide as l- . soon as possible whether' to lift such effectiveness. In a subsequent order,

i. the Comission gave the parties ilntil July 1,1984 to submit their coments to the Comission. The NRC staff coments a a due on July 11, 1984.

1 The Comission believes it was prudent to request ~ the parties' coments for at least two reasons. First, the Comission. in its August 1979 order establishing the restart proceeding stated thitt:it would decide whether or not to lift the imediate effectiveness of the TMI-1 shutdown order if the Licensfng Board found in . favor of restart. A1.AB-772 raises the question whether there now exists a favorable Licensing Board decision, and hence whether a restart decision at this time would be a change in the procedures set out in the August 1979 order. The Comission believes the parties should b'e provided an opportunity to address this issue.

Second, the Comission believes it should provide the parties an opportunity to coment on all the information to be used by the Comission in making its decision. That information may include the recently completed investigations

.by NRC's Office of Investigations and may in lude other recent evaluations of GPU Nuclear. It should be noted that the !.icensing Board and the Appeal Board proceedings both were based on a record that was closed in December of 1981. Substantial new infomation has come before the Comission since that time, including the recently completed investigations by NRC's Office of l Investigations. While the Comission had planned to obtain comments on this information by issuing a draft decision for cociment, the Comission decided, in view of the issuance of the Appeal Board's decision, that those coments

.-- could be asked for by way of the June 4 order.

In view of the-foregoing, we conclude that a decision in June is,no longer possible. We will continue to work toward a decision on restart as soon as possible consistent with the safety and F ocedural concerns involved.

However, until' we have the parties comects, an exact timetable for a restart decision is in question. '

l 8406100428 840615 CORRE DE E PDR 3O D

I The Honorable Tom BQvill i Comissioner Gilinsky adds: "

I would only note that if the Comission had itself taken up and dealt with the management issue in 1980, as I then recomended, this case would not still be dragging on."

Comissioner Roberts adds: "

Having failed to decide whether to lift the

! imediate effectiveness of the TMI-1 shutdown order upon issuance by the

! Licensing Board of its third and concluding partial initial decision i favorable to restarting TMI-1 almost two years ago, we once again have been l provided an excuse for further delay in deciding. Had we authorized restart  :

i of TMI-1 prior to the issuance of ALAB-772, its issuance would not have l 1

required that TMI-1 be shut down. Neither should its mere issuance be

allowed automatically to aelay a decision on whether to allow restart pending i still further comments by the parties. Since none of the infonnation and questions currently known to us would warrant imediately shutting dow TMI-I if it were operating subject to the conditions that are to be imposed for j restart, none should be allowed to further delay a restart decision. I would decide without further delay."

Chainnan Palladino adds: Comissioner Roberts observes that the Comnission failed to make a decision on whether to lift the immediately effective shutdown order two years ago. I would add that, following issuance of the Licensing Board's favorable decision on July 27, 1982, the Comission e addressed the imediate effectivgness quest. ion. The Comission developed the g steps and schedule for its decision, conducted oral presentations and a i public meeting in Harrisburg, and held a number of meetings in December 1982 I and January 1983 to prepare an order. The order then under consideration would have addressed most of the issues relating to the imediately effective shutdown but it would not have resolved the overall issue of restart for several reasons including the pending issues on the licensee's program for steam generator tube repair. The Commissicn was on the verge of issuing the 1 order in early 1983 when additional questions arose regarding integrity issues which appeared to require further inquiry. As the public record l reflects, the NRC staff subsequently withdrew its positive finding on TMI-1 management competence and integrity.

l The< integrity issues that arose in early 1983 prompted the Commission to i connence several NRC investigations. In January 1984 the Comission decided i

on and published a decisional process and concluded as a preliminary matter l that only the investigation into allegations of possible falsification of i leak-rate data at Unit I would be pertinent to a decision on whether to lift i the imediately effective shutdown order. However, before this decisional l process could be completed, the Appeal Board issued ALAB-772; the l l Comission's order seeking public connent followed, for the reasons stated l 4

above in this letter."

Sincerely, f

I

. WW Nunzio J. Palladino cc: Rep. John Myers t

-,-,-,--,-v.,,,,--,-,,,,-,-u,.---, wa,,,,,-,,,- we-,,,-env---,,,e,,,,,vn-,+

,,,,-~,,,w,-,,-,,-,-,n---,,n,e,,,,- ,w--,nwn,,, m mwns,,,,,~

d u . w .? r s' ~

l =,;. .;::"-

==:

=",w.:e Eisp

==r Congrtss o' t'it Witti Etates wast g Ra. tsmatitics M:Ef

>

= = . . . . == i cemitttt a appiopuatins tr.=_  :

r%='"tl L L 3 ~~

U)as"21!*b B C E = ' #~ I "' '

== g,m ,~,.,;;=,,: Avg

%"'" May 31,1984 5=,1 = = =, :.=.-

x== - = ,,

! .',C,t,:7:'.'"

4

. 'u'."*t Ev". %' b "m".n**l'"X.=

l = = . , .

Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chainnan l Nuclear Regulatory Comnission ,

j Washington, DC 20555 ,

l

Dear Mr. Chairman:

i. . . .

During our recent hearings, we'made cleaE our interest in a timely

, decision by the NRC on restart of the undamaged'TMI-1 plant.

1 .

I

- As stated in the Committee Report: '

i "Over five years have passed since the accident at Three Mile Island ".

! , and yet the NRC has not been able to reach a decision on the restart of i the unaffected TMI-l plant. The inability of the NRC to reach a decision

! on this facility jeopardizes public confidence in the NRC ability to make

! credible independent decisions. The NR has indicated that all litiga-1 tion and decisions.on the restart o.f TMI-1 will be completed by June i 1984. The Committee expects the NRC to maintain this schedule."

1 .

l J am aware of the recent ' Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board deci.

siori remanding several issues to the ASLB to complete the hearing record.

j However, it is my understanding that the Commission itself is not limited to the: hearing record in the Restart proceeding and that the Commission already I

has information on each of the issues romanded by the Appeal Board adequate to -

4 enable the Commission to reach a restart decision without awaiting those hearings.. -

i t

Ple'ase advise promptly whether the Cremission still intends to pursue its immediate effectiveness determination regarding the TMI-1 Restart and the related steam generator issue on the tentative schedule announced last month.

Sincerely; Tom 8evill, Chairman

_ SubcE~Dittee on Energy