[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