ML19337A264
| ML19337A264 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 09/05/1980 |
| From: | Bishop C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ALAB-612, NUDOCS 8009090395 | |
| Download: ML19337A264 (5) | |
Text
. - - _ _
f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,7s;W
\\h'L\\
/
....D0 G
. "':: ~.:
/u' 7 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
\\
f d. Gr~ : - S l%gn > Clh
0 '
Alan'S. Rosenthal, Chairman c
(L Dr. John H. Buck 9,
)
- Ar.} 3 23' May A,,f/
Thomas S, Moore 9
4 i
3.'t.,
1
\\.
~
if
' ~~
In the Matter of
)
p s
)
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
Docket h3 50-219
)
(Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station)
)
)
i i
i
(
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER l
September 5, 1980 (ALA3-612) 1.
This proceeding involves the conversion to a full-tern l
l
' operating license of the provisional license which was issued for the Oyster Creek nuclear facility in 1969.1/
On May 31, 1979, the Licensing Board entered an order in which it (1) ap-l proved certain environmental technical specifications which the l
NRC staff proposed (with the applicant's accuiescence) to attach l
l-to both the crovisional and full-term licenses; (2) determined l
that.all' issues'in controversy had been resolved by the parties 1
themselves; but (3) called upon the staff to supply its evalua-tion of the significance of a then-recent coolant flow reduction incident at the Oyster Creek facility.
1/
The Oyster Creek facility, located in Ocean County, New Jersey,.is a boiling water reactor with a rated power output of 650 MWe.
3S0%
- 009 eoS9s 7o i 0
...... ~
On June. 8,1979, the staff complied with the Licensing Board's request by furnishing it with copies of (1) the May 30, 1979 letter frem the Director of the-Division of Operating Reactors,' Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), to the i
applicant; and- (2) the NRR Safet/ Evaluation Report def.ing i
with the incident (which document had accompanied the letter).
On September 25, 1979, the staff filed a motion seeking,
[iln the event that the [ Licensing] Board has no further questions to be addressed in this matter", an order terminating the pro-ceeding.
By order of February 22, 1960, the Licensing Board granted the ' motion and dismissed the proceeding.
In so doing, it en-dorsed (at least implicitly) the staff's analysis of the coolant flow reduction incident.
That analysis had produced the conclu-sions that the Oyster Creek core had not been damaged and that, with certain.added technical specifications designed to obviate a repetition of the incident, the facility could safely resume operation.
In an unpublished March 20, 1980 memorandum, the Appeal Panel Chairman announced tduit the dismissal order would be re-l viewed.sua sponte by an appeal. board under the standard laid down in Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Proj ec t No. 2), : ALAB-571, 10 NRC 6 87 (1979).
This Board was
. thereaf ter established - for that purpose.
(
4
2.
We have examined both the environmental technical specifications (NUREG-0488) approved in the Licensing Board's May 1979' order and the Safety Evaluation Report pertaining to the coolant flow reduction incident.
That examination has given rise to no concern requiring ou-further inquiry.
The environmental technical specifications appear to come to grips satisfactorily with the special environmental problems attend-ant upon Oyster Creek operation -- including the shipworm (marine borer) infestation matter of which we took note several years ago.. See Jersey Central Power & Light Co. (Forked River Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALA3-139, 6 AEC 535, 537 fn. 7 ' (19 7 3 ).
For its part, the analysis contained in the Safety Evaluation Report seems to be sufficiently complete and to provide an adequate foundation for the staff's conclusions derived therefrom.
q i
3.
Nonetheless, we cannot now affirn the dismissal of the l
proceeding. -To the contrary, for the reasons set forth in Part j
III of our very recent decision in the parallel Monticello pro-
.ceeding, 2( before the final curtain can be brought down the sta'ff must #"enish certain additional information respecting R
those unresolved-generic safety' issues as might be' applicable I
- to Oyster Creek operation.
. 2/. Northern' States Power Co. (Monticello Nuclear Generating
-~
Plant, Unit 1), ALAa-611, 12 NRC (September 3, 1980) (slip opinion, pp.14-22).
- J
, In Monticello, that information is being supplied directly to us.
We there indicated, however, that in proceedings such as this the licensing boards henceforth would be called upon to undertake ab initi's the task of appraising "the nature and ex-tent of the relationship between each significant unresolved generic safety question and * *
- operation of the reactor un-der scrutiny". 3,/
Accordingly, in this instance the staff is to submit the recuired.information to the Licensing Board by whatever date that Board may prescribe.
Following its evalua-
.ian of the submit:al, the Board may reinstate the dismissal of the proceeding or take such other action (after giving the parties an opportunity to be heard) as should appear appro-priate to it in the circumstances.
Remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion and Part III of -Monticello, ALAB-611, supra.
~~
--"Id.-at.
(slip opinion. p. 22).
A's explained (id. at 3/
-~
(slip opinion, pp. 37-19)), that appraisal is an-dated by Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1.and 2), ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760 (1977) and Vircinia Electric and Power Co. (North-Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units -1 and 2), ALAB-491, 8 NRC 245 (1978).
I
a
. It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD Q. 0 ;2%A b
~\\
JgnBishop C.
Secre ary to the Appeal Board l
. _. _