ML17348B404
| ML17348B404 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 02/20/1992 |
| From: | Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17348B403 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 9202270451 | |
| Download: ML17348B404 (4) | |
Text
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NOS.
50-250 AND 50-251 FLORIDA POWER
- 5. LIGHT COMPANY TURKEY POINT PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 RECEIPT AND D NIAL OF PETITION FOR DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 0
CFR 2.206 Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has taken action reg'arding the Petition filed pursuant to 10-CFR 52.206 by Mr. Thomas J. Saporito, Jr.
On December 3,
- 1992, Mr. Saporito (Petitioner) submitted a request pursuant to 10 CFR 52.206 that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) take certain actions against the Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) regarding the Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4.
These actions include initiating a show cause proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 and an enforcement action for violations of the Atomic Energy Act and 10 CFR 50,7.
The Petitioner asserts, as bases for the request, that in December 1988 he was fired from his job as an Instrument Control Technician at the Turkey N
Point Station because he raised nuclear safety concerns to the NRC Region II office, that FPL is continuing to practice conduct in violation of the Atomic Energy'Act and 10 CFR 50.7 and recently fired Mr. Richard Robaines for identifying nuclear safety concerns to NRC Region II personnel, and that this action by FPL has resulted in a significant "chilling effect" on the willingness of employees to raise safety concerns at FPL's Turkey Point and St
~ Lucie nuclear stations, The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) has evaluated the petition and concluded that it does not provide any basis for any action against FPL.
The basis for this position is that the 920227045i 920220 PDR ADOCK 05000250 H
PDR I
Petitioner has not provided any new information that has not already been addressed by the licensee and the NRC staff.
Upon'inding no sufficient bases for action, the NRC has denied the Petition in its letter to the petitioner, of 'ebruary 20, 1992 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of February FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Frank J Alirag ', Deputy Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation