ML11174A228
| ML11174A228 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades, Indian Point, Grand Gulf, Arkansas Nuclear, Vermont Yankee, FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 06/20/2011 |
| From: | Saporito T Saprodani Associates |
| To: | Annette Vietti-Cook NRC/SECY |
| References | |
| 2.206, G20110477, LTR-11-0368, SECY-2011-0376, EDATS: SECY-2011-0376 | |
| Download: ML11174A228 (9) | |
Text
EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROM:
DUE: 07/25/11 EDO CONTROL: G20110477 DOC DT: 06/20/11 FINAL REPLY:
Thomas Saporito Saprodani Associates TO:
Vietti-Cook, SECY FOR SIGNATURE OF :
GRN CRC NO: 11-0368
- Leeds, NRR DESC:
ROUTING:
2.206 -Entergy/Palisades, Vermont Yankee and J.
Wayne Leonard (EDATS:
DATE: 06/23/11 Borchardt Weber Virgilio Ash Mamish OGC/GC Satorius, RIII Dean, RI
- Burns, OGC
- Mensah, NRR
- Scott, OGC
- Bowman, OEDO ASSIGNED TO:
NRR CONTACT:
Leeds SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
Teiq Y
?-J~eISECYq0 -7 L--f-tM: ýECV-V
EDATS Number: SECY-201 1-0376 Source: SECY Assigned To: NRR Other Assignees:
Subject:
2.206 - Entergy/Palisades, Vermont Yankee and J. Wayne Leonard
==
Description:==
OEDO Due Date: 7/25/2011 11:00 PM SECY Due Date: NONE CC Routing: Regioni Ill RegionfI OGC: Tanya.Mensah(@nrc.gov; Catherine.Scott(nrc.gov ADAMS Accession Numbers - Incoming: NONE Response/Package: NONE Ot.e
'nfrma'o Cross Reference Number: G20110477, LTR-11-0368 Related Task:
File Routing: EDATS Staff Initiated: NO Recurring Item: NO Agency Lesson Learned: NO OEDO Monthly Report Item: NO I Prcs I
nfomai on Action Type: 2.206 Review Signature Level: NRR Approval Level: No Approval Required OEDO Concurrence: NO OCM Concurrence: NO OCA Concurrence: NO Special Instructions:
Priority: Medium Sensitivity: None Urgency: NO Docmen Inomto Originator Name: Thomas Saporito Originating Organization: Saprodani Associates Addressee: Annette Vietti-Cook, SECTY Incoming Task Received: E-mail Date of Incoming: 6/20/2011 Document Received by SECY Date: 6/23/201 1 Date Response Requested by Originator: NONE Page 1 of I
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET Date Printed: Jun 21, 2011 16:4 7 PAPER NUMBER:
ACTION OFFICE:
LTR-1 1-0368 EDO LOGGING DATE:
06/21/2011 AUTHOR:
AFFILIATION:
ADDRESSEE:
SUBJECT:
ACTION:
DISTRIBUTION:
LETTER DATE:
ACKNOWLEDGED SPECIAL HANDLING:
NOTES:
FILE LOCATION:
Thomas Saporito FL Annette Vietti-Cook 2.206 petition...Entergy Appropriate Chairman, Comrs, OGC 06/20/2011 No ADAMS DATE DUE:
DATE SIGNED:
EDO -- G20110477
Champ, Billie From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
saporito3@gmail.com on behalf of Thomas Saporito [thomas@saprodani-associates.com]
Monday, June 20, 2011 7:13 PM NRCExecSec Resource Jaczko, Gregory; Evans, Carolyn; Checkle, Melanie; DeMiranda, Oscar Petition 2.206 (Entergy et al.)
2011.06.20 Petition.pdf
Dear Ms. Cook:
Please provide the attached 2.206 Enforcement Petition to the NRC Executive Director for Operations (EDO) for processing under MD 8.11 accordingly - in connection with NRC licensee Entergy et al.
Kind regards, Thomas Saporito Thomas Saporito, Senior Consulting Associate Email: thonias(d)saprodani-associates.com Web: http://Saprodani-Associates.com Post Office Box 8413, Jupiter, Florida 33468 Phone: (561) 972-8363 Fax: (561) 972-8363 Saprodani-Associates - Advocate/GreenPeace USA 1
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS In the Matter of.
SAPRODANI ASSOCIATES, and DATE: 20 JUNE 2011 THOMAS SAPORITO Petitioner, V.
ENTERGY NUCLEAR GENERATION, ENTERGY NUCLEAR, INC.,
ENTERGY NUCLEAR NORTHEAST, ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.,
ENTERGY NUCLEAR PALISADES, LLC.,
ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, LLC.,
ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC., AND J. WAYNE LEONARD, CHAIRMAN, CEO Licensee.
PETITION UNDER 10 C.F.R. §2.206 SEEKING ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST ENTERGY NUCLEAR GENERATION, ENTERGY NUCLEAR, INC., ENTERGY NUCLEAR NORTHEAST, ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC., ENTERGY NUCLEAR PALISADES, LLC., ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, LLC., ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC., AND J. WAYNE LEONARD, CHAIRMAN AND CEO NOW COMES, Saprodani Associates, by and through and with, Thomas Saporito, Senior Consulting Associate (hereinafter "Petitioner") and submits a "Petition Under 10 C.FR. §2.206 Seeking Enforcement Action Against Enterg-, Nuclear Generation, Enterg, Nuclear Inc., Entergy Nuclear Northeast, Entergv, Nuclear Operations. Inc., Entergy Nuclear Palisades, LLC.. Entergv, Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC., Entergy Operations, Inc., and.! Wa'yne Leonard, Chairman, CEO." (Petition). For the reasons stated below, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) should grant the Petition as a matter of law:
NRC HAS JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY TO GRANT PETITION The NRC is the government agency charged by the United States Congress to protect 1/5
public health and safety and the environment related to operation of commercial nuclear reactors in the United States of America (USA). Congress charged the NRC with this grave responsibility in creation of the agency through passing the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA). In tile instant action, the above-captioned entities are collectively and singularly a "licensee" of the NRC and subject to NRC regulations and authority under 10 C.F.R. §50 and under other NRC regulations and authority in the operation of one or more nuclear reactors. Thus, through Congressional action in creation of the agency; and the fact that the named-actionable parties identified above by Petitioner are collectively and singularly a licensee of the NRC, the agency has jurisdiction and authority to grant the Petition.
STANDARD OF REVIEW A.
Criteria for Reviewing Petitions Under 10 C.F.R. §2.206 The staff will review a petition under the requirements of 10 C.F.R. §2.206 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 basis 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 petitioner's 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 C.F.R. §2.206.
B.
Criteria for Rejecting Petitions Under 10 C.F.R. §2.206
" The incoming correspondence does not ask for an enforcement-related action or fails to provide sufficient facts to support the petition but simply alleges wrongdoing, violations of NRC regulations, or existence of safety concerns. The request cannot be simply a general statement of opposition to nuclear power or a general assertion without supporting facts (e.g., the quality assurance at the facility is inadequate). These assertions will be treated as routine correspondence or as allegations that will be referred for appropriate action in accordance with MD 8.8, "Management of Allegations".
The petitioner raises issues that have already been the subject of NRC staff review and evaluation either on that facility, other similar facilities, or on a generic basis, for which a resolution has been achieved, the issues have been resolved, and the resolution is 2/5
applicable to the facility in question. This would include requests to reconsider or reopen a previous enforcement action (including a decision not to initiate an enforcement action) or a director's decision. These requests will not be treated as a 2.206 petition unless they present significant new information.
" The request is to deny a license application or amendment. This type of request should initially be addressed in the context of the relevant licensing action, not under 10 C.F.R.
2.206.
" The request addresses deficiencies within existing NRC rules. This type of request should be addressed as a petition for rulemaking.
See, Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs, Review Process for 10 C.F.R. Petitions, Handbook 8.11 Part Ill.
REQUEST FOR ENFORCEMENT-RELATED ACTION TO MODIFY, SUSPEND, OR REVOKE A LICENSE AND ISSUE A NOTICE OF VIOLATION WITH A PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY A.
Request for Enforcement-Related Action Petitioner respectfully requests that the NRC take escalated enforcement action against the above-captioned licensee(s) and suspend, or revoke the NRC license(s) granted to the licensee for operation of nuclear reactors in the United States; and that the NRC issue a notice of violation with a proposed civil penalty against the collectively named and each singularly named licensee in this matter - in the total amount of $500,000.00.
B.
Facts That Constitute the Basis for Taking the Requested Enforcement-Related Action Requested by Petitioner On June 20th, 2011, the NRC held a public meeting with licensee representatives - in connection with licensed activities at numerous nuclear power plants licensed for operation by the NRC under 10 C.F.R. Part 50, and operated by the licensee - related to a change in the structure for which Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA) licensed activities are conducted at the licensee's nuclear power plants. Specifically, the licensee informed the NRC that (1) all QC/QA licensed activities at all of the licensee's nuclear power plants would be overseen and administered from a central corporate entity; and (2) that all QC/QA managers at each of the licensee's nuclear power plants now report directly to the licensee's Chief Nuclear Officer (CNO); and (3) that any QC/QA changes made at any one of the licensee's nuclear power plants would be implemented at the entire fleet of the licensee's nuclear plants - in connection with the licensee's Corrective Action Program (CAP) vis-a-vi initiation of a Condition Report (CR). Thus, the licensee's changes to the QC/QA programs at each of its individual nuclear power plants constitute a "material" change to each individual NRC license issued to the licensee authorizing operation of each separate nuclear reactor under 10 C.F.R. Part 50.
3/5
Moreover, the licensee's changes made to their QC/QA program infrastructure at each of its nuclear power plants has apparently adversely affected the NRC's ability to protect public health and safety under the agency's Reactor Oversight Program (ROP) because of the interplay and interaction of changes incorporated to the licensee's QC/QA programs et al.
In addition, it appears that the licensee failed to comply with NRC regulations and standards set-out under 10 C.F.R. Part 50, in making material changes to the licensee's QC/QA programs - in connection with licensed operations at their nuclear power plants - which require that the licensee file a License Amendment Request (LAR) for each and every change made in connection with the applicable license at each and every nuclear facility licensed for operation by the NRC for which the licensee operates. In the instant action, it appears that (1) the licensee failed to file any LAR with the NRC authorizing the licensee to make material changes to the QC/QA program at any of the licensee's nuclear power, plants; and (2) the licensee failed to update each Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) at each and every nuclear power plant for which the licensee made "material" changes to the QC/QA program; and (3) the licensee failed to update the Technical Specifications (TS) at each and every nuclear power plant for which the licensee made "material" changes to the QC/QA program; and (4) the public was not provided adequate notice in the Federal Register with an opportunity to intervene - in connection with the changes made to the licensee's QC/QA program at each of the licensee's nuclear power plants as required under the: law.
C.
There Is No NRC Proceeding Available in Which the Petitioner is or Could be a Party and Through Which Petitioner's Concerns Could be Addressed Petitioner avers here that there is no NRC proceeding available in which the Petitioner is or could be a party and through which Petitioner's concerns could be addressed.
CONCLUSION FOR ALL THE ABOVE STATED REASONS, and because Petitioner has amply satisfied all the requirements under 10 C.F.R. §2.206 for consideration of the Petition by the NRC Petition Review Board (PRB), the NRC should grant Petitioner's requests made in the instant Petition as a matter of law.
Respectfully submitted.,
Thomas Saporito Senior Consulting Associate Saprodani Associates Post Office Box 8413 Jupiter, Florida 33468-8413 Voice: (561) 972-8363 4/5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY, that on this 20th day of June, 2011, a copy of foregoing document was provided to those identified below by means shown:
Hon. William Borchardt Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
{Sent via U.S. Mail and electronic mail}
Hon. Gregory B. Jaczko, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 (Sent via electronic mail}
Carolyn Evans, Dir. of Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II Headquarters Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (Sent via electronic mail}
Local and National Media Sources Melanie Checkle, Allegations Coordinator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II Headquarters Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (Sent via electronic mail}
Oscar DeMiranda Senior Allegations Coordinator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II Headquarters Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (Sent via electronic mail}
By:
Thomas Saporito Senior Consulting Associate 5/5