ML041000383
| ML041000383 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 04/08/2004 |
| From: | Marsh L NRC/NRR/DLPM |
| To: | Saporito T National Environmental Protection Ctr |
| Moroney B, NRR/DLPM, 415-3974 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML040990475 | List: |
| References | |
| G20040182, TAC MC2349 | |
| Download: ML041000383 (4) | |
Text
April 8, 2004 Mr. Thomas Saporito, Executive Director National Environmental Protection Center Post Office Box 1173 Jupiter, Florida 33458
Dear Mr. Saporito:
Your petition dated January 25, 2004, and addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Executive Director for Operations, was received on March 17, 2004, and has been referred to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation pursuant to Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 2.206 of the Commissions regulations. You request that the NRC take immediate action to cause the cold shutdown of the St. Lucie Unit 1 nuclear reactor operated by the Florida Power and Light Company. As the basis for your request, which relates to an exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, you state:
The licensees request to amend its operating license for Unit-1 is in all purposes a material change to its operating license which requires that the public be given an opportunity to intervene at a public hearing in opposition to the NRC granting such a request. The NRC apparently failed to provide the public with an opportunity to intervene at a hearing in this matter as required by its own regulations under Title 10.
Following receipt of your letter, we made numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact you by telephone and e-mail to invite you to discuss your petition with our petition review board (PRB).
Our PRB reviewed your submittal on March 31, 2004. The staff has concluded that your submittal does not meet the criteria for consideration under 10 CFR 2.206.
In accordance with NRC Management Directive 8.11, Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions, the staff will review petitions if the request meets all of the following criteria:
The petition contains a request for enforcement-related action such as issuing an order modifying, suspending, or revoking a license, issuing a notice of violation, with or without a proposed civil penalty, etc.
The facts that constitute the bases for taking the particular action are specified. The petitioner must provide some element of support beyond the bare assertion. The supporting facts must be credible and sufficient to warrant further inquiry.
There is no NRC proceeding available in which the petitioner is or could be a party and through which the petitioners concerns could be addressed. If there is a proceeding available, for example, if a petitioner raises an issue that he or she has raised or could raise in an ongoing licensing proceeding, the staff will inform the petitioner of the ongoing proceeding and will not treat the request under 10 CFR 2.206.
T. Saporito Your request satisfies only the first and third criteria. The second criterion is not satisfied because you have not provided any technical basis to support a conclusion that the NRC staffs evaluation of the licensees request is incorrect. The request to revise the exemption was initiated after the licensee identified and reported a factual error regarding vertical separation of cables in the previous evaluation supporting the exemption. Subsequently, licensee personnel verified the as-built conditions through extensive inspections. The licensees request was supported by a newly-developed fire model based on actual conditions in the containment. The revised exemption was issued based on the NRC staffs evaluation of this fire model.
Also, your assertion that this was a request to amend the operating license, which should have provided an opportunity for intervention at a public hearing, is incorrect. It was a revision to a previously issued exemption and the regulatory process for issuing exemptions does not require a public hearing.
Your letter also asserts that the discrepancy in vertical separation between critical trains indicates that the licensee misled the NRC in 1985, but you provided no new information to support this claim. A review of the historical documentation associated with the exemption indicates that the discrepancy apparently resulted from the NRC reviewer misinterpreting the licensees description of the cables as being on different containment elevations that were separated by approximately 25 feet. The fact that the error was subsequently identified and reported by the licensee also does not indicate an attempt to mislead. In its report, the licensee acknowledged a deficiency in its review of the NRC staffs safety evaluation and stated that administrative controls had been established to ensure that future safety evaluations would be reviewed for any discrepancies with its submittals.
However, in response to your request, your letter has been referred to the Office of the Inspector General.
Thank you for bringing these issues to the attention of the NRC.
Sincerely,
/RA by E. J. Leeds for/
Ledyard B. Marsh, Director Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-335
Enclosure:
NEPC 2.206 Request cc: See next page
T. Saporito Your request satisfies only the first and third criteria. The second criterion is not satisfied because you have not provided any technical basis to support a conclusion that the NRC staffs evaluation of the licensees request is incorrect. The request to revise the exemption was initiated after the licensee identified and reported a factual error regarding vertical separation of cables in the previous evaluation supporting the exemption. Subsequently, licensee personnel verified the as-built conditions through extensive inspections. The licensees request was supported by a newly-developed fire model based on actual conditions in the containment. The revised exemption was issued based on the NRC staffs evaluation of this fire model.
Also, your assertion that this was a request to amend the operating license, which should have provided an opportunity for intervention at a public hearing, is incorrect. It was a revision to a previously issued exemption and the regulatory process for issuing exemptions does not require a public hearing.
Your letter also asserts that the discrepancy in vertical separation between critical trains indicates that the licensee misled the NRC in 1985, but you provided no new information to support this claim. A review of the historical documentation associated with the exemption indicates that the discrepancy apparently resulted from the NRC reviewer misinterpreting the licensees description of the cables as being on different containment elevations that were separated by approximately 25 feet. The fact that the error was subsequently identified and reported by the licensee also does not indicate an attempt to mislead. In its report, the licensee acknowledged a deficiency in its review of the NRC staffs safety evaluation and stated that administrative controls had been established to ensure that future safety evaluations would be reviewed for any discrepancies with its submittals.
However, in response to your request, your letter has been referred to the Office of the Inspector General.
Thank you for bringing these issues to the attention of the NRC.
Sincerely,
/RA by E. J. Leeds for/
Ledyard B. Marsh, Acting Director Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-335
Enclosure:
NEPC 2.206 Request cc: See next page Distribution PUBLIC WTravers SCollins CPaperiello PNorry WKane WDean JDyer BSheron TMarsh EHackett WBurton BMoroney GCwalina KJohnson LCox DSkay KCyr JGoldberg HMiller, R1 JMunday, R2 OPA OCA SBurns PShea PD II-2 R/F EDO R/F BClayton (Hard Copy)
NRR Mail Room (EDO #G20040182)
Incoming: ML040780742 Package: ML040990475
Enclosure:
ML040780742 ADAMS Accession Number: ML041000383 NRR-106 OFFICE PM:PDII-2 LA:PDII-2 SC:PDII-2 D:PDII D:DLPM NAME BMoroney BClayton WBurton WBurton for:
EHackett EJLeeds for:
TMarsh DATE 04/01/04 04/05/04 04/07/04 04/07/04 04/07/04 Official Record Copy
Mr. J. A. Stall ST. LUCIE PLANT Florida Power and Light Company cc:
Senior Resident Inspector St. Lucie Plant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 6090 Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 Craig Fugate, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 M. S. Ross, Managing Attorney Florida Power & Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Marjan Mashhadi, Senior Attorney Florida Power & Light Company 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 220 Washington, DC 20004 Mr. Douglas Anderson County Administrator St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 Mr. William A. Passetti, Chief Department of Health Bureau of Radiation Control 2020 Capital Circle, SE, Bin #C21 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1741 Mr. William Jefferson, Jr.
Site Vice President St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 6351 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957-2000 Mr. G. L. Johnston Plant General Manager St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 6351 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 Mr. Terry Patterson Licensing Manager St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 6351 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 David Moore, Vice President Nuclear Operations Support Florida Power and Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Mr. Rajiv S. Kundalkar Vice President - Nuclear Engineering Florida Power & Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Mr. J. Kammel Radiological Emergency Planning Administrator Department of Public Safety 6000 SE. Tower Drive Stuart, Florida 34997