[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 116 (Thursday, June 17, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32557-32558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-15414]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-220]
License No. DPR-63, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation; Receipt of
Petition for Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206
Notice is hereby given that by Petition dated May 24, 1999, Mr. Tim
Judson (the Petitioner) on behalf of Citizens Awareness Network,
Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Waste, Environmental Advocates, Greens
of Greater Syracuse, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Oswego
Valley Peace and Justice, Sierra Club (Iroquois Group), Student
Environmental Action Coalition, Syracuse Anti-Nuclear Effort, Syracuse
Peace Council, and Dr. Steven Penn, has requested that the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) take action with regard to Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 (NMP1). The Petitioner requests that the
NRC take enforcement action against Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation
(NMPC) by suspending its NMP1 operating license until (1) NMPC releases
the most recent inspection data on the plant's core shroud; (2) a
public meeting can be held in Oswego County, New York, to review this
inspection data and the repair design to core shroud vertical welds V9
and V10; and (3) an adequate public review of the safety of the plant's
continued operation is accomplished. The Petitioner bases this request
upon the following issues and concerns:
1. Petitioner believes that the public cannot rely upon NMPC to
accurately perform the data analysis necessary to calculate the extent
and rate of cracking in the core shroud because of problems with NMPC's
previous testing and analyses that were identified in letters to the
NRC from Dr. Penn. Petitioner states that the NRC has not responded to
Dr. Penn's letters, and, therefore, Petitioner believes Dr. Penn's
expressed concerns constitute unreviewed safety issues.
2. NMPC and NRC reported during the May 1999 inspection that cap
screws in the bow spring mechanisms of the shroud tie rod assemblies
were found to have suffered intergranular stress-corrosion cracking,
resulting in the fracture of one of the cap screws. Petitioner states
that this problem, and the tie rod problem corrected during the 1997
outage, indicates that NMPC's designs warrant in-depth review by the
public and closer implementation scrutiny. Petitioner believes that
NMPC's prior selection of poor cap screw material and the NRC staff's
acceptance of it raises questions about the credibility of the NRC's
approval of the vertical weld repair design and, thus, necessitates a
public review of the level of safety before plant restart.
3. Data from the May 1999 inspection of the NMP1 core shroud are
new and the NRC staff's review of the data will not be completed before
plant restart. Petitioner states that previous NRC staff safety
evaluations required future evaluations. Petitioner believes that
subsequent NRC approval of an ``unprecedented and unproven'' repair
design for vertical welds, issued before the inspection, does not
preempt the previously determined need to assess the actual extent of
cracking in the vertical welds and the structural integrity of the core
shroud.
4. NMPC has informed the NRC that supporting a meeting for public
review of the core shroud inspection data during this refueling outage
would place an undue regulatory burden on NMPC's manpower resources,
and this burden could possibly compromise safety at NMP1. Petitioner
considers inadequate licensee resources to be new information and an
unreviewed safety issue. Petitioner contends that violations and a
civil penalty issued against NMPC on November 5, 1997, involving
inadequate management oversight and failure to monitor the
effectiveness of maintenance activities are ``directly pertinent to
failure of the tie rod installation (1995), faulty design of the bow
spring modification (1997), flawed studies on core shroud boat samples
(1998), postponement of mid-cycle inspection (1998), and miscalibration
of instruments for vertical weld inspection (May 1999).'' Petitioner
believes that, because the degree of cracking in the NMP1 shroud is
precedent-setting, the question of regulatory burden is not relevant,
as the NMP1 shroud requires the strictest regulatory oversight and a
full public review. Petitioner states that postponing restart would
eliminate this regulatory burden and ensure that outage work is
properly reviewed.
The NRC staff has determined that the issues and concerns addressed
in the Petition do not warrant deferring restart of NMP1. The NRC staff
has also determined that a meeting to provide for public review of the
shroud reinspection results need not be held before restart. In
reaching this determination, the NRC staff has considered the
following:
1. By letter dated May 28, 1999, the NRC staff responded to Dr.
Penn's letters dated December 3, 1998; March 25, 1999; and April 15,
1999. In a letter dated April 30, 1999, NMPC has also
[[Page 32558]]
responded to relevant concerns in Dr. Penn's letter of March 25, 1999.
The responses indicate that testing and evaluations of the core shroud
by NMPC and its contractors can be relied upon by the NRC with
reasonable assurance as to their accuracy. Therefore, the issues in Dr.
Penn's letters do not provide a sufficient basis to warrant suspension
of the NMP1 operating license.
2. The bow spring modification to each of the four tie rod
assemblies replaces the design function of the failed cap screw and
other cap screws that have the potential for future failure. By letter
dated May 28, 1999, NMPC confirmed that no additional modifications are
needed other than the bow spring modification addressed in the letter
of May 21, 1999. The function of the tie rod bow spring does not affect
the tie rod's function of maintaining a predetermined compressive force
(``preload'') on the shroud during power operation. In response to
NMPC's letter dated May 21, 1999, the NRC staff reviewed and approved
the modifications as an alternative repair pursuant to 10 CFR
50.55a(a)(3)(i) by letter dated June 7, 1999, and NMPC has implemented
these modifications. With the NRC staff's review and approval of this
modification, the NRC staff finds no basis to consider enforcement
action to suspend the operating license.
3. During the current refueling outage, NMPC has implemented
preemptive repairs of shroud vertical welds V9 and V10, as approved by
the NRC staff in a letter dated April 30, 1999. These repairs
mechanically restore the vertical welds. NMPC has also verbally
informed the NRC that the 1997 modifications to the tie rod assemblies
have performed satisfactorily and that the tie rod assemblies have
applied the appropriate preload on the shroud throughout the last
operating cycle. Since vertical welds V9 and V10 have been restored and
the tie rods are satisfactorily performing their preload function, the
need for NRC staff review of reinspection data before restart is
obviated.
4. NMPC will provide reinspection results and analyses to
disposition these reinspection findings to the NRC within 30 days of
completing the reinspection. This schedule is consistent with the
guidelines established by the Boiling Water Reactor Vessel and
Internals Project in its report BWRVIP-01, ``BWR Core Shroud Inspection
and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines,'' which the NRC staff reviewed and
accepted by letter dated September 25, 1994. The NRC staff, noting the
results of inspections to date and that NMPC has followed the BWRVIP
generic criteria for inspection, evaluation, and repair, does not
believe a public meeting is warranted prior to restart. Also, during
telephone discussions with the NRC, NMPC has indicated that a meeting
on reinspection results before restart would require significant
participation and preparation by NMPC, involving some of the same key
employees and contractors involved in outage activities. The NRC staff
recognizes the value of public meetings, and to this end, a routinely
scheduled meeting to discuss recent plant performance at the NMP site
is planned for August 1999. This meeting will discuss a variety of
topics related to licensee performance. A brief discussion on the NMP1
core shroud activities will be one of the agenda topics.
The remaining issues in the Petition are being treated pursuant to
10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations and have 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 June 11, 1999, the Director acknowledged receipt of
the Petition. A copy of the Petition is available for inspection at the
Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street, NW., Washington,
D.C. 20555-0001.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of June 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Roy P. Zimmerman,
Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-15414 Filed 6-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
