ML19346A055
| ML19346A055 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 06/01/1981 |
| From: | Lazo R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106040477 | |
| Download: ML19346A055 (5) | |
Text
~~
~
q, cocKETED 3s
/
usec P ' b {-
, g s,d',-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA M.
L' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NN 2 $05
- C i e seacts1r 7 l,U:10 31981* -11 G,
0"c*oc"ket a smics p
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD CommlS$1088 s
E Q
\\} ' A Before Administrative Judges:
y Robert M. Lazo, Chairman QG,p Hugh C. Paxton, Ph.D.
SEgyED g Paul W. Purdom, Ph.D.
SIS 8f In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-219 JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
(0yst r Cr ek Nuclear Generating Ih0"V r on pe t L e Pr c edings)
June 1, 1981 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This proceeding involves an application for conversion to a fullI erm t
operating license of the provisional license which was issued for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Gener3 ting Station in 1969. All proceedings regarding the application were terminated and the case dismissed by order of the Licensing Board on February 22, U50.
On September 5, 1980, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal. Board entered an order in which it remanded the proceeding to the Licensing Board "for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion and Part III of Monticello, ALAB-611," concerning unresolved generic safety issues.1/
l Thereafter, on September 9, 1980, the Licensing Board entered a Memorandum 1/ Jersey Central Power & Licht Comoany (0yster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), ALAB-612, 12 NRC 314, 316 (September 5, 1980)
See Northern States Power Comoany (Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1(, ALAB-611, 12 NRC 301, 309 (September 3, 1980)
D q
810604 0477 Y5,I O
2-and Order directing the Nuclear Regulatory Commiss. ion staff to file the additional information required by the Appeal Board respecting those unresolved safety issues which might be applicable to Oyster Creek operation.
1.
The staff's response to our September 9,1980 Order was filed on October 30, 1980.
It takes the form of a 35 page document, accompanied by the affidavit of the NRC project manager for Oyster Creek.
In the affidavit, the project manager attests that the document "was prepared by
[him] or under [his] supervision" and that the information provided is "true and correct to the best of [his] knowledge and belief".
In an introductory section, the staff quotes (at p.4) the definition of an " unresolved safety issue" contained in NUREG-0510:2/
"An Unresolved Safety Issue is a matter affecting a number of nuclear power plants that poses important questions concerning the adequacy of existing safety requirements for which a final resolution has not yet been developed and that involves condi-tions not likely to be acceptable over the lifetime of the plants it affects."
Applying this definition, as described in NUREG-0510, the staff identi-fied 17 such issues which were addressed by 22 tasks in the NRC generic issues program.
The introductory statement notes that of those 22 tasks, seven have no application to boiling water reactors which use a Mark I containment design (e.g., Oyster Creek).
In Section I of its submission, the staff discusses 2/
" Identification of Unresolved Safety Issues Relating to Nuclear Power Plants - A Report to Congress", NUREG-0510 (January 1979).
e w
r--
e-w-w-r 4
-4 y;-
. each of the remaining 15 tasks.
With respect to those not as yet completed insofar as Oyster Creek is concerned, the staff also explains why it believes that continued operation of that facility nonetheless will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety.
In Part 2 of its submission, the staff discusses six " additional items" which were not treated in NUREG-0510 as " unresolved safety issues" but
, in the staff's view, "may have an impact" on the Oyster Creek facility and "if left unresolved, could present potentially serious safety or environ mental concerns".
For each of these items, as well, the relevant task was described and for those unrcsolved a justification for continued plant operation provided.
2.
As reflected in ALAB-611,12 NRC at 310-31, the genesis of the Appeal Board's insistence that the Oyster Creek record be supplemented on the matter of unresolved generic safety issues was two prior decisions of that Board:
Gulf States Utilities Co.
(River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760 (1977), and Virginia Electric and Power Co
-(North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-491, 8 NRC-245 -(1978)
In both of those decisions, the Appeal Bo'ard noted the necessarily limited scope of the examination sua sponte of such evidence.
River Bend described the adjudicatory board's function as being simply to determine "whether th e
staff review satisfactorily rica come to grips with any unresolved generic safety problems which might have an impact upon operation of the nuclear facility under consideration". 6 NRC at 774-75.
To this end, sufficient information must be supplied to enable the board and the public to apprehend
4_
"the staff's perception of the nature and extent of the relationship between" each such p.oblem and reactor.
Id. at 775.
In North Anna (which, in common witn the case at bar, involved a review sua sconte of the licensing bcard action on an operating license application) the Appeal Board stated:
' In view of the limitations imposed by regulation, and the fact that our review was necessarily unaided by any of the parties, we have not probed deeply into the substance of the reasons put forth by the staff for allowing operation to go forward. Rather, we have only looked to see whether the generic safety issues have been taken into account in a manner that is at least plausible
.and that, if proven to be of substance, would be adequate to justify operation. Scrutiny of the substance of particular explanations will have to await a contested proceeding.
8 NRC at 248, fn. 7.
The Licensing Board's scrutiny of the content of the October 30, 1980 submission has been undertaken with this standard in mind. We have limited i
our consideration of each identified task to the plausibility of the approach and the sufficiency on their face of the explanations given for the conclu-i sions reached by the staff respecting the continued safe operation of the Oyster Creek facility.
Applying this test, we find that the staff has provided an at least reasonable foundation for its several conclusions. Accordingly, there is no reason to disturb or to probe further any of the determinations made by l
the staff. We are persuaded that it " satisfactorily has come to grips" with the various unresolved generic problems it has indicated might affect Oyster Creek operation.
4
, ORDER For the foregoing reasons and based upon a consideration of the record in this matter, it is this 1st day of June 1981 ORDERED That the Licensing Board's order of February 22, 1980 dismissing this proceeding is reinstated.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD f
Robert M. Lazo ADf11NISTRATIVE JUDGE i
I e
_