Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units No. 2 and 3, 18677-18678 [2017-08015]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 75 / Thursday, April 20, 2017 / Notices 18677 NRC EXPORT LICENSE AMENDMENT APPLICATION [Description of material] Name of Applicant, date of application, date received, application No., docket No., ADAMS Accession No. Perma-Fix Northwest, Inc, January 5, 2017, XW012/05, 11005699, ML17005A373. Material type Class A, B, or C radioactive waste. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of April 2017. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. David L. Skeen, Deputy Director, Office of International Programs. [FR Doc. 2017–07824 Filed 4–19–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 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 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice, Director’s decision regarding petition. AGENCY: 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 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 Total quantity 17:27 Apr 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 End use No to exceed 5,500 tons. Amend to: (1) Change the licensee’s point of contact; (2) change the foreign suppliers name from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to Canadian Nuclear Laboratories; (3) remove reference to Waste Classification as defined in 10 CFR 61.55 and reference to Table A2 values of 49 CFR 173.435 from the waste description; and (4) change the date of expiration from September 30, 2017 to September 30, 2022. questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. • NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable 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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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). PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Country of destination Canada. (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 § 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 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 18678 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 75 / Thursday, April 20, 2017 / Notices 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Apr 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 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 POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. CP2017–164; MC2017–114 and CP2017–165; MC2017–115 and CP2017–166; MC2017–116 and CP2017–167; MC2017–117 and CP2017–168; MC2017–118 and CP2017– 169] New Postal Products Postal Regulatory Commission. Notice. AGENCY: ACTION: The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission’s consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps. DATES: Comments are due: April 24, 2017. ADDRESSES: Submit comments electronically via the Commission’s Filing Online system at http:// www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202–789–6820. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Docketed Proceeding(s) I. Introduction The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list. Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request’s acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request. The public portions of the Postal Service’s request(s) can be accessed via the Commission’s Web site (http:// www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of the Postal Service’s request(s), if any, can be accessed through compliance with the requirements of 39 CFR 3007.40. The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service’s request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II. E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 75 (Thursday, April 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18677-18678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
     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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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