ML083231041: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:Donnie Ashley From: Leslie Vincent on behalf of OGCMailCenter Resource Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 9:27 AM To: Edward Williamson; Brian Newell; Karl Farrar; Michael Masnik; Louise Lund; Donnie Ashley;Janice Moore | {{#Wiki_filter:Donnie Ashley From: Leslie Vincent on behalf of OGCMailCenter Resource Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 9:27 AM To: Edward Williamson; Brian Newell; Karl Farrar; Michael Masnik; Louise Lund; Donnie Ashley; Janice Moore | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
FW: App.com Augujst 3 Oyster Creek foes appeal to force review Attachments: | FW: App.com Augujst 3 Oyster Creek foes appeal to force review Attachments: Oyster Creek - Docket No. 50-0219-LR Original | ||
Oyster Creek -Docket No. 50-0219-LR | ----- Message-- | ||
----- | From: gburl @comcast.net [mailto:gburl @comcast.net] | ||
[mailto:gburl | Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 3:54 PM To: Richard Webster; Anthony Baratta; apolonsky@morganlewis.com; bradley.fewell@exeloncorp.com; dsilverman@morganlewis.com; Roy Hawkens; Hearing Docket; john.covino@dol.lps.state.nj.us; ksutton@morganlewis.com; Mary Baty; mdonato@micheledonatoesq.com; OCAAMAIL Resource; OGCMailCenter Resource; Paul Abramson; Valerie Gray; Emily Krause; James Adler; rkuyler@morganlewis.com ýb)(6). | ||
@comcast.net] | Cc: nirsnet@nirs.org; Janetjeff.tittel@-SierraClub.org; paul@beyondnuclear.or'g; Tauro Psturmfels@cleanwater.org; becc~a.glenn@sierraclub.org;ý b)(6) - | ||
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 3:54 PM To: Richard Webster; Anthony Baratta; apolonsky@morganlewis.com; bradley.fewell@exeloncorp.com; dsilverman@morganlewis.com; Roy Hawkens; Hearing Docket; john.covino@dol.lps.state.nj.us; ksutton@morganlewis.com; Mary Baty; mdonato@micheledonatoesq.com; OCAAMAIL Resource;OGCMailCenter Resource; Paul Abramson; Valerie Gray; Emily Krause; James Adler;rkuyler@morganlewis.com | *b)(6) .... lacairo@njpirg.org; Dena Mottola; MattElot bubject: e: App.com Augujst 3 Oyster Creek foes appeal to force review app.com August 3, 2008,lt°rmatio ig t eo was detet-j Oyster Creek foes appeal to force NRC review of metal fatigue Ace em witthe Freedomt By MATT PAlS FOIA. Ž'0/9d? | ||
ýb)(6).Cc: nirsnet@nirs.org; | MANAHAWKIN BUREAU Opponents of the relicensing of the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant-in Lacey have filed an appeal of a ruling that rejected their efforts to have the issue of metal fatigue of the plant's recirculation's nozzles reconsidered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. | ||
Earlier this year a coalition of groups asked the Atomic Safety Licensing Board to reopen the relicensing record to reanalyze whether five recirculation outlet nozzles on the reactor vessel will sustain too much stress over an additional 20 years. The 38-year-old plant's operating license is due to expire next April.In a 2-1 split decision handed down July 24, the board rejected that effort.Relicensing opponents claim Oyster Creek's use of a simplified calculation of nozzle metal fatigue falsely indicated that the amount of fatigue in the future would be acceptable. | Earlier this year a coalition of groups asked the Atomic Safety Licensing Board to reopen the relicensing record to reanalyze whether five recirculation outlet nozzles on the reactor vessel will sustain too much stress over an additional 20 years. The 38-year-old plant's operating license is due to expire next April. | ||
In their motion to have the issue reopened, they state that reanalysis would reveal the nozzles pose a potential safety threat.Oyster Creek has said the original methodology used was acceptable and that any further analysis would produce similar results.In the appeal, filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the group cites the dissenting opinion of panel member Anthony J. Baratta as grounds have the nozzle issue reopened. | In a 2-1 split decision handed down July 24, the board rejected that effort. | ||
Baratta stated the citizens met the standards for reopening the record to address a, "serious safety issue.""It is something that needs to be explored. | Relicensing opponents claim Oyster Creek's use of a simplified calculation of nozzle metal fatigue falsely indicated that the amount of fatigue in the future would be acceptable. In their motion to have the issue reopened, they state that reanalysis would reveal the nozzles pose a potential safety threat. | ||
When you talk about metal fatigue of a nozzle in a reactor, that is extremely vital," said plant opponent Janet Tauro of Brick.Tauro said the opinion of Baratta -one of two technical judges on the panel -that rejecting the motion is a"grave error," has given opponents hope."It buoys us very much," she said.a-----Original message -----.......------ | Oyster Creek has said the original methodology used was acceptable and that any further analysis would produce similar results. | ||
In the appeal, filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the group cites the dissenting opinion of panel member Anthony J. Baratta as grounds have the nozzle issue reopened. | |||
Baratta stated the citizens met the standards for reopening the record to address a, "serious safety issue." | |||
"It is something that needs to be explored. When you talk about metal fatigue of a nozzle in a reactor, that is extremely vital," said plant opponent Janet Tauro of Brick. | |||
Tauro said the opinion of Baratta - one of two technical judges on the panel - that rejecting the motion is a "grave error," has given opponents hope. | |||
"It buoys us very much," she said. | |||
a | |||
----- Original message -----.......------ | |||
From: Richard Webster <rwebster@easternenvironmental.org> | From: Richard Webster <rwebster@easternenvironmental.org> | ||
> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA> NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION | > UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | ||
> NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION | |||
> BEFORE THE COMMISSION | > BEFORE THE COMMISSION | ||
> In the Matter of> ) Docket No. 50-0219-> LR> AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC> (License Renewal for the Oyster> Creek ) August 1,> 2008> Nuclear Generating | > In the Matter of | ||
> Station)> Please find attached Nuclear Information and Resource Service,> Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy> Safety, New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, New Jersey Sierra> Club, and New Jersey Environmental Federation (collectively | >) Docket No. 50-0219- | ||
> "Citizens") | > LR | ||
Petition for appeal of LBP-08-12, together with a Certification of Service.> Respectfully submitted," Richard Webster> Legal Director> Eastern Environmental Law Center> 744 Broad Street, Suite 1525> Newark NJ, 07102" Tel. 973 424 1166" Fax. 973 710 4653> | > AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC | ||
orq 2}} | > (License Renewal for the Oyster | ||
> Creek ) August 1, | |||
> 2008 | |||
> Nuclear Generating | |||
> Station) | |||
> Please find attached Nuclear Information and Resource Service, | |||
> Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy | |||
> Safety, New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, New Jersey Sierra | |||
> Club, and New Jersey Environmental Federation (collectively | |||
> "Citizens") Petition for appeal of LBP-08-12, together with a Certification of Service. | |||
> Respectfully submitted, | |||
" Richard Webster | |||
> Legal Director | |||
> Eastern Environmental Law Center | |||
> 744 Broad Street, Suite 1525 | |||
> Newark NJ, 07102 | |||
" Tel. 973 424 1166 | |||
" Fax. 973 710 4653 | |||
> rwebster(*easternenvironmental. orq 2}} | |||
Latest revision as of 11:02, 14 November 2019
| ML083231041 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 08/04/2008 |
| From: | Vincent L NRC/OGC |
| To: | Ashley D, Farrar K, Lund A, Masnik M, Johari Moore, Brian Newell, Williamson A Office of New Reactors |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2008-0306 | |
| Download: ML083231041 (2) | |
Text
Donnie Ashley From: Leslie Vincent on behalf of OGCMailCenter Resource Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 9:27 AM To: Edward Williamson; Brian Newell; Karl Farrar; Michael Masnik; Louise Lund; Donnie Ashley; Janice Moore
Subject:
FW: App.com Augujst 3 Oyster Creek foes appeal to force review Attachments: Oyster Creek - Docket No. 50-0219-LR Original
Message--
From: gburl @comcast.net @comcast.net
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 3:54 PM To: Richard Webster; Anthony Baratta; apolonsky@morganlewis.com; bradley.fewell@exeloncorp.com; dsilverman@morganlewis.com; Roy Hawkens; Hearing Docket; john.covino@dol.lps.state.nj.us; ksutton@morganlewis.com; Mary Baty; mdonato@micheledonatoesq.com; OCAAMAIL Resource; OGCMailCenter Resource; Paul Abramson; Valerie Gray; Emily Krause; James Adler; rkuyler@morganlewis.com ýb)(6).
Cc: nirsnet@nirs.org; Janetjeff.tittel@-SierraClub.org; paul@beyondnuclear.or'g; Tauro Psturmfels@cleanwater.org; becc~a.glenn@sierraclub.org;ý b)(6) -
- b)(6) .... lacairo@njpirg.org; Dena Mottola; MattElot bubject: e: App.com Augujst 3 Oyster Creek foes appeal to force review app.com August 3, 2008,lt°rmatio ig t eo was detet-j Oyster Creek foes appeal to force NRC review of metal fatigue Ace em witthe Freedomt By MATT PAlS FOIA. Ž'0/9d?
MANAHAWKIN BUREAU Opponents of the relicensing of the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant-in Lacey have filed an appeal of a ruling that rejected their efforts to have the issue of metal fatigue of the plant's recirculation's nozzles reconsidered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Earlier this year a coalition of groups asked the Atomic Safety Licensing Board to reopen the relicensing record to reanalyze whether five recirculation outlet nozzles on the reactor vessel will sustain too much stress over an additional 20 years. The 38-year-old plant's operating license is due to expire next April.
In a 2-1 split decision handed down July 24, the board rejected that effort.
Relicensing opponents claim Oyster Creek's use of a simplified calculation of nozzle metal fatigue falsely indicated that the amount of fatigue in the future would be acceptable. In their motion to have the issue reopened, they state that reanalysis would reveal the nozzles pose a potential safety threat.
Oyster Creek has said the original methodology used was acceptable and that any further analysis would produce similar results.
In the appeal, filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the group cites the dissenting opinion of panel member Anthony J. Baratta as grounds have the nozzle issue reopened.
Baratta stated the citizens met the standards for reopening the record to address a, "serious safety issue."
"It is something that needs to be explored. When you talk about metal fatigue of a nozzle in a reactor, that is extremely vital," said plant opponent Janet Tauro of Brick.
Tauro said the opinion of Baratta - one of two technical judges on the panel - that rejecting the motion is a "grave error," has given opponents hope.
"It buoys us very much," she said.
a
Original message -----.......------
From: Richard Webster <rwebster@easternenvironmental.org>
> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
> NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
> BEFORE THE COMMISSION
> In the Matter of
>) Docket No. 50-0219-
> LR
> AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC
> (License Renewal for the Oyster
> Creek ) August 1,
> 2008
> Nuclear Generating
> Station)
> Please find attached Nuclear Information and Resource Service,
> Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy
> Safety, New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, New Jersey Sierra
> Club, and New Jersey Environmental Federation (collectively
> "Citizens") Petition for appeal of LBP-08-12, together with a Certification of Service.
> Respectfully submitted,
" Richard Webster
> Legal Director
> Eastern Environmental Law Center
> 744 Broad Street, Suite 1525
> Newark NJ, 07102
" Tel. 973 424 1166
" Fax. 973 710 4653
> rwebster(*easternenvironmental. orq 2