ML20132A968

Forwards Copy of Ltr Dtd 960511 Requesting NRC to Investigate & Correct Highly Inaccurate Public Statement That Appeared in Gpu June 1996 Neighborhood Update

ML20132A968
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	06/12/1996
From:	Goldberg J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Russell W NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
Shared Package
ML20132A874	List: ML20132A870 ML20132A938 ML20132A968 ML20132A974
References
2.206, NUDOCS 9612160400
Download: ML20132A968 (7)

Text

!

UNITED STATES

/ g E8 coq %

~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

! '%, wasHtNGTON. O C. 20565-0001 7, n I r

a / June 12, 1996

%, ...../

OFFICE OF THE GE NERAL COUNSEL i MEMORANDUM TO: William T. Russell, Director  !

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l

FRON: (s i

! ack R. Goldberg f Deputy Assistant General Counsel y for Enforcement I

SUBJECT:

5 2.206 PETITION OF OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR WATCH REGARDING THE OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION Attached is a copy of a letter dated May 11, 1996, submitted by William de 4 l Camp, Jr., on behalf of Oyster Creek Nuclear Watch requesting that the Nuclear  !

Regulatory Comission (Comission) " investigate and correct a highly

, inaccurate public statement" that appeared in the GPU Nuclear April 1996,

" Neighborhood Update." This request is being considered as a Petition under i 10 C.F.R. I 2.206.

l The statement of concern is that both GPU Nuclear and the Comission agree j that a license amendment request, which involves the movement of spent fuel ,

i from the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station's spent fuel pool to the i storage facility while the plant is operating, "is not a safety issue but a procedural one." The Petitioner asserts that GPU Nuclear desires to operate l Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station while it lifts "an unprecedentedly heavy (100 ton) load over the reactor's containment structure (the torus) and l over the used fuel pool" and that this is a safety issue.

As basis for the request, the Petitioner asserts that the statement in the

" Neighborhood Update" is untrue, referencing the following excerpts from the Comission Bulletin (NRCB 96-02) of April 11, 1996; i

"The NRC staff audited both the initial and updated 10 C.F.R. 50.59 evaluations performed by the licensee [GPU Nuclear] and determined that the proposed cask movement activities represent an unreviewed safety question that should be submitted to the NRC for review and approval pursuant to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 50.59 and 50.90."

"Accordingly, as defined in 10 C.F.R. 50.59(c), if an activity is found to involve an unreviewed safety question, an application for a license amendment must be filed with the Comission pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 30.90."

I have attached drafts of a letter of acknowledgement to the Petitioner and a Notice of Receipt of the Petition for publication in the federal Register.

4

Contact:

Jay McGurren

, 415-1695 4

9612160400 961211 PDR ADOCK 05000219 P PDR

.' William T. Russell Please inform Jay McGurren of my staff of the technical contact who will be involved in preparing a response to the Petition. Please ensure that I am provided copies of all correspondence related to the Petition and that I am asked to concur on all staff correspondence.

Attachments: 1. Copy of Petition

2. Draft of Letter to Petitioner

3. Draft Federal Register Notice

}

cc w/atts: M. Malsch, OGC S. Burns, OGC L. Chandler, OGC T. Martin, RI 1 K. Smith, RI l

i 1

i

)

l

. William decamp, Jr. '

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

Dear Mr. decamp:

On May 11, 1996, you filed a letter with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) on behalf of Oyster Creek Nuclear Watch requesting that the Commission " investigate and correct a highly inaccurate public l statement" that appeared in the GPU Nuclear April 1996 " Neighborhood Update."

4

This request is being considered as a Petition under 10 C.F.R. 2.206.

, This letter acknowledges the Commission staff's receipt of your petition.

The statement of concern is that both GPU Nuclear and the Commission agree

that a license amendment request, which involves the movement of spent fuel from the plant's spent fuel pool to the storage facility while the plant is operating, "is not a safety issue but a procedural one." You assert that GF0 Nuclear desires to operate Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station while it lifts "an unprecedentedly heavy (100 ton) load over the reactor's containment i

' structure (the torus) and over the used fuel pool" and that this is a safety issue.

J i

As basis for your request, you assert that the statement in the " Neighborhood Update" is untrue, referencing the following excerpts from the Commission Bulletin (NRCB 96-02) of April 11, 1996:

"The NRC staff audited both the initial and updated 10 C.F.R. '

50.59 evaluations performed by the licensee (GPU Nuclear] and determined that the proposed cask movement activities represent an i unreviewed safety question that should be submitted to the NRC for review and approval pursuant to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 50.59 and 50.90."

"Accordingly, as defined in 10 C.F.R. 50.59(c), if an activity is found to involve an unreviewed safety question, an application for a license amendment must be filed with the Commission pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 50.90."

The staff will review your petition in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 2.206. A final decision with regard to your petition will be issued within a reasonable time. Enclosed is a copy of the notice that is being filed for publication with the Office of the Federal Register.

Sincerely, William T. Russell, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated cc: GPU Nuclear

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0mlSSION GPU NUCLEAR OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206  :

Notice is hereby given that by letter dated Nay 11, 1996, William de Camp, Jr., on behalf of Oyster Creek Nuclear Watch requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) " investigate and correct a highly inaccurate public statement" that appeared in the GPU Nuclear April 19%,

" Neighborhood Update." The statement of concern is that both GPU Nuclear and the Commission agree that a license amendment request, which involves the movement of spent fuel from the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station's spent fuel pool to the storage facility while the plant is operating, "is not a safety issue but a procedural one." It is asserted that GPU Nuclear desires l to operate Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station while it lifts "an unprecedentedly heavy (100 ton) load over the reactor's containment structure (the torus) and over the used fuel pool" and that this is a safety issue.

As basis for the request, it is asserted that the statement in the l

" Neighborhood Update" is untrue, referencing the following excerpts from the Commission Bulletin (NRCB 96-02) of April 11, 1996:

"The NRC staff audited both the initial and updated 10 C.F.R. 50.59 evaluations performed by the licensee [GPU Nuclear) and determined that the proposed cask movement activities represent an unreviewed safety question that should be submitted to the NRC for review and approval pursuant to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 50.59 and 50.90."

s'

)

"Accordingly, as defined in 10 C.F.R. 50.59(c), if an activity is i found to involve an unreviewed safety question, an application for l

a license amendment must be filed with the Commission pursuant to '

10 C.F.R. 50.90."

The request is being treated pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. The request has been referred to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). As provided by Section 2.206, appropriate I action will be taken on this request within a reasonable time.

A copy of the Petition is available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION William T. Russell, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Rockville, Maryland this day of 1996.

g. .. . Y b u?

Sy P- .

i f.A.1 J EDO Principal Correspondence Control &&A Occ. & , /s'k n l

FRON: DUE: 07/12/96 EDO CONTROL: GT96452 N h4Mk 'Ch l

DOC DT: 06/14/96 l FINAL REPLY: k " b-William decamp, Jr. .

Oyctor Creek Nuclear Watch M_ w m

]

TOs 's p.

Chairman Jackson k

• FOR SIGNATURE OF : ** GRN ** CRC NO: 96-0633 4 okt y $

DESC: ROUTING: g7 2.206 PETITION RE OYSTER CREEK Taylor I Milhoan Thompson Blaha L nn=ne 1, ;;;n TTMr, in, RI DATE: 06/19/96 LiatNrman, OE ASSIGNED TO: CONTACT:

OGC Cyr l

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

e 4

l l

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

.. CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER: CRC-96-0633 LOGGING DATE: Jun 17 96 ACTION OFFICE: EDO AUTHOR: WILLIAM DECAMP AFFILIATION: NEW JERSEY ADDRESSEE: CHAIRMAN JACKSON LETTER DATE: Jun 14 96 FILE CODE: IDR-5 OYSTER CREEK CUBJECT: GPU TESTIMONY CONCERNING OYSTER CREEK i ACTION: Direct Reply DISTRIBUTION: CHAIRMAN, COMRS, RF SPECIAL HANDLING: SECY TO ACK CONSTITUENT:

NOTES:

DATE DUE: Jul A 96 SIGNATURE: . DATE SIGNED:

AFFILIATION:

EDO

~ GT96452