82 FR 18677 - Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units No. 2 and 3

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 75 (April 20, 2017)

Page Range		18677-18678
FR Document		2017-08015

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a director's decision with regard to a petition dated June 30, 2016, filed by Mr. David A. Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists (the petitioner), requesting that the NRC take enforcement action against Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., the licensee for Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units No. 2 and 3 (Indian Point 2 and 3). The petitioner's requests and the director's decision are included in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 75 (Thursday, April 20, 2017)

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 75 (Thursday, April 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18677-18678]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08015]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286; NRC-2017-0074]


Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Indian Point Nuclear 
Generating, Units No. 2 and 3

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice, Director's decision regarding petition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a 
director's decision with regard to a petition dated June 30, 2016, 
filed by Mr. David A. Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists 
(the petitioner), requesting that the NRC take enforcement action 
against Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., the licensee for Indian Point 
Nuclear Generating, Units No. 2 and 3 (Indian Point 2 and 3). The 
petitioner's requests and the director's decision are included in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0074 when contacting the 
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You 
may obtain publicly-available information related to this document 
using any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0074. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected].
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available 
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this 
document.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the Director, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has issued a director's decision 
DD-17-01 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17065A030) on a petition filed by the 
petitioner on June 30, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16187A186). The 
petition was supplemented by letter dated January 10, 2017 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML17011A012).
    In response to degradation of reactor vessel baffle-former bolts 
(BFBs) identified at Indian Point 2 during its spring 2016 refueling 
outage, the petitioner requested the NRC to:
    (1) Issue an order requiring the licensee to inspect the reactor 
vessel BFBs and install the downflow to upflow modification at Indian 
Point 2 during its next refueling outage (i.e., spring 2018).
    (2) Issue a demand for information requiring the licensee to submit 
an operability determination to the NRC regarding continued operation 
of Indian Point 3 until its reactor vessel BFBs can be inspected 
according to the Electric Power Research Institute Materials 
Reliability Program Topical Report MRP-227-A, ``Materials Reliability 
Program: Pressurized Water Reactor Internals Inspection and Evaluation 
Guidelines'' (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML120170453).
    (3) Issue a demand for Information requiring the licensee to submit 
an evaluation of the performance, role, and operating experience of the 
Indian Point metal impact monitoring system in detecting and responding 
to indications of loose parts (such as broken baffle bolt heads and 
locking tab bars) within the reactor coolant system.
    As the basis for this request, the petitioner cited Licensee Event 
Report 2016-004-00, ``Unanalyzed Condition due to Degraded Reactor 
Baffle-Former Bolts,'' submitted by the licensee on May 31, 2016 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML16159A219), that describes an event where there was an 
unanalyzed condition due to degraded reactor vessel BFBs at Indian 
Point 2, which is reportable under Sec.  50.73(a)(2)(ii)(B) of title 10 
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). The petitioner states that 
(1) an order is the proper means for ensuring that the bolts are 
inspected and that the downflow to upflow modification is installed 
during the next refueling outage at Indian Point 2, (2) Indian Point 3 
is potentially operating with degraded BFBs and an operability 
determination is the mechanism established by the NRC to properly 
evaluate such situations, and (3) the metal impact monitoring system as 
described in the updated final safety analysis report has the potential 
to act as an alternate monitoring system to

[[Page 18678]]

identify degraded BFBs, yet neither the NRC nor the licensee have 
referred to this system in publicly available documents relating to 
this issue.
    On July 28, 2016, the petitioner and the licensee met with the 
NRC's Petition Review Board. The meeting provided the petitioner and 
the licensee an opportunity to provide additional information and to 
clarify issues cited in the petition. The transcript for that meeting 
is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16215A391.
    In the supplemental letter dated January 10, 2017, the petitioner 
withdrew the first two requested enforcement actions, citing the plant 
shutdown agreement reached between the licensee and the State of New 
York, and documents released by the NRC in response to a Freedom of 
Information Act request (FOIA/PA-2016-0457).
    The NRC sent a copy of the proposed director's decision to the 
petitioner and the licensee for comment on January 11, 2017 (ADAMS 
Accession Nos. ML16320A269 and ML16320A273, respectively). The 
petitioner and the licensee were asked to provide comments within 30 
days on any part of the proposed director's decision that was 
considered to be erroneous or any issues in the petition that were not 
addressed. Comments were received from the petitioner and the licensee 
and are addressed in the final director's decision. In the licensee's 
response dated February 9, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17045A470), new 
information was provided to the NRC staff that was not available when 
the proposed director's decision was issued for comment. The licensee's 
response (1) provided detailed information on the enhanced BFB 
inspection plans for the remaining refueling outages, (2) provided the 
results of the BFB failure analysis performed at the Westinghouse hot 
lab testing facility, and (3) informed the NRC staff that the licensee 
had changed its commitment and would not perform the downflow to upflow 
modification at either of the Indian Point operating units.
    Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner withdrew the first two 
requested enforcement actions, the Director of the Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation has determined that the petitioner's request to (1) 
issue an order requiring that Indian Point 2 inspect the BFBs during 
the spring 2018 refueling outage would have been denied because the 
licensee committed to take this action, and the staff retains the 
option to take enforcement actions if necessary, (2) issue a demand for 
information requiring Indian Point 3 to perform an operability 
determination was effectively met inasmuch as the licensee performed 
the evaluation and made it available to NRC inspectors as part of the 
NRC's reactor oversight program, and (3) issue a demand for information 
requiring the licensee to provide an evaluation of the operating 
history of the metal impact monitoring system be denied because the 
system has no operability or regulatory requirements, loose baffle-
former bolt heads would be expected to remain in place due to the tight 
clearances between the baffle plate and fuel assemblies, thus making 
bolt failures very difficult to monitor using this system, and the 
staff finds no basis to require such information for a nonsafety 
system. The reasons for this decision are explained in the director's 
decision (DD-17-01) pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's 
regulations.
    The NRC will file a copy of the director's decision with the 
Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review in accordance 
with 10 CFR 2.206. As provided 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.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of April 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William M. Dean,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-08015 Filed 4-19-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

18678 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 75 / Thursday, April 20, 2017 / Notices

identify degraded BFBs, yet neither the effectively met inasmuch as the licensee comments electronically should contact
NRC nor the licensee have referred to performed the evaluation and made it the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
this system in publicly available available to NRC inspectors as part of INFORMATION CONTACT section by
documents relating to this issue. the NRC’s reactor oversight program, telephone for advice on filing
On July 28, 2016, the petitioner and and (3) issue a demand for information alternatives.
the licensee met with the NRC’s Petition requiring the licensee to provide an
Review Board. The meeting provided evaluation of the operating history of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
the petitioner and the licensee an the metal impact monitoring system be David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
opportunity to provide additional denied because the system has no 202–789–6820.
information and to clarify issues cited in operability or regulatory requirements, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
the petition. The transcript for that loose baffle-former bolt heads would be
meeting is available in ADAMS under expected to remain in place due to the Table of Contents
Accession No. ML16215A391. tight clearances between the baffle plate I. Introduction
In the supplemental letter dated and fuel assemblies, thus making bolt II. Docketed Proceeding(s)
January 10, 2017, the petitioner failures very difficult to monitor using
withdrew the first two requested I. Introduction
this system, and the staff finds no basis
enforcement actions, citing the plant to require such information for a
shutdown agreement reached between The Commission gives notice that the
nonsafety system. The reasons for this Postal Service filed request(s) for the
the licensee and the State of New York, decision are explained in the director’s
and documents released by the NRC in Commission to consider matters related
decision (DD–17–01) pursuant to 10 to negotiated service agreement(s). The
response to a Freedom of Information CFR 2.206 of the Commission’s
Act request (FOIA/PA–2016–0457). request(s) may propose the addition or
regulations. removal of a negotiated service
The NRC sent a copy of the proposed The NRC will file a copy of the
director’s decision to the petitioner and agreement from the market dominant or
director’s decision with the Secretary of the competitive product list, or the
the licensee for comment on January 11, the Commission for the Commission’s
2017 (ADAMS Accession Nos. modification of an existing product
review in accordance with 10 CFR currently appearing on the market
ML16320A269 and ML16320A273, 2.206. As provided by this regulation,
respectively). The petitioner and the dominant or the competitive product
the director’s decision will constitute list.
licensee were asked to provide the final action of the Commission 25
comments within 30 days on any part of days after the date of the decision unless Section II identifies the docket
the proposed director’s decision that the Commission, on its own motion, number(s) associated with each Postal
was considered to be erroneous or any institutes a review of the director’s Service request, the title of each Postal
issues in the petition that were not decision in that time. Service request, the request’s acceptance
addressed. Comments were received date, and the authority cited by the
from the petitioner and the licensee and Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day Postal Service for each request. For each
are addressed in the final director’s of April 2017.
request, the Commission appoints an
decision. In the licensee’s response For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. officer of the Commission to represent
dated February 9, 2017 (ADAMS William M. Dean, the interests of the general public in the
Accession No. ML17045A470), new Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505
information was provided to the NRC Regulation. (Public Representative). Section II also
staff that was not available when the [FR Doc. 2017–08015 Filed 4–19–17; 8:45 am] establishes comment deadline(s)
proposed director’s decision was issued BILLING CODE 7590–01–P pertaining to each request.
for comment. The licensee’s response
The public portions of the Postal
(1) provided detailed information on the
Service’s request(s) can be accessed via
enhanced BFB inspection plans for the POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION the Commission’s Web site (http://
remaining refueling outages, (2)
provided the results of the BFB failure [Docket Nos. CP2017–164; MC2017–114 and www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of
analysis performed at the Westinghouse CP2017–165; MC2017–115 and CP2017–166; the Postal Service’s request(s), if any,
hot lab testing facility, and (3) informed
MC2017–116 and CP2017–167; MC2017–117 can be accessed through compliance
and CP2017–168; MC2017–118 and CP2017– with the requirements of 39 CFR
the NRC staff that the licensee had 169]
changed its commitment and would not 3007.40.
perform the downflow to upflow New Postal Products The Commission invites comments on
modification at either of the Indian whether the Postal Service’s request(s)
Point operating units. AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. in the captioned docket(s) are consistent
Notwithstanding the fact that the ACTION: Notice. with the policies of title 39. For
petitioner withdrew the first two request(s) that the Postal Service states
SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a
requested enforcement actions, the concern market dominant product(s),
recent Postal Service filing for the
Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor applicable statutory and regulatory
Commission’s consideration concerning
Regulation has determined that the requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39
a negotiated service agreement. This
petitioner’s request to (1) issue an order U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39
notice informs the public of the filing,
requiring that Indian Point 2 inspect the CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s)
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

invites public comment, and takes other
BFBs during the spring 2018 refueling that the Postal Service states concern
administrative steps.
outage would have been denied because competitive product(s), applicable
the licensee committed to take this DATES: Comments are due: April 24, statutory and regulatory requirements
action, and the staff retains the option 2017. include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633,
to take enforcement actions if necessary, ADDRESSES: Submit comments 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and
(2) issue a demand for information electronically via the Commission’s 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment
requiring Indian Point 3 to perform an Filing Online system at http:// deadline(s) for each request appear in
operability determination was www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit section II.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Apr 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1

Document Created: 2017-04-20 01:42:22
Document Modified: 2017-04-20 01:42:22

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
Action		Notice, Director's decision regarding petition.
FR Citation		82 FR 18677