[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 199 (Friday, October 15, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55993-55994]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-26942]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-247]
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc; Facility Operating
License No. DPR 26; Receipt of Petition for Director's Decision Under
10 CFR 2.206
Notice is hereby given that by petition dated September 15, 1999,
Mr. David A. Lochbaum, on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists
(Petitioner), has requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) take action with regard to the Indian Point Nuclear Generating
Unit No. 2, owned and operated by the Consolidated Edison Company of
New York, Inc. The Petitioner requests that the NRC take enforcement
action to modify or suspend the operating license for the Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2, operated by the Consolidated Edison
Company of New York, Inc. (the licensee), to prevent the reactor from
resuming operation until the five issues identified in the attachment
to the Petition have been fully resolved. As an acceptable alternative
in lieu of a suspension or modification of the license, the Petitioner
requested that the NRC issue a confirmatory action letter or an order
requiring these issues to be fully resolved before unit restart. The
five issues that were raised in the Petition are (1) the apparent
violation of station battery design and licensing bases, (2) the
apparent failure to adequately correct circuit breaker problems, (3)
the apparent unreliability of emergency diesel generators, (4) the
potentially unjustified license amendment for undervoltage and degraded
voltage relay surveillance intervals, and (5) the apparent errors and
nonconservatisms in individual plant examinations (IPEs). Along with
[[Page 55994]]
the last issue, the Petitioner stated that the event on August 31,
1999, at Indian Point Unit 2 revealed potential problems with the
plant-specific risk assessment developed by the licensee and now used
to establish priorities for maintenance and inspections. Additionally,
the Petitioner requested that a public hearing on this Petition be
conducted in the vicinity of the plant before its restart is authorized
by the NRC. In a transcribed telephone conversation between the
Petitioner and the members of the NRC's Petition Review Board on
September 22, 1999, the Petitioner clarified two of the issues in the
Petition. First, the Petitioner stated that because of an apparent
failure to accomplish the commitment in the NRC's safety evaluation for
the license amendment mentioned in the Petition, the Petitioner was
concerned that past licensing commitments may not have been
implemented. Second, the Petitioner questioned whether the amount of
time the licensee took to perform certain actions during the August 31
event was consistent with the times expected if a station blackout
(SBO) had occurred since many of the procedures and processes in
response to an SBO event were used.
As the basis for this request, the Petitioner states that the
issues, if valid, have clear and direct safety implications because
they involve equipment explicitly required to function to mitigate
accidents. With regard to your IPE issue, the Petitioner states that,
if valid, it has indirect safety implications because it involves
information used by the plant's owner to schedule maintenance and
inspections on equipment implicitly required to function to mitigate an
accident. The Petitioner also stated that the specific problems
revealed by the August 31 event were caused by systematic process
breakdowns, including inadequate procedures, inadequate training, and
plant configuration errors, and that the licensee's plan does not
contain sufficient activities that provide reasonable assurance that
problems in other safety systems are identified and corrected.
The request is being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the
Commission's regulations. The request has been referred to the Director
of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. As provided by Section
2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this Petition within a
reasonable time.
By letter dated October 8, 1999, the Director denied the
Petitioner's request for immediate action at Indian Point Unit 2.
A copy of the petition is available for inspection at the
Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street
NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room located at
the White Plains Public Library, 100 Martine Avenue, White Plains, New
York 10610.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of October 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Collins,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-26942 Filed 10-14-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
