[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