[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 246 (Friday, December 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67352-67354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-32349]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-219]
GPU Nuclear Corporation Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station
Issuance of Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206
Notice is hereby given that by letters dated May 11 and June 14,
1996, Mr. deCamp, on behalf of Oyster Creek Nuclear Watch (Petitioner),
requested NRC, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206, to investigate and correct a
highly inaccurate public statement in the ``Neighborhood Update'' (the
licensee's news magazine) and apparently false public testimony given
by GPU management at a local zoning board hearing and to take
appropriate disciplinary action in the matter. Specifically,
Petitioner's concerns relate to (1) the statement that GPU and the
Commission agree that a license amendment request that involves the
movement of spent fuel from the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station
spent fuel pool to the storage facility while the plant is at power
``is not a safety issue but a procedural one'' and (2) whether there is
some special factor at Oyster Creek that would indeed justify Mr.
Barton's sworn statement that it is unsafe to operate the Oyster Creek
reactor without full core offload capacity. If no special situation is
found that prevents Oyster Creek from operating without full offload
capacity, Petitioner requests that the Commission take appropriate
disciplinary action against GPU Nuclear management for making a false
statement under oath.
As a basis for the request regarding the first concern that the
statement in the ``Neighborhood Update'' is untrue, Petitioner
referenced the following excerpts from NRC Bulletin 96-02 (NRCB 96-02)
of April 11, 1996:
The NRC staff audited both the initial and updated 10 CFR 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 CFR 50.59 and 50.90. * *
* Accordingly, as defined in 10 CFR 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
CFR 50.90.
As a basis for the Petitioner's other concerns, the Petitioner sets
forth the relevant excerpts from Mr. Barton's testimony of March 7,
1994, and states that ``the NRC ruled in February 1985 in 10 CFR Part
53 that reactors may safely be run without full core offload
capacity.''
Notice is hereby given that by a Director's Decision (DD 96-22)
dated December 11, 1996, the Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, has denied the Petitions. The staff concluded that the
issues raised by the Petitioner are without merit and that there is no
basis to take disciplinary action against GPU, as explained in the
``Director's Decision Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206'' (DD 96-22), the
complete text of which follows this notice and is available for
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street,
NW, Washington DC, and at the local public document room located at
Ocean County Library, Reference Department, 101 Washington Street,
Tom's River, NJ.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of December 1996.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Frank J. Miraglia,
Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206
I. Introduction
By letters dated May 11 and June 14, 1996, Mr. William deCamp, Jr.,
requested on behalf of Oyster Creek Nuclear Watch (the Petitioner) that
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) take action
to investigate statements made by GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPU) in the
April 1996 publication ``Neighborhood Update'' (the licensee's news
magazine) and during sworn testimony on March 7, 1996, before the Lacey
Township Zoning Board of Adjustment (the Zoning Board). The Petitioner
asserts that the statements are false. The Petitioner further requests
that NRC take appropriate disciplinary action against GPU management.
The Petitioner's requests are being treated as Petitions pursuant to
Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR
2.206).
The specific statements of concerns are (1) the statement in the
``Neighborhood Update'' that GPU and the Commission agree that a
license amendment request that involves the movement of spent fuel from
the Oyster
[[Page 67353]]
Creek Nuclear Generating Station spent fuel pool to the storage
facility while the plant is at power ``is not a safety issue but a
procedural one'' and (2) a sworn statement by Mr. Barton, who was the
Director of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, before the
Zoning Board that it is unsafe to operate the Oyster Creek reactor
without full core offload capacity. The Petitioner, furthermore,
requests that if no special situation is found that prevents Oyster
Creek from operating without full offload capacity, the Commission take
appropriate disciplinary action against GPU management for making a
false statement under oath.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioner is not asserting that the licensee has
provided false information to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A
licensee's obligation to ensure the completeness and accuracy of its
communications with the Commission is set forth in 10 CFR 50.9(a).
This regulation requires, in part, that ``[i]nformation provided to
the Commission by an applicant for a license or by a licensee or
information required by statute or by the Commission's regulations,
orders, or license conditions to be maintained by the applicant or
the licensee shall be complete and accurate in all material
respects.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons stated below, I am denying the relief requested by
the Petitioner.
II. Discussion
A. GPU Statement That the Movement of the Fuel Raises a Procedural
Issue, Not a Safety Issue
As a basis for the request regarding the first concern that the
statement in the ``Neighborhood Update'' is untrue, Petitioner
referenced the following excerpts from NRC Bulletin 96-02 (NRCB 96-02),
``Movement of Heavy Loads Over Spent Fuel, Over Fuel in the Reactor
Core, or Over Safety-Related Equipment,'' of April 11, 1996:
The NRC staff audited both the initial and updated 10 CFR 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 CFR 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
CFR 50.90.
GPU met with the NRC staff on November 19, 1993, to discuss plans
for using the reactor building crane to move spent fuel out of the
spent fuel pool in a transfer cask for transportation to the dry cask
storage facility during power operations at Oyster Creek. During the
discussions, the NRC staff raised concerns regarding the use of the
crane and its ability to meet the heavy load criteria of NUREG-0612,
``Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants.'' GPU indicated that
this special application of the crane would be evaluated pursuant to 10
CFR 50.59.2 NRC stated that it would conduct an audit of the 50.59
evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 10 CFR 50.59 provides, in part, that a licensee may make
changes in the facility or procedures as defined in the safety
analysis report without prior Commission approval unless the
proposed change involves a change in the technical specifications or
an unreviewed safety question. The regulation, furthermore, requires
the licensee to prepare and maintain a written safety evaluation
addressing the issue of whether the proposal involves an unreviewed
safety question. A proposal is deemed to involve an unreviewed
safety question if (1) it involves an increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) creates the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated; or (3) involves a reduction in a margin of
safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 1995, GPU informed NRC that the 50.59 evaluation for use
of the crane to move the transfer cask was complete. On May 2 and 3,
June 12, and October 12 and 13, 1995, the NRC staff conducted onsite
audits and met with GPU at Oyster Creek regarding the use of the crane.
On November 2, 1995, in a telephone call between the NRC staff and Mr.
Keaten, Vice President and Director, Technical Functions, GPU, the NRC
staff advised GPU that the staff's concerns regarding the use of the
non-single-failure-proof crane to move the 100-ton transfer cask while
the plant was at power had not been resolved by its 50.59 evaluation.
Specifically, the staff was concerned that the activity involved the
movement of loads heavier than previously considered in the final
safety analysis report (FSAR) and, therefore, might reduce the margin
of safety, and that a load drop in the reactor building might result in
consequences greater than previously evaluated in the FSAR and,
therefore, may pose an unreviewed safety question.
Consequently, Mr. Keaten advised the staff that GPU was considering
a plant modification, including reactor building crane upgrades, that
would address the staff's concerns.
The NRC staff inspected the licensee's updated 10 CFR 50.59
evaluation which considered the reactor building crane upgrades. The
NRC staff's inspections included sending a team to Oyster Creek. The
staff concluded that its safety concerns had been addressed and
resolved. The NRC staff also determined that the licensee's planned
movement of spent fuel to the dry storage facility during plant
operation was safe and in accordance with all license requirements.
Notwithstanding the technical acceptability of the licensee's
methodology and analysis in the updated 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation, NRC
staff determined that since the possibility of an unreviewed safety
question (USQ) had been involved before the licensee made modifications
to upgrade the reactor building crane, GPU must submit a license
amendment application for the proposed cask movement activities. At the
public meeting on February 29, 1996, GPU was informed by the NRC staff
that an amendment was required. When the NRC receives an amendment
application, it is required to follow specific procedures set forth in
10 CFR 50.91.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 10 CFR 50.91 requires the Commission to use specified
procedures when it receives an application requesting an amendment
to an operating license including procedures that concern consulting
the State in which the facility is located and procedures concerning
providing notification to the public of the licensee's amendment,
the Commission's findings or determinations regarding the amendment,
and opportunity for a hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the staff finds, after its review and evaluation of
the licensee's proposed action, that there are no safety issues
preventing the adoption of the proposal, but procedures require
amendment approval before the proposal can be implemented.
B. GPU Statement Concerning Safe Operation and Full Core Discharge
Capability
As basis for the Petitioner's request concerning GPU statements
about safety and full core discharge capability, the Petitioner sets
forth excerpts from Mr. Barton's testimony of March 7, 1994, before the
Zoning Board, and states that ``the NRC ruled in February 1985 in 10
CFR Part 53 that reactors may safely be run without full core offload
capacity.'' 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Commission has stated that a full core reserve
capability is not an NRC safety requirement. 50 FR 5548, 5549 (1985)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Petitioner quoted in a letter and enclosed, underlined in red,
copied portions of Mr. Barton's testimony as follows:
If we do not install the dry spent fuel storage modules by 1996,
the plant would not have the capacity of totally off-loading fuel
from the reactor to the in-plant spent fuel pools. (transcript pp.
94-95)
In order to operate safely we should be able to remove this fuel
from the reactor and store it in the spent storage pool * * *
(transcript p. 95)
Without dry storage and without the ability to remove this fuel
from the reactor, the plant would not be able to operate.
(transcript p. 95)
Mr. Barton's full testimony in context with the Petitioner's
extracted quotes is as follows:
[[Page 67354]]
The fall of 1996 is a critical time for plant operations. If we
do not install the dry spent fuel storage modules by 1996, the plant
would not have the capability of totally off-loading fuel from the
reactor to the in-plant spent fuel pool. This is not a desirable
operating configuration, should the plant need to conduct internal
inspections of the reactor vessel that would require fuel to be
removed from the reactor. In order to operate safely we should be
able to remove this fuel from the reactor and store it in the spent
fuel storage pool inside the plant, and after 1996 we will not have
the flexibility to do that. Without dry storage and without the
ability to remove all the fuel from the reactor, the plant would not
be able to operate. (transcript p. 95)
Taken in context, it appears that what Mr. Barton is stating is
that he is concerned with operations management due to the inability to
have full core off-load capability and that having full core off-load
capability can in certain situations enhance safety. The plant has the
capacity to complete one more refueling operation before they will not
be able to operate without dry storage capability as Mr. Barton stated.
The Commission has stated a similar view with regard to the issue of
maintaining full core reserve storage capability:
While a full core reserve capability is not an NRC licensing or
safety requirement, maintenance of full core reserve would enhance
safety to some extent, and would also be needed to prevent extended
reactor outages in the event a core must be discharged in order to
inspect the reactor pressure vessel and perform other routine and
unscheduled maintenance operations.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The NRC's Statements of Consideration concerning the
amendment of 10 CFR Parts 1 and 53 entitled, ``Criteria and
Procedures for Determining the Adequacy of Available Spent Nuclear
Fuel Storage Capacity,'' 50 FR 5548, 5549 (1985)
The December 6, 1993, Zoning Board hearing testimony of Mr. Gordon
Bond, Director of Nuclear Analysis and Fuel for GPU Nuclear, also
supports the view that the concern is with operations management. When
asked whether it is important to maintain full core discharge
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
capability, Mr. Bond responded as follows:
We believe it is. It's not required by Federal Regulations, but
we believe it's prudent to allow sufficient reserve capacity in our
pool to be able to offload the core any time that we may have to.
For example, you may want to do some inspections inside the vessel,
and to do that you'll need to remove all of the fuel. (transcript p.
32)
Accordingly, the staff finds that the statements and remarks of Mr.
Barton in their context are not false or misleading.
V. Conclusion
The NRC staff has reviewed the statements made by GPU in the April
1996 ``Neighborhood Update'' (the licensee's news magazine) and the
testimony of GPU managers before a local Zoning Board and concluded
that the assertions raised by the Petitioner are without merit and that
there is no basis to take any action against GPU. Accordingly, the
Petitioner's requests are denied.
A copy of this Director's Decision will be filed with the Secretary
of the Commission for the Commission to review as stated in 10 CFR
2.206(c). This Decision will become the final action of the Commission
25 days after issuance unless the Commission, on its own motion,
institutes a review of the Decision within that time.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of December 1996.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Frank J. Miraglia,
Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-32349 Filed 12-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
