ML20117N816

Petition Status Rept to GP Bollwerk,P Lam & C Kelber Re Gpun .* Petitioners Cannot Accept as Acceptable Settlement in Lieu of Decision by ASLB Re 960807 Prehearing.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20117N816
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	09/09/1996
From:	Decamp W, Gunter P, Katz D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, CITIZENS AWARENESS NETWORK, NUCLEAR INFORMATION & RESOURCE SERVICE
To:
References
CON-#396-17931 OLA, NUDOCS 9609200102
Download: ML20117N816 (5)

Text

__

/7@/ ,

00CKETED l Septembb,h96 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 96 SEP 16 P2:22 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINGBOARD:F SECRETARY 00CKEip!y gjERVICE In the Matter of

)

)

General Public Utility Nuclear Corporation ) Docket 50-219 OLA

) Tech. Spec. 5.3.1.B

) Movement ofHeavy Loads Over Ovster Creek Nuclear Generating Station ) Irradiated Fuel

" Petitioners Status Report To The Honorable G. Paul Bollwerk. IIL Dr. Peter Lam, and Dr. Charles Kelber Renardine GPUN Letter Of Aueust 23,1996" L INTRODUCTION Pursuant to ASLB Order dated September 5,1996, the petitioners Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), Oyster Creek Nuclear Watch (OCNW) and Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) hereby provide the ASLB with a report on the Petitioners' status in response to the General Public Utility Nuclear (GPUN) letter dated August 23,1996 pertaining to the 1

criticality analysis and radiological consequences of the shield plug drop onto a fully loaded .

NUHOMS-52B Dry Shielded Cask v 4th egard to the utility's license amendment applicstion for Technical Specification 5.3.1.b.

IL STATUS Ri' PORT The Petitioners have reviewed the document dated August 23,1996 from GPUN to the NRC and make the following comments:

1) Attachment 1 provided the Petitioners with the criticality analysis results. While the results appear technically correct there is one area that remains in question to the Petitioners.

In the first paragraph, GPUN assumes that "All the fuel in the cask (52 assemblies) is assumed to crush together..." and also that "The impact of the shield plug drop is not consider:d severe enough to significantly damage the rigid structural material of the cask.. "

Tbc Petitioners argue that these two assumptions appear contradictory. The Petitioners do not underaand the source for the force necessary to crush the fuel together, but not severe i k 9609200102 960909 4 PDR ADOCK 05000219 '

G PDR $/

2 enough to significantly damage the borated stainless steel plates. GPUN will argue that the crushed fuel assumption is conservative and the Petitioners will agree. However, the Petitioners disagree with the assumption that the borated stainless steel plates remaining intact is a conservative assumption and would therefore argue that it is a non-conservative assumption It is the understanding of the Petitioners that the pmdent and generally accepted engineering practice wo~ u ld be to justify any non-conservative assumption. In this case, the Petitioners argue that GPUN has failed to justify their conclusion that the borated stainless steel plates will remain intact following an impact that crushes the fuel together.

2) Attachment 2 provided the Petitioners with the radiological consequences analysis results.

They appear technically correct, but incomplete. 10 CFR 100 is only half of the question that Attachment 2 needs to answer. Licensees are required by law to protect both the public and p nuclear workers from radiation hazards. 10 CFR 100 protects the public and GPUN's response in Attachment 2 would appear to address public protection.

However,10 CFR 20 and 10 CFR 50 Appendix I address radiological exposures to n ,

[ nuclear workers. In Attachment 2, GPUN states that "The fission gases (primarily Kr-85_ with a l half-life of 10 years) are released inside secondary containment." Since the equipment cannot be 4

remotely operated, the Petitioners understand that there will be several nuclear workers inside b . secondary containment during this activity.. Therefore, GPUN's response appears deficient because it does'not address the radiological consequences to nuclear workers. GPUN is required by law to maintain nuclear worke radiation exposures as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).

Given the off-site radiological consequences stated by GPUN in its August 23 submittal, the Petitioners are concerned that the nuclear worker radiological consequences on-site would be

- higher. The Petitioners argue that GPUN has failed to document any assurance of the safety of nuclear workers resulting from radiological consequences as a result of the shield plug drop with its submittal.

HL CONCLUSION The Petitioners therefore conclude that GPUN has failed to provide a complete and adequate response for the criticality analysis and radiological consequences of a shield plug drop onto a fully loaded NUHOMS-52B Dry Shielded Cask. Consequently, the Petitioners cannot

., I 3

accept the August 23,1996 GPUN letter as an acceptable settlement in lieu of a decision by ASLB regarding the August 7,19% preheanng conference.

The Petitioners concerns were also verbally communicated to Mr. Emst Blake for Shaw, Pittman. M &Trowbridge representing Oyster Creek and Ms. Ann Hodgdon ofNRC Office pf General Counselin a conference call with Paul Gunter ofNIRS on the morning of September 9, 1996.

Signed by, ,

//

N Paul Gunter .-

. Nuclear Infonnation and Resource Service 142416th Street NW Suite 404 ,

Washington, DC 20036 202-328-0002 and FAX 202-462-2183 email <pgunter@igc.apc.org>

7 ~/

h -

William decamp, Jr.

Oyster CreekNuclear Watch PO Box 243 Island Heigh:s, NJ 087732 (908)714-0334 a:wi(201)376-6639 email <102115.3501@compuserve.com>

h Deborah Katz / /

Citizen AwarenessNetwork PO Box 83 Shelburne Falls, MA 01370 (413)339-4374 and FAX (413)339-8768 Sepenber 9,1996

~

. . l L

l

DOCKETED l I September 9,MC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l

. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '% . SEP 16 P2 :22 l BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOgREE Di~ SECRETARY '

00CKETlHG & SERVICE In the Matter of ') BRANCH f ,

i ) {

? General Public Utility Nuclear Corporation ) Docket 50-219 OLA '

j --) Tech. Spec. 5.3.1.B i ) Movement ofHeavy Loads Over Ovster Creek Nuclear Generating Station ) Irradiated Fuel l

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE  ;

I hereby certify that copies of " Petitioners Status Reoort To The Honorable G. Paul Bollwerk.

' IIL Dr. Peter Lam. and Dr. Charles Kelber Renarding GPUN Letter of Aunust 23.1996" for the i Petitioners has been served by FAX as indicated by an asterisk and U.S. Mail, first class on this  ;

date September 9,11%

)

G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chair

• Office of the Secretary (3) ,

Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  !

l Ato.mic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Docketine ud Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Peter S. Lun* Dr. Charles N. Kelber*

Administrative Judge Administrative Judge

' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Adjudicatory File (2) Ernest Blake, Jr. and David Lewis

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Shaw, Pittrnan, Potts, & Trowbridge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2300 N. Street NW Washington, DC 20555 - Washington, DC 20037 Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq.(1)* Atomic Safety and Licensing Roard Panel Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Office ofCommission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 1

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

2 Michael Laggert ,

GPU Nuclear Corporation 1 Upper Pond Road l Parsippany, NJ 07054 William decamp, Jr.

Oyster Creek Nuclear Watch P.O Box 243 Island Height, NJ 08732 )

Deborah Katz Citizens Awareness Network P.O Box 83 Shelburne Falls, MA d1370 .

8 m

/ '

Paul Gunter i Nuclear Information and Resource Service 1

B 4