ML12128A245
| ML12128A245 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/16/2012 |
| From: | Saporito T Saprodani Associates |
| To: | Borchardt R NRC/EDO |
| Paige, Jason C. | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML12157A468 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206 Petition, G20120303, OEDO-2012-0260 | |
| Download: ML12128A245 (10) | |
Text
EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROM: DUE: 06/06/12 EDO CONTROL: G20120303 DOC DT: 04/16/12 FINAL REPLY:
Thomas Saporito Saprodani Associates TO:
Borchardt, EDO FOR SIGNATURE OF ** GRN ** CRC NO:
Leeds, NRR DESC: ROUTING:
2.206 - Seeking Enforcement Action Against the Borchardt Turkey Point Nuclear Plant (EDATS: OEDO-2012-0260) Weber DEDR Ash Mamish OGC/GC DATE: 05/07/12 McCree, RII Zobler, OGC ASSIGNED TO: CONTACT: Mensah, NRR Banic, NRR NRR Leeds Russell, NRR Scott, OGC SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS: Bowman, OEDO
~oik~ U1O~OO1 &4~fbE 1 ŽO-/
EDATS Number: OEDO-2012-0260 Source: OEDO Genra Ifomaio Assigned To: NRR OEDO Due Date: 6/6/2012 11:00 PM Other Assignees: SECY Due Date: NONE
Subject:
2.206 - Seeking Enforcement Action Against the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant
==
Description:==
CC Routing: Regionll; OGC; Tanya. Mensah@nrc.gov; Merrilee. Scott@nrc.gov; Andrea. Russel l@nrc.gov; Catherine.Scott@nrc.gov ADAMS Accession Numbers - Incoming: NONE Response/Package: NONE Other Inoraion Cross Reference Number: G20120303 Staff Initiated: NO Related Task: Recurring Item: NO File Routing: EDATS Agency Lesson Learned: NO OEDO Monthly Report Item: NO Proces Infomaion Action Type: 2.206 Review Priority: Medium Sensitivity: None Signature Level: NRR Urgency: NO Approval Level: No Approval Required OEDO Concurrence: NO OCM Concurrence: NO OCA Concurrence: NO Special Instructions:
Originator Name: Thomas Saporito Date of Incoming: 4/16/2012 Originating Organization: Saprodani Associates Document Received by OEDO Date: 5/7/2012 Addressee: R. W. Borchardt, EDO Date Response Requested by Originator: 6/6/2012 Incoming Task Received: 2.206 Page 1 of l
A UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS In the Matter of:
SAPRODANI ASSOCIATES, and DATE: 16 APR 2012 THOMAS SAPORITO Petitioner, V.
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, NEXTERA ENERGY AND TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR PLANT Licensee.
PETITION UNDER 10 C.F.R. §2.206 SEEKING ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST THE TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR PLANT NOW COMES, Saprodani Associates, by, through and with, Thomas Saporito, Senior Consultant for Saprodani Associates (hereinafter "Petitioner") and submits a "Petition Under 10 C.FR. §2.206 Seeking Enforcement Action Against FloridaPower & Light Company, NextEra Energy, and the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant" (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 public health and safety and the environment related to operation of civilian 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 the instant action, the above-captioned entity(s) is 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 party identified above by Petitioner is collectively and singularly a licensee of the NRC, the agency has jurisdiction and authority to grant the Petition.
1/6 EDO -- G20120303
4 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 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 2/6
b 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 III.
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: (1) take escalated enforcement action against the above-captioned licensee and suspend, or revoke the NRC license(s) granted to the licensee for operation of the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant; (2) that the NRC issue a notice of violation with a proposed civil penalty against the licensee in the total amount of $1,000,000.00 (One-Million) dollars; and (3) that the NRC issue a Confirmatory Order to the licensee requiring the licensee to take the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant to a "cold-shutdown" mode of operation until such time as:
- 1. The licensee completes an "independent" Safety Culture Assessment (SCA) to more fully understand and correct the "root-cause" of multiple violations of NRC safety regulations and requirements at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant'; and
- 2. The licensee completes a comprehensive training program of all station maintenance personnel (including supervision) to ensure the all licensed activities at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant comply with NRC safety regulations and requirements; and
- 3. The licensee completes a comprehensive training program of all station operations personnel (including supervision) to ensure that all licensed activities at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant comply with NRC safety regulations and requirements; and
- 4. The licensee completes an "independent" safety-assessment through a 3' party contractor to review all Turkey Point Nuclear Plant operation and maintenance procedures to ascertain whether the procedures require "risk assessment" by licensed operations personnel prior to execution.
1 See, April 10, 2012 - NRC New Release No. 11-12-015 - NRC Cites Turkey Point Nuclear Plant for Violation of Requirements and Assesses $140,000 Fine.
3/6
I B. Facts That Constitute the Basis for Taking the Requested Enforcement-Related Action Requested by Petitioner On April 10, 2012, the NRC issued a public news release which stated in relevant part, that:
" the licensee failed to properly maintain the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant's onsite emergency response facility in violation of NRC requirements; and
" the licensee failed to timely report to the NRC that the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant's Technical Support Center was not functional during a seven-month period in 2010-2011; and
- the NRC staff held a conference with the licensee on February 21, 2012, to discuss the agency's inspection findings - and that on two different occasions, the licensee failed to maintain a fully functional Technical Support Center because plant personnel disabled portions of the ventilation system and failed to implement appropriate compensatory measures. In this condition, response personnel may not have been protected from radiological hazards in the manner for which the facility was designed.
In addition to the above, the (1) licensee failed to properly ascertain and/or determine the "root-cause"of the regulatory violations cited by the NRC - and in fact, adamantly denied that any such violations occurred at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant; (2) the licensee appears to have "intentionally"and "willfully" engaged in "wrongdoing"in further violation of NRC regulations and requirement under 10 C.F.R. Part 50 - and under other NRC regulations and authority - in misleading the NRC Region II staff and administrator - during a February 21, 2012 Enforcement Conference held in Atlanta, Georgia; (3) the licensee admitted that at least two nuclear workers at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant falsified a "legal" document - Plant Work Order (PWO) - in which two Instrument and Control Technicians "guessed" about the position of a ventilation damper employed at the plant's Technical Support Center; (4) the licensee apparently condones, promotes, and authorizes nuclear workers at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant to "intentionally" falsify legal documents during licensed operations at the nuclear plant; (5) the licensee appears to have intentionally and willfully mislead the NRC by apparently falsely alleging that an engineer at the plant noted the position of a damper employed in the ventilation system at the Technical Support Center as having failed in the "closed" position - and contrary to the "as-found" findings documented by two technicians on a Plant Work Order - a legal document - indicating that the ventilation damper failed in the "open" position; and (6) the the licensee appears to have manufactured false statements and allegations during the February 21, 2012 NRC Enforcement Conference to avoid the agency's cited violations and to avoid the issuance of a civil monetary penalty and increased NRC inspection activities at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant.
Finally, to the extent that: (1) the licensee has been found by the NRC to have failed on at least two occasions to timely recognize a violation of NRC regulations and requirements during licensed operations at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant with respect to the Technical Support 4/6
Center; and (2) the licensee failed to timely report at least two violations of NRC regulations and requirements at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant with respect to the functionality of the Technical Support Center - over the course of several months; and (3) the licensee adamantly denied that any violation of NRC regulations and/or requirements occurred at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant with respect to the functionality of the Technical Support Center as cited by the NRC - the NRC can no longer have any measure of "reasonable assurance" that: (a) the licensee has the knowledge, skills, and training required to engage in NRC licensed operations at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant in full compliance with NRC regulations and requirements under 10 C.F.R. Part 50; and (b) that the licensee has the knowledge, skills, and training required recognize the occurrence of a violation of NRC regulations and requirements under 10 C.F.R. Part 50 during licensed activities at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant; and (c) that the licensee has the knowledge, skills, and training required to timely report violations of NRC regulations and requirements under 10 C.F.R. Part 50 during licensed activities at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant - so that the NRC is able to properly conduct regulatory oversight of licensed activities at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant - in fulfillment of the agency's mission to "ProtectPublic Health and Safety" as required by the United States Congress.
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 Consultant Saprodani Associates 177 US HWY IN, UNIT 212 Tequesta, Florida 33469 Email: saprodani@gmail.com Telephone: (561) 972-8363 5/6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY, that on this 16th day of April 2012, a copy of foregoing document was provided to those identified below by means shown:
Hon. William Borchardt Melanie Checkle, Allegations Coordinator Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II Headquarters Washington, D.C. 20555 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
{Sent via U.S. Mail and electronic mail} {Sent via electronic mail}
Hon. Gregory B. Jaczko, Chairman Oscar DeMiranda U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Senior Allegations Coordinator Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
{Sent via electronic mail} Region II Headquarters Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Carolyn Evans, Dir. of Enforcement {Sent via electronic mail}
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II Headquarters Atlanta, Georgia 30303
{Sent via electronic mail}
Local and National Media Sources By:
ThomasCons Senior Consultant*
6/6
Te~questa, Florida 3346 1-56 1-972-8363~
saprodani~ag9aiI.com www.saprod;4nj~rc0o
Thom~as Saporito
'"US~ HWY IN, UNITr21 2 Tequesta. Florida 33469
'I j7 11
- !j *1j b /
- ~ J Si
.2-ýc P, ACR 11~6~. k/la/eRR ;~
~1K~ ~ 7~c, ~2