ML20114E472

Informs That on Basis of Staff Second ACRS Rept (Draft),Need for High Pressure Injection Capability,Only Unresolved Aspect W/Util

ML20114E472
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	09/22/1967
From:	Tedesco R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Boyd R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML093631134	List: ML18010B195 ML20087F806 ML20087F808 ML20087F815 ML20114E363 ML20114E376 ML20114E393 ML20114E412 ML20114E468 ML20114E472 ML20114E487 ML20114E503 ML20114E514 ML20114E518 ML20114E524 ML20114E628 ML20114E678 ML20114E702 ML20114E729 ML20114E765 ML20114E777 ML20114E794 ML20114E836 ML20114E844 ML20114E871 ML20114E876 ML20114E883 ML20114E887 ML20114E896 ML20114E916 ML20114E941 ML20114E963 ML20114E971 ML20114E988 ML20114E999 ML20114F029 ML20114F032 ML20114F049 ML20114F076 ML20114F121 ML20114F142 ML20114F153 ML20114F189 ML20114F202 ML20114F209 ML20114F221 ML20114F260 ML20114F273 ML20114F279 ML20114F282 ... further results
References
NUDOCS 9210120178
Download: ML20114E472 (2)

Text

O

+

I l

1 i

l Roger 8. Boyd, Assistent Dincter September 22,1967 i

for Beseter Projects, pgL 4; n,g, ped W Robert L. Todeoes, Chief

. w....

m eto,ereteet.,s k,,

1 Orstna Caust anvIst - somst so. 5o.219 An internal review eeneersing the safety evaluation given in our seesad ACES report (draft) en the Oyster Creek facility has been i

in progrees since September 12th. Following this review on l

September 19,1967, i.t was deeided that further resolutism of out.

standing matters should be mode before going to the Cesmaittee. We were scheduled to appear beton the ACRS at the October 1967 meeting to present the results of our review on the following matters:

ncca b

instrumentation, control, and power systems eospesetive radiologioni doses for certain design e

bases seeidents, On the basis of the decision to defer submission of our ACRS report, i

I eslied Bay Fraley of the ACRS staff and informed him of our decision.

Subsequently, I called George Ritter of Jersey Contal en September 19, 1967, and also informed him of this action. I did not specify details, but did say that a review of the report indicated that we had taken positions en asay matters on a santingent basis. These eastineest positions appeared to exceed others that were established without pro-visions attached. I indicated, that in fairness to the Comunittee, we should make every effort to arrive et definitive findings to formulate our (DEL) positiama for more effective communienties. I told Mr. Ritter that we would ase develop a list of all the curmat review matters te be resolved. We would provide him with this informaties for a aceting feileeing our revieFe At this meeting, we Tonid maka every effer% to reestve oaeh matter on a reassemble and aseeyteble basis to minimise contingencies.

Needless to say, Mr. Ritter was not happy with this decision. Re indicated that his cespany would have to pay significantly for any delay in licensing. I spin assured him that we would make every e* fart t.o asistain a realistic schedule but:, that our safety review must be ecunpleted with assurance that the public health and safety would not be compromised.

A review of each section of the draft report has indicated that we in DRL should first understand and resolve our diffennees before going orra >

~

9210120178 920520 SURNAbet

• PDR ORG NRCHIST

..4

............$.h.R D^" >

J.

n,-a.

a.,.,a

~~

A,

~

^---

u.A 60minutm enisHae r*TuA opau u l

1

, - ~ - -

_ - ~ _ _. _ _ _. -... _ _ _,

1 o

Roger S. Boyd 2-Se % ember 22, 1967 to the applicant. On the basis of our report the only unresol?ed aspect with Jersey Central is the need for high pressure injection ca pability..

cc:

P. A. Morris S. Levine V. Stello Distribution

1. g Suppl. 4 DRL neading RPB 2 Reading Orig R. Tedesco 1

i

..DRL, RP orricc >

sunaAut >

.....Medesco/rgl eart > _9/22/67..

.....,..m.=_...

Ibrm AEC. stb (Rev.9-41) g