ML19351A222
| ML19351A222 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1981 |
| From: | Bishop C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO., NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| ALAB-612, ALAB-645, NUDOCS 8106260309 | |
| Download: ML19351A222 (4) | |
Text
4 a
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 301 W e
'M Administrative Judges:
AN 3 31981..:
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman 5
OfSeed h %g
%g Dr. John H. Buck Thomas S. Moora s
j.
SERVC.D JUN 2 3 1931 In the Matter of
)
)
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-219
)
(Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station) )
gg N
b MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 3
251gg g b June 22, 1981 g
\\
I=D (ALAB-645) 9 This proceeding involves the conversion to a f er-ating license of the provisional licens'e which was issued for the Oyster Creek nuclear facility in 1969.
Last September, on its review sua sponte of a Licensing Board termination order, this Board remanded the proceeding to the Board below for further ac-tion.
ALAB-612, 12 NRC 314.
That action has now been taken and, l
1
(
in an unpublished June 1, 1981 order, the Licensing Board once again terminated the proceeding.
In the absence of exceptions to the June 1 order, we have examined it on our own initiative.
i l
Finding no error requiring :orrective action, we affirm.
l 1.
The remand in ALAB-612, supra, was for the purpose of calling upon the NRC staff to supply "certain additional informa-l tion respecting those unresolved generic safety issues as might l
i 810e 2303o 7 g
v -,
s y* - - -
-w.
,--,-..,---.,,s
,,,ww,_-,.--.,e m
--.y
-r---
-r--
,-,-.~.m___
. be applicable to Oyster. Creek operation".
12 NRC at 315.
Fol-
- lowing the receipt of that information, the Board below was to appraise "the nature and extent of the relationship between each significant unresolved generic safety question" and such
- operation.
M. at 315-16.
The reasons why this course was mandatec' dere detailed in an order entered two days earlier in Northern States Power Co.
(Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-611,12 NRC 301 (1980).
Monticello also was before this Board for a review sua sponte of the termination of a proceeding on an application for conversion of an operating license from provisional to full-term.
We there decided to have the staff submit thd required supplemental material pertaining td unresolved generic safety issues directly to us, rather than to the Licensing Board.
We noted, however, that "in any other parallel proceedings" the Licensing Board would have the responsibility of receiving and evaluauing the information.
- g. at 311-12.
2.
The Monticello proceeding came to an end in ALAB-620, 12 NRC 574 (1980).
On the basis of our examination of the 1
staff's submittal to us, we found that no reason existed for disturbing or probing further any of the determinations reflected in that submittal -- determinations which had led the staff to the ultimate conclusion that continued operation of the Monticello facility would not present an undue risk to the public health and
.t
-v--
s s---
~ - ~ ~
_-.--,,,,---.,,-_,.,n_+----,--,---n.n--w-,..n,,.,,,.,--,-,-,--e,,,.,,nwm-,,--.,,,,,---,-,ww,.,,--,-,,,-.,,,.,.as-e,
<--we.,
. ws-ee+ -
s safety.
In that connection, we stressed the restrictive scope of our review:
(N]o endeavor has been made to satisfy ourselves that the staff's approach to each identified (un-resolved generic safety issue] corresponds exactly with what we would have done if in the shoes of the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Rath-er, we have limited our consideration to the plau-sibility of the approach and sufficiency on their face of the explanations given for the conclusions reached by the staff respecting the continued safe operation of the Monticello facility.
As we saw it, the staff had both "satisf actorily * * * 'come to grips with the various unresolved generic problems it (had] indi-cated might affect Monticello operation" and "provided an at
/
least reasonable foundation for its several conclusions".
I_d. at 577.
3.
The Licensing Board order now at hand reaches the same result respecting the staff's October 30, 1980 stibmission to it 1/
Our independent examina-on continued Oyster Creek operat tion of the record has given us no cause to view the matter dif-(
ferently.
i f
In this regard, the Board below might have noted that the
(
October 30 submission reveals that, unlike Monticello, Oyster I
l Creek is one of the eleven oporating reactors which are included 1/
Indeed, in large measure the text of that order bears a striking resemblance to ALAB-620.
That fact has not in-fluenced our review here.
The Licensing Board order must stand or fall on the record underlying it -- a record not identical to the Monticello record before us in ALAB-620.
l
within the Systematic Evaluation Program.
That Program was in-stituted, following Commission approval, in November 1977.
As stated in the 1978 NRC Annual Report (at p. 59), the Program staff is charged with the responsibility for reviewing those eleven " older licensed power reactors, applying current licensing criteria, and for documenting the results -- including the need for any necessary plant changes". 2_/
It appears from a recently issued status summary report that unresolved generic safety is-suas are within the scope of the Program.
See NUREG-0485, Vol.
3, No. 5 (April 1,1981).
Accordingly, the October 30 submission 3/
contains several reference:
to, work being done under the Pro-gram on generic safety questions and the specific relationship.of that work to the continued safe, oper'ation of Oyster Creek.
The June 1,1981 order of the Licensing Board is affirmed.
It is so ORDEPE:D.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD h-aC -^
C. Je q Bishop
\\
Secretary to the Appeal Board 2/
By virtue of Section 110 of the 1980 NRC Authorization Act l
(Pub. L. No. 9 6-2 9 5 ), this Commission must now develop and implement. a similar plan for all currently operating plants.
The staff has proposed integrating the existing Systematic Evaluation Progran into the new plan (1980 NRC Annual Re-port, p. 5).
_3f See pp. 19, 22, 25, 32, and 34.
i i
-. ~
_