[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Page 67956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31377]
[[Page 67956]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-220]
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Nine Mile Point Nuclear
Station, Unit No. 1; Issuance of Final Director's Decision Under 10 CFR
2.206
Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, has taken action with regard to a letter dated May 24,
1999, as supplemented by letter dated August 10, 1999, (Petition) filed
by Tim Judson (Petitioner) of the Syracuse Peace Council, on behalf of
himself and others, pursuant to Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 2.206). The Petitioner requested that
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission or NRC) suspend the
operating license issued to Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC or
licensee) for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (NMP1) 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.
In a letter dated June 11, 1999, the Director of the Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation acknowledged receipt of the Petition of May
24, 1999, and addressed the actions under 10 CFR 2.206 that Petitioner
requested to be taken before restart of NMP1 from its 1999 refueling
outage (RFO-15). In the letter of June 11, 1999, the staff explained
that the issues and concerns addressed in the Petition do not warrant
deferring restart of NMP1 and that a meeting to provide for public
review of the shroud reinspection results need not be held before
restart.
In the supplemental letter dated August 10, 1999, Petitioner
reiterated the request for the meeting to provide for public review of
the shroud reinspection data and repair, even though the meeting would
take place after restart. Petitioner stated that the need for the
meeting had increased because cracks were identified in the main drain
line and control rod stub tubes during the hydrostatic testing of the
reactor vessel during RFO-15. Petitioner stated that these cracks from
the hydrostatic tests raise two concerns: (1) That the NRC's ``leak-
before-break'' model for assessing the safety of aging reactors is
inadequate and (2) that the problem of cracking is not confined to the
core shroud, but may be spreading throughout the reactor internals,
pipes, and other systems, representing an unanalyzed condition that is
only being identified piecemeal through certain incidental cases that,
together, reveal a pattern of degradation of reactor components and
systems and overall embrittlement of the reactor. Petitioner also
expressed concern in the letter of August 10, 1999, that the core
shroud inspection during RFO-15 indicated that shroud vertical weld V10
is growing at a rate in excess of the NRC's accepted crack growth rate
limit of 22 microinch/hr (1.55 x 10-8 centimeter/second),
whereas he believes the measured rate should be at least 2 sigma below
the limit.
The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has
concluded that the 1999 shroud reinspection results, reviewed by the
NRC staff since receipt of the Petition, support NMPC's conclusion,
reached before restart, that the structural integrity of the core
shroud will be maintained during at least the current operating cycle
in its present configuration. The additional issues raised by
Petitioner in the supplement to the Petition were previously known and
addressed by the NRC. These issues were resolved consistent with
approved Boiling Water Reactor Vessel Internals Project programs, codes
and standards, plant technical specifications, and the Commission's
regulations. The crack growth rate for shroud vertical weld V10 did not
exceed the NRC staff's accepted limit and its repair has diminished
concern for its current and future behavior. Some of the issues of
concern to the Petitioner were discussed during the Plant Performance
Meeting at the NMP site on October 22, 1999, and the NRC staff remained
in the area after the meeting to discuss issues of interest with the
public and the local press. For these reasons, the NRC staff concludes
the additional meeting requested by the Petitioner is not warranted.
The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has concluded
that the issues raised in the Petition do not represent a significant
safety issue and do not warrant any NRC staff action to modify,
suspend, or revoke operation of NMP1 for the reasons that are explained
in the ``Final Director's Decision Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206'' (DD-99-
14). Therefore, the Petition is not granted.
The complete text of the Final Director's Decision follows this
notice and is available for public inspection at the Commission's
Public Document Rooms located in the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,
NW., Washington, DC, and accessible electronically through the ADAMS
Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (http://www/
mrc/gov).
A copy of the Decision will be filed with the Secretary of the
Commission for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR
2.206(c) of the Commission's regulations. As provided for by this
regulation, the Decision will constitute the final action of the
Commission 25 days after the date of issuance of the Decision unless
the Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the Decision
within that time.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of November 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brian W. Sheron,
Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-31377 Filed 12-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P