[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 230 (Thursday, November 29, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59597-59598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-29622]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-247, License No. DPR-26]


Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Notice of Issuance of 
Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

    Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation, has issued a Director's Decision with regard to a Petition 
dated December 4, 2000, filed by Deborah Katz, Marilyn Elie, Tim 
Judson, Kyle Rabin, Mark Jacobs, Paul Gunter, and Jim Riccio, 
hereinafter referred to as the ``Petitioners.'' The Petition was 
supplemented on January 24, 2001. The Petition concerns the operation 
of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 (IP2).
    The Petitioners requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) take the following enforcement-related actions against 
Consolidated Edison of New York (ConEd, or the licensee) for IP2: (1) 
Suspend the license for the IP2 reactor because of the licensee's 
``persistent and pervasive, negligent management of the reactor,'' (2) 
investigate whether the potential misrepresentation of material fact by 
the utility regarding ``significantly insufficient'' engineering 
calculations was due to a lack of rigor and thoroughness or was 
deliberate, (3) revoke the IP2 operating license if it is found that 
the licensee deliberately provided insufficient and false information, 
(4) if the license is not revoked, maintain IP2 on the list of ``agency 
focus'' plants until management demonstrates it can fulfill its 
regulatory requirements and commitments, (5) not approve the transfer 
of the IP2 license until management can demonstrate that the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), the condition report backlog, and 
the maintenance requirements are up to date and workers have been 
retrained, and (6) not allow the IP2 reactor to restart until the 
fundamental breakdown in management is analyzed and corrected. The 
Petitioner also requested that a public meeting be held to discuss this 
matter.
    As the basis for the December 4, 2000, request, the Petitioners 
stated that the licensee's systemic mismanagement of

[[Page 59598]]

the plant resulted in, among other things, inconsistencies and 
inaccuracies in the UFSAR, safety systems whose compliance with the 
regulations could not be verified, design basis analyses that might not 
be accurate, and a UFSAR that may not be up to date. The Petitioners 
considers the systemic mismanagement to be potentially unsafe and to be 
in violation of Federal regulations. In the Petition, a number of NRC 
inspection reports, licensee event reports, letters between the NRC 
staff and the licensee, plant performance review summaries, and other 
documents were cited that the Petitioners believe document their 
contentions.
    On January 24, 2001, the Petitioners and the licensee met with the 
staff's Petition Review Board. The meeting gave the Petitioners and the 
licensee an opportunity to provide additional information and to 
clarify issues raised in the Petition. During the public meeting, the 
Petitioners gave the staff supplemental information which the staff 
considered in making its decision. The Petitioners contended that the 
supplemental information provided further evidence of the licensee's 
mismanagement of the IP2 facility.
    The NRC sent a copy of the proposed Director's Decision to the 
Petitioners and to the licensee for comment on July 25, 2001. The 
Petitioners responded with comments on September 14, 2001. The licensee 
did not respond. The Petitioners' comments and the NRC staff responses 
to the comments can be found in the cover letter transmitting the 
Director's Decision and Attachment 1 to the Director's Decision.
    The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation concluded 
that the information contained in the Petition and the supplement does 
not warrant NRC staff action to suspend or revoke the operating license 
for IP2. Likewise, the staff finds no basis for initiating an 
investigation into wrongdoing on the part of ConEd. These requested 
actions are not granted. The NRC grants the Petitioners' request that 
IP2 remain on the list of agency focus plants (i.e., plants with 
multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstones). However, the NRC staff did 
not grant the Petitioners' request to define under what conditions IP2 
will be removed from the list of plants with multiple/repetitive 
degraded cornerstones.
    In addition, the staff found that the Petitioners' request to delay 
or deny a request to transfer the operating license for IP2 until the 
licensee's management can demonstrate that the UFSAR, condition report 
backlog, and maintenance requirements are up to date, and that plant 
workers have been retrained to the modified UFSAR does not meet the 
requirements for review under 10 CFR 2.206. The reasons for these 
decisions are explained in the Director's Decision pursuant to 10 CFR 
2.206 (DD-01-04), the complete text of which is available in ADAMS for 
inspection in the Commission's Public Document Room at One White Flint 
North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and 
electronically accessible in ADAMS through the NRC Public Electronic 
Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML 0103030073). Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who 
encounter problems in accessing documents located in ADAMS should 
contact the NRC PDR reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 
locally at 301-415-4737, or by email at [email protected]. 
    A copy of the Director's Decision will be filed with the Secretary 
of the Commission for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 
2.206 of the Commission's regulations. As provided for by this 
regulation, the Director's Decision will constitute the final action of 
the Commission 25 days after the date of the decision, unless the 
Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the Director's 
Decision in that time.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of November 2001.
Samuel J. Collins,
 Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations.
[FR Doc. 01-29622 Filed 11-28-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P