ML20098A023

Applicant Reply to Petition for Review by AEC Regulatory Staff

ML20098A023
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	12/31/1964
From:	Trowbridge G JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20097K095	List: ML20098A023 ML20098A029 ML20098A138 ML20098A140 ML20098A165 ML20098A175
References
FOIA-95-258 NUDOCS 9509180069
Download: ML20098A023 (3)

Text

___ _ _ _ _ __ __ _. _._ - . - . . .__ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _

. V

] ,r ? ~ < c A DOCET NUMBER R**

.,2 -

b E800. & UTIL FAC. 50-a/9 --

~

DOCKETED

_ k USAEC 9 i ,5 JAN 41955C,1 M TED STATES OF AMERICA b 7M,"lcll"lg" SAAhCN ATOKIC ENERGY COHNISSION l'  !/ '

16 In the a ur of -)

) Docket No. 50-219 JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )

APPLICANT'S REPLY TO PETITION FOR REVIEW BY AEC REGULATORY STAFF i

! This reply is filed on behalf of the applicant (Jersey Central Power i & Light Company) in support of the petition by the AEC Regulatory Staff for I review by the Commission of the Initial Decision and Order of the Ato:nic Safety and Licensing Board in this proceeding.

l In applicant's view the record in this proceeding clearly establishes i

i ,

that applicant fully met the requirements of the Commission's regulations I

cnd particularly Part 50.35 thereof for the issuance of a provisional con-

^

struction permit. The Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, the ASC Regulatory Staff, the applicant and its contractor were unanimous in d

concluding that there is reasonable araurance that the Oyster Creek plant can

, be constructed and operated without endangering the health and safety of the public. Applicant concurs with the ABC Regulatory Staff that the Board was ,

in error in going beyond the Commission's regulations relating to the l

' issuance of the provisional construction permit by requiring as conditions  :

' thereof the submittal to the Board of further information and data relating

to design details of the plant.

Applicant wishes to make clear to the Commission that it is proceeding

'with the construction of the Oyster Creek plant under the provisional con- l

^

struction permit issued to it on December 15, 1964, pursuant to the Board's

{

decision. The review sought by the ABC Regulatory Staff need not and should )

l 9509180069 950824 6. A/

PDR FOIA ~ ~

1 DEKOK95-258 PDR

i  ;

- , l 2

l not be permitted to disturb the effectiveness of this permit. Detailed  ;

design work is proceeding in accordance with conservative architectural and engineering criteria contained in the license application and meeting a the requirements of Part 50.35. Applicant and its contractor.are confident that these design criteria are adequatd to assure a safe plant, that the I l

detailed design will co:npletely meet all safety requirements for operation of the plant at its design power rating, and that, if required, a later j

sub:sittal of design details to the Board would satisfy the conditions specified in the Board's Initial Decision and Order.  !

The conditions erroneously imposed upon the provisional construction j permit are nevertheless onerous. Furthermore, applicant appreciates that the proceeding cnd the Eocrd's Initial Decision and Order involve not only applicant's interest in the Oyster Creek project, but also the interest of l l

the AEC Regulctory Staff and the Cc=nission in the sound administra:. ion of the Cc :nission's licensing progren. As the petition for review and accompany-ing brief make clear, the Board's decision in this proceeding raises 4

i=portant questions as to whether conditions of the kind imposed by the Board with the resulting continuation of Board jurisdiction are either authorized I

under the Cc=nission's regulations or are otherwise in the best interests of that progrc:n. Accordingly, applicant urges that the petition for review 2 filed by the AEC Regulatory Staff be granted.

If the petition for review is granted by the Coornission, applicant will upon the filing of a brief by the AEC Regulatory Staff file a reply brief in accordance with Section 2.762 of the Co:znission's. Rules of Practice. Ceneral Electric Co:npany, applicant's contractor for the design and construction of v ~. ~ , -

_____________._____._____.___._I

g .*

. . j 1

, , , s l 1

the Oyster Creek plant, is also filing a statement of position requesting the Co= mission to grant the Regulatory Staff petition for revicw and to 3 permit General Electric, if the petition for review is granted, to file a brief and participate otherwise as may be appropricte in the review pro-ceedings. Applicant believes that such participation by General Electric would facilitate consideration by the Co= mission of the questions raised by i

) the petition for review.

! Roopectfully submitted, i l

l

/WAN '

m A//d A ~f

. Trobbridgli / I

'G36rge[ITI4AN,POTIS,TRCWBRIDGE&

SHIR, . MADDEN 4 Counsel for Applicant i

i Dated: December 31, 1964 l l

4 e

a i

a 4

1 I

i 4

l

l j ,

i; l

l

.-. .- . - . _ _ _ . _ . . _ a