[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 119 (Friday, June 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33688-33689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-16176]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), has dismissed as 
premature a Petition dated April 1, 1997, submitted as a resolution 
passed by Berkeley Township Environmental Commission (Petitioners) 
opposing an upcoming planned transfer of spent nuclear fuel from wet to 
dry storage during operation of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station 
(OCNGS). Petitioners requested that NRC direct GPU Nuclear (GPU) to 
shut down the nuclear reactor at OCNGS during the aforementioned fuel 
transfer.
    Specifically, the Petitioners asserted that (1) the load transfer 
path for the 100-ton fuel transfer casks passes over the reactor's 
containment mechanism and other safety-related equipment; (2) NRC 
Bulletin 96-02, dated April 11, 1996, states that a dropped cask could 
damage the isolation condensers and the torus, creating the possibility 
of an unisolable leak, which in industry jargon describes a situation 
perilously close to a nuclear meltdown; (3) the operating record of GPU 
demonstrates it is capable of human error, including dropping heavy 
loads; (4) Berkeley Township could not be successfully evacuated in the 
event of a serious nuclear accident at OCNGS; and (5) the safer, 
simpler alternative of turning off the reactor while lifting 100-ton 
loads over the containment can be easily implemented.
    The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has 
determined that the request should be dismissed as premature for the 
reasons stated in the ``Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 (DD-97-
14), the complete text of which follows this notice. The decision and 
the documents cited in the decision are available for public inspection 
and copying 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, Toms 
River, New Jersey.
    A copy of this Director's Decision will be filed with the Secretary 
of the Commission for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 
2.206(c). As provided by that regulation, the decision will constitute 
the final action of the Commission 25 days after the date of its 
issuance, unless the Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review 
of the decision within that time.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 16th day of June 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Collins,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

I. Introduction

    By a Petition submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 and dated April 1, 
1997 (Petition), Berkeley Township Environmental Commission 
(Petitioners) requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) take action with regard to Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating 
Station (OCNGS) operated by GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPU or licensee). 
The Petitioners requested that the NRC direct the licensee to shut down 
OCNGS during an upcoming planned transfer of fuel from wet to dry 
storage.
    The Petitioners based their request on the following assertions: 
(1) The load transfer path for the 100-ton fuel transfer casks passes 
over the reactor's containment mechanism and other safety-related 
equipment; (2) NRC Bulletin 96-02, dated April 11, 1996, states that a 
dropped cask could damage both isolation condensers and the torus, 
creating the possibility of an unisolable leak, which in industry 
jargon describes a situation perilously close to a nuclear meltdown; 
(3) the operating record of GPU demonstrates it is capable of human 
error, including dropping heavy loads; (4) BerkeleyTownship could not 
be successfully evacuated in the event of a serious nuclear accident at 
OCNGS; and (5) the safer, simpler alternative of turning off the 
reactor while lifting 100-ton loads over the containment can be easily 
implemented.
    For the reasons stated below, I have dismissed the Petitioners' 
request as premature.

II. Discussion

    The Petitioners have requested that the NRC take action against the 
licensee on a matter involving the potential transfer of spent fuel 
during plant operation. However, this is an activity for which the 
licensee has not yet requested authorization from the Commission. At a 
public meeting on February 29, 1996, the NRC informed GPU that it would 
have to obtain a license amendment to move fuel from wet to dry 
storage, using the facility's existing crane, while the reactor is

[[Page 33689]]

operating at power. The staff had reviewed the licensee's safety 
evaluation of its crane, including the crane upgrades, and concluded 
that all safety concerns had been addressed and resolved and that the 
planned movement of spent fuel to the dry storage facility during plant 
operation would be safe and in accordance with all license 
requirements. However, the NRC also determined that because the 
possibility of an unreviewed safety question existed before GPU made 
modifications to upgrade its reactor building crane, GPU would have to 
submit a request for a license amendment for the proposed cask 
movement. If GPU submits such an amendment request to the NRC, pursuant 
to 10 CFR 50.91,\1\ it will be published in the Federal Register for 
public comment, and an opportunity for a public hearing will be 
provided. The Petitioners and other interested members of the public 
then would have the opportunity to express their concerns about the 
amendment. As noted above, the licensee cannot transfer the fuel while 
operating with its current crane configuration without being issued a 
license amendment.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 10 CFR 50.91 specifies the Commission procedures to be 
followed when it receives an application requesting an amendment to 
an operating license, including procedures for consulting the State 
in which the facility is located and procedures for notifying the 
public of the license amendment and the opportunity for a hearing.
    \2\ The licensee is currently considering various options for 
moving the spent fuel from wet to dry storage, such as requesting a 
license amendment based on already completed upgrades to the reactor 
building crane, transferring the spent fuel when the reactor is shut 
down, and further upgrading the reactor building crane to meet the 
criteria for a single-failure-proof crane in which case an amendment 
to transfer fuel from wet to dry storage may not be required. The 
Commission has not required license amendments for facilities 
handling heavy loads that employ a crane meeting the specifications 
and design criteria in NUREG-0554, ``Single-Failure-Proof Cranes for 
Nuclear Power Plants.'' However, NRC technical staff will evaluate 
any option selected to ensure that all safety concerns are 
adequately addressed and documented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    The NRC staff has reviewed the Petitioners' request that GPU shut 
down its reactor during its transfer of fuel from wet to dry storage. 
The licensee does not now have a request before the Commission to amend 
its license to allow such a transfer. As a result, before any 
Commission action could even be contemplated, the licensee would have 
to make such a request pursuant to NRC regulations, with the 
aforementioned opportunities for public participation in the resolution 
of any such request. For this reason, the Petition is dismissed as 
premature.
    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 16th day of June 1997.

    For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Collins,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-16176 Filed 6-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P