ML20043H140

Advises That State of Nj Holds Public Meeting to Explain Plant Licensing Process.Plant Should Be Subj of Level III PRA Due to Unusual Characteristics of Design,Aging & Proximity to Population

ML20043H140
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	05/22/1990
From:	Mcmahon A NEW JERSEY, STATE OF
To:	Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20043H057	List: ML20043H140
References
NUDOCS 9006220071
Download: ML20043H140 (3)

Text

(:e f v

. py g

r .

t .

}

L State of 7teto Jersey 3 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ,

h DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY I j! CN 027. TRENTON, N.J. 08625-0027 i l l Anthony J. McMahon (609)292 5383 Acting Director Fax # (609) 2921074

May 22, 1990

!? ,

Dr. Thomas Murley Nuclear Regulatory Commission a Nuclear Reactor Regulations

! One White Flint North i j; 11555 Rockville Pike l Rockville, MD 20852

Dear Dr. Murley:

a L '

We appreciated the opportunity to meet with members of your staff on ' February 28, 1990 and present our concerns regarding Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. We understand that you l

view the proposed full term operating license as an outstanding issue scheduled for resolution this year. We know that Oyster l

Creek could continue to operate indefinitely under its provisional license if the full term operating license is never obtained. We also understand that a full term operating license is not required for an application for plant life extension. However, the last public meeting on the issue was held in 1981. One more public meeting in 1990 to explain your licensing process for Oyster Creek

j. is obviously necessary.

The public meeting would be an opportunity for-you to describe the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) indepth review of Oyster p

Creek and the determination that there is an adequate margin of safety to opera.te until 2004.

g Since - the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) was developed l to document the NRC staff's basis for concluding that older plants, "

g such as Oyster Creek, could operate safely, a description of that l -process should be the basis for the meeting. The safety evaluation -

l report (SER) contains information on the major plant modifications l3 and the major substantive regulations adopted since the provisional operating license was issued. Neither of these documents were completed by 1981 when the last public hearing was held. A public discussion of their contents in lay terms is appropriate before issuance of the full term operating license.

T' New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer g

P

r , . ..,,

~

(

n .

e, We will be following up with the NRC - staff cn a number of

' issues raised ~in the meetings on February 22 and 28,1990 including asking Rick Barrett to come to New Jersey to further discuss risk based. emergency - planning. However, your staff asked that we prepare an agenda for a public meeting as the public participation issue was of the most immediate nature. Such an agenda is enclosed.

I reiterate my request that you consider oyster creek as the subject of a Level III Probalistic Risk Assessment because of its unusual characteristics of design, aging, proximity to population, and meteorology. In your January 22, 1990 Notice of Violation, you-state that you are concerned that management has a " continuing Lfailure to ensure that plant staff understand and implement procedures for promptly identifying, documentating, reporting and correcting deficiencies when they exist."~ We share your concern

- about the importance of. maintaining ' increased and improved management oversight of ' licensed activities to ensure that the plant is operated safely and in accordance with its design basis..

Thank you again for agreeing.to continue our. discussion of oyster creek issues, ely, I

'[

Y)

Ac tki g Dir Anthony J. Mc a' o to I- Division of Envirdmental Quality Enclosure c: . W. Russell, Region 1 NRC

! -J. Keith, DEP

! J.'Lipoti, RPP R. Long, GPU/ Nuclear W. Fitzpatrick, oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station l

H i

$ [

h I

L

m,,

, 1 4 3

..;..Uh/ C '

l 1% se -

-..- .1 1

L' ,

L 1 L I i

l I.

[ '.

C PROPOSED AGENDA FOR.PUBLIC KEETING q Definition of roles -

o NRC o Utility

o. State l U Description'of the'NRC licensing process 1 --

1 Description.of major plant modifications made from 1964 - 1990 L .

o .Why they were made?

o How do they make the plant safer?  !

L o How is.the effect of aging considered?

o- How are aging components' compared with current standards? -l

!T o'- How is the increased population around Oyster Creek l assured of adequate safety precautions?

1'

NRC'siassessment that Oyster Creek can operate safely -

j^

l : "l- K s

'o l assumptions' L o analysis l' o ' Conclusions i

- -