ML20013H828
| ML20013H828 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/28/1998 |
| From: | Boger B NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20013H829 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 9805040220 | |
| Download: ML20013H828 (21) | |
Text
i-April 28, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: L Jos:ph Cellan Ex:cutiva Dir:ctor for Optrctions FROM:
Bruce A. Boger ORIGINAL SIGNED BY J. ZWOLINSKI FOR:
Acting Associate Directo for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
MARCH 1998 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS UNDER 10 CF" '.206 The attached monthly report reflects the status of 10 CFR 2.206 petitions 43 of March 31, 1998. This report will not reflect changes in status that have occurred since the end of March. Attachment 1 gives the status of petitions for the Offices of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards and Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Attachment 2 !ists decisions before the Commission and the Courts. Attachment 3 lists other sensitive rnatters, which are for internal distribution only.
By issuing the monthly report on tile status of pending 10 CFR 2.206 petitions, the staff is documenting its responsiveness to petitioners. Those parts of tho monthly repcet not of a sensitive nature will be placed in the Public Document Room and are intended to be a link on the NRC external home page, making them readily accessible to the public. However, this feature is currently not in operatic :
Attachments:
- 1. Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206
- 2. Decisions Pending Before the Commission and the Courts
- 3. Sensitive information (Internal Distribution Only) 4 cc w/atts:
H. L. Thompson, EDO R. L. Bangart, OSP A. C. Thadani, EDO G. P. Caputo, 01 P. G. Norry, EDO J. F. Cordes, Jr., OCAA J. Blaha, EDO J. R. Goldberg, OGC K. D. Cyr, OGC L. J. Chandler, OGC S. J. Collins, NRR C. J. Paperiello, NMSS W. F. Kane, NMSS Regional Administrators J. Lieberman, OE OCA E. Julian, SECY OPA
(( h~ h b
CONTACT: William Gleaves, NRR 415-1479 f
Distribution:
(
MMos-.P. Lohaus P. Anderson /EDO W. Travers PUBLIC w/att 1 & 2 only (Att 3 is "NOT FOR EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION")
b B. McCabe E. Adensam F. Cameron /OGC M. Thadani
,/
'g B. Clayton PDil-3 r/f T. Essig W. Gleaves b
g B. Clayton F.Hebdon G. Deegan B. Boger J. Zwolinski G:\\STLUCIE\\2.206\\EDO2206.398
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE (A)DPJHDd, (A)APPtbRR OFFICE PDil-3/PIM PDil-3/LA_ j PDil-3(PD NMSS:RMB*
NAME ES BCLA FH ON GDEEGAN(e)
JZWQL KI BBOGE
/
DATE 480/98 4 M /98 4//19 /9 8 04/21/98(e) 4/
/98 4/
/9
~
9905040k20 990428 t
L-4-1PT2 CF
=
L-tl -itY e CF SUBJ l'
m-Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206 March 1998
(
Contents
- f Facility Petitioner /EDO Na Na
[
Advanced M9 dical Systems, Inc.
19ortheast Ohio Regional Sewer IL-District /10 3 9 5............................ 1 E-l Envirocare af Utah, Iric.
Cochran, Natural Resou.t.;
De f ense Council......................... 2 3
Philadelphia VA Medical Center Lo vell, An n.................................. 4 Mi!sstone Galatis, We the People, Inc./ED O 603............................ 5,20 3
Connecticut Yar'kaa and Millstnne Katz, Citizens Awareness Networ k(CAN)iGT96919................ 8 Connecticut Yankee Bassilakis, CAN/GT97181....... 10,20 0/
San Onofre Nuclear Generating otst'on D wyer/GT973 3 9........................... 1 1 1
San Onofre Nuclear Gen? rating Station Borchmann/GT97494.................12 P
D.C. Cook, Units 1 and 2 Lochbaum/GT97724....................13 Seabrook 1 Doughty /GT970873................14, 19 Millstone 1,2,3 Bassilakis, CAN, Gunter, Nuclear information Resource Service /G980070...................... 15 St. Lucie/ Turkey Point Seporito, Jr., National Litigatian Con s ult ants................................ 16
- includes Attachments 2 and 3 I
T J
ym s,
2
-m
Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206 Facility:
Advanced Medical Systems. Inc.
Petitioner:
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Da:e of Petition:
8/19/94 Director's Decision To Be issued by:
NMSS Date P.eferred to Review Organization:
8/29/94 EDO Number:
10395 OGC Number:
P--94-020 Scheduled Completion Date:
4/10/98 Lest Contact with Petitioner (s):
2/23/98 Petition Manager:
J. DeCicco Case Attorney:
R. Weisman issues / Action Requested:
Amend AMS license to install, maintain, and operate alarms on all drains from London Road facility.
Current Status:
An acknowledgment letter was issued on 9/7/94. The staff completed its research of Picker Corporation's (previous licensee) license file to establish use/ discontinuance of flow-rate alarms in the 1970s. On 12/29/94 the Sewer District requested a license renewe8 hearing per Subpart L,10 CFR 2.1205. The staff met on 3/14/9 to discuss the petition. The scheduled completion date was delayed in June 1995 because of a license amendment request from AMS on 3/22/95, which requested installation of a sampling system on a proposed lateral sewer line. The completion date was extended in August 1995 to allow ti,ne for completion of the staff's review.
The *taff provided status updates to the petitioner by telephone on 5/30/95, 8/1/95,10/3/05,12/4/95, 2/12/96, 4/16/96, G/18/96, 8/20/96,10/22/96, and 12/20/96. The completion date was extended in January 1997 to 3/30/97 to allow for the staff s review of the draft Director's Decision. The statf requested the petitioner's views regarding the impact of a settlement agreement on the petition by letter dated 2/3/97. The petitioner's lette dated 3/4/97 indicated that the petitioner's requests are not completely covered by the settlement agreement, and the petition remains relevant. The completion date was extent.ed in March 1997 to 7/30/97 to allow time for license renewal proceedings.
i The petitioner was contacted by telephone on 4/11/97,6/19/97,
[
8/19/97,10/21/97,12/18/97, and 2/23/98 and informed of the status of the petition. A decision was made by the staff to defer l
the Director's Decision until completion of the license renewal
[
opplication review process, currently scheduled to be completed by i
April 1998.
i Facility:
Envirocare of Utah. Ini..
Petitioner:
T. Cochran, Natural F.esources Defense Council Date of Petition:
12/12/97 Director's Decision To Be issued by:
NMSS Date Referred to Review Organization:
12/18/97 EDO Number:
GT970863
+
OGC Number:
P-97-014 Scheduled Completion Date:
5/16/98 Last Contact with Petitioner (s):
2/09/98 Petition Manager:
H. Lefevre Case Attorney:
H. McGurren i
istr. s/ Action Requested:
Immediate NRC investigation and suspension of Envirocare's license.
Current Status:
The Petitioner was contacted by telephone on 12/18/97 and informed of NRC's receipt of the petition. NRC's letter of 12/31/97 to Mr. Charles Judd of Envirocare requires that the licenst., do the following: (1) respond to each of ;he issaes reised in the petition, (2) advise the NRC whether it intends to enforce its Employment Agreement against current and former employees who have engaged, or do engage, in protective activities cognizable under Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act (Section 211) and other employee protection statutes, and (3) respono to incont.istencies in its employee protection policies as identified in NRC's 12/08/97 letter.
The staff's letter of 1/16/98 to Thomas Cochran of NRDC indicates:
(1) acknowledgment of receipt of the Petition, (2? i request that NRL,. orovide the names of individuals referenceu in the Petition; (3) NRC's referral to the FBI of possible criminal violation of Section 211, (4) NRC's corr.lusion that no further immediate action concerning Envirocare's NRC license is warranted, and (5) NRC's providing the Petitioner with a copy of the notice of receipt of the Petition that will be placed in the Federal Register. On 1/20/98, NRDC's Thomas Cochran was notified by voice mail that a copy of 2
NRC's 1/16/98 letter to NRDC had been faxed earlier in the day.
NRDC's 1/21/98 respr,nse to NRC's 1/16/98 letter provided the names of 11 indivi'tunts (all attorneys, br the most part, affiliated with law firms representing competitors of Envirocare) who may have knowledge of ce ant and former employees (beyond those identified in the Petition) who feel threatened by Envirocare.
Envirocare's letter of 1/21/98, responded to NRC's letters of 12/8/97 and 12/31/97. The nature of these letters is described above.
Or: 2/09/98 the Petitioner was contacted and informed that the staff anticipates issuance, within two weeks, of letters to the 11 individuals identified in NRDC's letter of 1/21/98 who may have knowledge of the identify of current /former employees who feel threatened by Envirocare. The staff's letter of 2/09/98 respoMed to Envirocare's 1/21/98 letter by indicating acceptance of
. Envirocare's employment prote:: tion policies. In its 2/09/98 letter the staff requested that Envirocare notify the NRC:(1) when Envirocare has completed its employee protection policy notification process, and (2) of any nuclear safety concern brought to Envirocare's attention by any present/former employee as a direct result of its revised employee protection policies. The requested notification period extends through 2/09/99. By letter of 2/27/98 Envirocare notified the staff that, prior to 2/21/98 it had completed its present/former employee protection policy notification process.
On 2/26/98 the staff issued letters to nine individuals, affiliated with three law firms, identified in NRDC's letter of 1/21/98, who may have knowledge of the identity of current /former employees who feel threatened by Envirocare. Another letter, with the same subject was issued on 3/5/98 by the staff to two individuals affilitt<
.ith the State of Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel. The purpose of the letters was to request that the individuals inform the NRC whether they have knowledge of the identity of any cment or former employees of Envirocare who have been intimidatet or feel threatened by Envirocare management and, if so, provide the NRC with the identit:es of such individuals. The staff expects to issue letters by mid April to the individuals affiliated with the three law firms and the State of Utah acknowledging that the individuals have either responded with the requested information or have indicated that they presently have no knowledge of Envirocare employees having been wronged by Envirocare management.
3
+
Facility:
Philadninhia VA Medical Center Petitioner:
Ann Lovell Date of Petition:
01/28/98 Director's Decision To Be issued by:
NMSS Date Referred to Review Organization:
2/4/98 EDO Number:
G980069 OGC Number:
P-98-001 Scheduled Completion Date:
6/30/98 Last Contact with Petitioner (s):
2!27/98 Petition Manager:
S. Merchant /T. Taylor i
Case Attorney:
S. Chidakel I
i I
Issues / Action Requested:
Request NRC to immadiately suspend or revoke the NRC j
Operating License is.wd as they ars operating in a
{
manner in which ther6 is potential to present a significant danger to medical center patients, staff, and the general public.
Current Status:
A copy of the Petition was provided to the Office of the laspector j
General on 2/12/98. An acknowledgment letter was sent to the i
petitioner on 2/27/98, and a Federal Rea; ster notice announcing the receipt of the Petit 5n was filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
j The Petition Review Board met on 2/10/98 to discuss the petition.
l A letter was sent to the VA Philadelphia on February 27,1998, i
informing them of receipt of the petition and requested their views l
j on the central concerns expressed by the petitioner. We requested a response by 3/31/98. Region I received the licensee's response 1
by letter dated 3/31/98. The Board met 4/7/98 to discuss the licensee's response and the direction to go on the petition. The staff is preparing a letter to the petitioner, forwarding the petitioner a copy of the licensee's response. The Board will meet again on 6/8/98 to discuss the results of Rs gion l's inspection of the
]
- licensee, i
a 1
i 4
1
)
i 1
4 l
l 1
-e n
Facility:
Millstone Petitioners:
G. Galatis and E. ndley on behalf of We the People, Inc.
Date of Petition:
8/21/95, supplemented 8/28/95 i
Director's Decision To Be issued by:
NRR l
Date Referred to Review Organization:
8/30/95 EDO Number:
603 OGC Number:
P-95-015 Sched': led Completion Date:
4/30/98 last Contact with Petitioner (s):
3/11/98 Petition Manager:
S. Dembek Case Attorney:
R. Hoefling issues / Action Requested:
The petitioners allege that Northeast Utilities (NU) has offloaded more fuel assemblies into the spent fuel pool than permitted under License Amendments 39 and 40:
that NU has knowingly operated Millstone in violatiori of its operating licenses; and that NU has submitted material false statements. Petitioners seekinstitution of a proceeding to "uspend the operating license for Millstone Unit 1 for 60 days after the unit is brought into i
compliance with the license and the design basis. In addition, the petitic. ars request that the operating license be revoked until the facility is in full compliance with the terms and conditions of its license; before reinstatement of the license, a detailed independent analysis of the offsite dose consequeaces of totalloss of spent fuel pool water be conducted; that enforcement action be taken against NU pursuant to 10 CFR 50.5 and 50.9; that actions be taken regarding a proposed ficense amendment pending before the Commission wherein NU seeks to increase the amount of spent fuelit may offload and that the amendment be denied; that the NRC retain an independent expert, at NU's expense, to prepare a safety i
analysis report on the proposed amendment; and that, before the issuance of any amendment, an analysis including both the probability and consequences of applicable events be conducted. In the supplement, Mr. Galatis raised additional concerns. These concerns are that NU also committed violations by offloading more than one-third of a core of fuel at Millstone Units 2 and 3 and Seabrook Unit 1. In addition, with regard to Millstone Unit 3, Mr. Galatis is concerned that NU subr @ted a j
material false statement to the NRC associated with a license amendment and that an unanalyzed condition 5
~
exists with regard to system piping for full-core offload events. With regard to Seabrook Unit 1, Mr. Galatis is concerned about technical specification violations associated with a criticality analysis. Finally, the petitioners make the additional reouest that a public hearing be held in the vicinity of Millstone Unit 1 to permit comment by the public en the issues raised in the petition.
Current Status:
Northeast Utilities (NU) voluntarily provided its response to the 8/21/95 letter on 9/22/95 and to the 8/28/95 supplement on 10/11/95. On 9/22/95, the staff contacted E. Hadley to inform him that issuance of the acknowledgment letter had been delayed because of ongoing investigations by the Office of Investigations (01) and the inspector General (IG) as well as independent NRC reviews. The staff also inforrr.ed the petitioner that if he wanted to intervene in the Millstone Unit 1 spent fuel pool amendment, he had t
until 9/29/95 to do so. The acknowledgment letter was issued on 10/26/95.
The staff completed its review of the licensee's cmendment request and on 11/9/95 issued the amendment and safety evaluation. The staff reviewed the IG and 01 reports to determine if future inspections at Millstone were needed. A spent fuel poolinspection was conducted at Millstone in March 1996 to review the 10 CFR 2.206 concerns as well as otner spent fuel poolissues.
The scheduled completion date was extended in February 1996 to 7/30/96 bechae of technicalissues requiring further staff review.
On 2/1/96 ano 4/9/96, the staff issued status update letters to the petitioner. On 2/5/96, a Federal Reoister notice was issued announcing a 10 CFR 2.206 informal public hearing to be held on 3/7/96. The 3/7/96 meeting was postponed because of poor weather. The meeting that was subsequently held on 4/8/96 was well attended and there was considerable public interest in the issues raised in the petition. However, the staff did not identify any significant new safety issues requiring further stsH action. On i
4/12/96 the staff mailed the petitioners and the licensee an advance copy of the 4/8/96 meeting transcript. On 4/24/96 the
)
staff mailed the petitioners the official tranu:ript.
l On 6/7/96 the staff issued a status update letter to the petitioners.
The update letter included a 5/21/96 report on the NRC's survey of refueling practices and a 5/17/96 letter from NU that answered an NRC question raised du-ing the 4/8/96 informal public hearing. On 7/19/96 the staff issued a status update letter to the petitioners and sent the petitioners a copy of the NRC inspection report fc,r the Millstone 1 spent fuel poolissues. The completion date was 6
J
extended in August 1996 to 10/31/96, and again in October 1996 to 5/31/97 to allow for additional staff review. On 9/19/96 the staff issued a status update letter to the petitioners and sent the petitioners an NRC memorandum dated 7/26/96 informing the Commission of the resolution of the spent fuel storage pool action plan issues. On 11/15/96 the staff issued a status update letter to the petitioners which included an example of a 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter sent to all plants (except Millstones requiring information that will provide the staff with added assurance that plants are operated and maintained in accordance with their design bases and any deviations are reconciled in a timely m6nner.
On 12/26/96, tF staff issued a partial Director's Decision (DD-96-23) the Id.essed the technical aspects of the petitioners' requests. The wrongdoing aspects are still under review and will be addressed in a subsequent Director's Decision. On 2/21/97, the staff issued a status update letter to the petitioners which included the slides used by staff of the NRC's L.fice for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data during their 2/5/97 public presentation of their generic assessment of spent fuel cooling. On 4/22/97, the staff issued a status update letter to the petitioners which included an information copy of a 4/15/97 letter in which the staff answered various spent feel pool safety questions posed by a member of the public. In May 1997, the completion date was extended to 11/15/97 to allow for completion of the 01 review. On 6/30/97, the staff issued a status update letter to the petitioners.
In a letter dated 7/9/97, the petitioners requested that the informal i
public hearing be reconvened to allow them to submit additional evidence in support of the petition. In a letter dated 8/25/97, the NRC staff denied the petitioners' request to reconvene the informal l
public hearing because the petitioners did not provide enough information to allow the staff to determine if tne criteria in Management Directive 8.11, " Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions," regarding informal public hearings were met. The staff requested that the petitioners send the additional evidence to the staff as quickly as possible. The staff will assess the need for reconvening the informal public hearing once the additional i
evidence is received.
The completion date was extended in October 1997 to 1/30/98 to allow time for additional staff review. A status update letter was i
sent to the petitioner on 11/10/97. The completion date was further extended to 4/30/98 to allow time for additional staff review. A status update letter was sent to the petitioner on 1/13/98. A status update letter was sent to the petitioner on 3/11/98.
7 attachment 1 i
i Facility:
Connecticut Yani:oe and Millstone Units 1. 2, anil 3 Petitioners:
D. Katz, Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) and P. Gunter, Nuclear information and Resource Service Date of Petition:
11/25/96, as amended 12/23/96 Director's Decision To Be issued by:
NRR Date Referred to Revim Organization:
12/20/96 EDO Number:
GT96919 OGC Number:
P-96-026 Scheduled Completion Date:
7/1/98 Last Contact with Petitioners:
4/17/98 Petition Manager:
D. Mcdonald Case Attorney:
R. Hoefling Issues / Action Requested:
Petitioners request the staff to take the following actions:
(1) immediately suspend or revoke Northeast Utilities' i
(NU's) license to operrJ.e the Connecticut Yankee (CY)
(Haddam Neck) and Millstone reactors due to chronic mismanag3 ment; (2) investigate the possibility that NU made materisi misrepresentations to the NRC concerning engineering calculations and other information or actions relied upon to assure the sdequacy of safety systems at CY and Millstone: (3) if an investigation determines that Nif celiberately provided insufficient and/or false or misleading information to the NRC, revoke NU's operating licenses for CY and Millstone, or, if not, keep the reactors off-line pending a Department of Justice independent investigation;(4)if the reactors remain operating, petitioners request that they remain on the NRC's " watch list"; (5) keep CY and Millstone off-line until NU's chronic mismanagement has been analyzed, remedial management programs put into effect and the NRC has evaluated and approved the effectiveness of NU's actions; (6) in the event NU decides to decommission any or all of the j
reactors at issue, petitioners request the NRC not to permit any decommissioning activity to take place until j
the above issues are resolved; and (7) commence in
)
investigation into how the staff allowed the illegal situation at NU's Connecticut reactors to exist and continue over a decade.
Current Status:
The petitioners were contacted by telephone on 12/19/96 and informed that the 2.206 process is a public process. A videotape, which was provided with the petition, has been transcribed and 4
8
.. - - -. ~. -. -.. - - -
i i
placed in the NRC's Public Document Room and the local public
[
document rooms. An acknowledgment letter was issued on 1/23/97. The staff indHated in the acknowledgment letter that D.
l
}
Katz, President of CAh, had been added to the NRC r,3rvice lists for the Millstone and Haddam Neck facilities to assure that the petitioners receive f-14C correspondence relevant to the petition.
i The staff also indicamd in the acknowledgment letter that the i
petition, the supplemental information, and a transcript of the videotape had been sent to the NRC's Office of the inspector General (IG).
I l
The staff received a letter dated 1/12/97 from CAN and NIRS I
expressing concern that the staff should not respond to the portions l
of the petition relating to the NRC staff, that the IG should be l
involved in those areas, and that the pfMtioners had not received j
the staff's acknowledgment letter. The petitioner was centacted i
on 1/28/97 and 2/4/97 to discuss the 1/12/97 letter. It was agreed that the acknowledgment letter had addressed the concerns expressed in the 1/12/97 letter.
l t
The petitioners were provided a status update letter dattd 4/10/97 indicating that the staff continues to review the petition and will i
continue to provide status updates. The staff also followed up with the petitioners on the discussion of the IG's involvement by indicating that the IG would receive all correspondence relating to i
f the petition for its consideration. In May 1997, the completion date
(
i was extended to 7/11/97 to allow time for further staff review. On i
)
7/3/97, the staff received information from the licensee relating to l
i the nitrogen intrusion event at Haddam Neck. As a result, the i
l comdetion date was extended to 8/31/97. The petitioners j
requese?d a copy of calculations performed by the licensee in l
l response to an event resulting in a nitrogen bubble in the reactor j
vessal at the Haddam Neck plant. The petitioners assert that the j-calculations had not been performed in accordance with NRC f
j requirements. The calculations had been performed to determine
]
the level of the water in the reactor vessel due to the nitrogen i
bubble. The calculations were provided as an attachment to a j
status update letter to the petitioners dated 7/21/97. A partial Director's Decision (DD-97-21) was issued to the petitioners on 9/12/97. DD-97-21 partially granted some of the petitioner's requests. Request (3) above was partially deferred for the Millstone plants and will be addressed in a subsequent final Director's l
Decision, currently scheduled for 7/1/98.
i l
l l
i 9
i t
I
i l
l i
i
?
Facility:
Connecticut Yanket Petitioners:
R. Bassilakis, Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) and P. Gunter, Nuclear information and Resource Service (NIRS)
Date of Petition:
3/11/97 i'
- 3..
Director's Decision To Be issued by:
NRR Date Referred to Review Organization:
3/20/97 4
EDO Number:
GT97181 OGC Number:
P-97-003 l
Scheduled Completion Date:
9/30/98
{
Last Contact with Petitioners:
2/10/98 l
Petition Manager:
T. Fredrichs -
Case Attorney:
M. Rafky I
3 issues / Action Requested:
Petitioners request (1) that the IJRC commence j
enforcement action agtirst Connecticut Yankee (CY)
)
(Haddam Neck) by means of a large civil penalty to assure l
compliance with safety-based radiological control routines, (2) modification of CY's license to prohibit any decommissioning activity, which would include i
dismantling or decontamination, until CY manages to conduct routine maintenance of the facility without any contamination events for at least 6 months, and (3) placement of CY on the NRC's " watch list."
Current Status:
An acknowledgment letter was issued on 4/3/97. In May 1997 the scheduled completion date was extended to 8/8/97 to allow time for additional staff review. The petitioner was contacted by telephone on 7/9/97 and informed of the status of the petition. - The scheduled completion date was extended in July 1997 to 8/22/97.
A partial Director's Decision (DD-97-19) was issued on 9/3/97.
DD-97-19 denied requests (2) and (3) above. Request (1) regarding enforcement action has been deferred and will be the subject of a final Director's Decision, currently scheduled for 9/30/98. In a public meeting on 10/27/97, which the petitioner attended, the staff stated that it was pursuing onforcement action regarding the remaining open item in the petition. See Attachment 3 for further details.
10
Facility:
San Onofra Nuclear Generatina Station petitioner:
S. Dwyer Date of Petition:
4/25/97 Director's Decision To Be issued by:
NRR Date Referred to Review Organization:
5/2/97 EDO Number:
GT97339 OGC Number:
P-97-009 Scheduled Completion Date:
5/29/98 Last Contact with Petitioner:
4/20/98 Petition Manager:
M. Fields Casa Attorney:
H. McGurren issues / Action Requested:
Petitioner believes that San Onofre will not be able to withstand a major seismic event due to the degradation of steam generator internal tube supports. In addition, petitioner requests that u thorough investigation should be done in Unit 2 to find any corrosion of the steam generator internal tube supports similar to that identified in Unit 3. Further, petitioner requests that a general seismic j
evaluation upgrade should be done for the San Onofre steam generators and a retrofitting upgrade of the steam
[
generator supports could be done at the same time.
f Current Status:
An acknowledgment letter was issued on 6/26/97 denying the petitioner's request to immediately shut down the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. The licensee submitted information regarding the petitioner's concerns in a letter dated 10/17/97 in response to the staff's request. As a result, tiie completion date was extended to 4/17/98. A second extension to 5/29/98 was granted to a! low the staff to incorporate the inspection results for both units, which is expected to be submitted by the licensee in mid-April.
i i
i 4
d a
11 I
s 4
Facility:
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Petitio ier:
P. Borchmann Date of Petition:
6/23/97,6/28/97, and 7/11/97, as supplemented 10/21/97 Director's Decision To Be issued by:
NRR Date Referred to feview Organization:
7/3/97 EDO Number:
GT97494 OGC Number:
r-5.'-011 Schedulmd Completion Date:
5/21/98 Last Contact with Petitioner:
2/19/98 Petition Manager:
B. Westrei::h Case Attorney:
H. McGunen issues / Action Requested:
Demands that the NRC extend the current San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Unit 3 refueling outage until all outstanding public safety concerns are fully resolve:f including: (1) serious flaws in the SONGS emergency evacuation plans for both San Diego and Orange County; (2) undersized pressurizer; (3) SONGS mim..anagement in loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) dose calculations; (4) Unit 1 spent fuel pocl is not designed for permanent storage: (5) high density racks in Units 2 and 3 spent fuel pools increase the probability of accidental criticality as degradation of materials occurs and break up of pool during a seismic event; (6) the condition of tha spent fuel pool waterproof merubrane is unknown; (7)
NRC has failed to establish requirements and procedmes for licensee morn.oring any leaks in the spent fuel m;;
(8) local population will not respond to an emergency at SONGS because of conditioned response to military training at Camp Pendleton or because of lack of attention due to listening to tapes or compact disks;(9) reliance on civilian personnel to respond to an emergency; (10) no safe disposal plan exists for the spent fuel from SONGS (11) SONGS and Southern California isfson are more interested in profit than safety; and (12) t uestions regarding SONGS increase in liability insurance.
Current Status:
The petitioner was contacted by telephone on.?!!9.98 to discuss the status of the I:etition. An acknowledgment letter to the original three letters which denied the petitioners request for immediate action was issued on 9/22/97. The petitioner sent a response dated 10/21/97 to the 9/22/97 acknowledgment letter. An acknowledgment letter to the 10/21/97 petitioners letter was issued on 2/17/98. Reviews associated with the EP plan issues are 12 i
3 kml
being coordinated with FEMA. The completion date was extended to 4/22/98 due to delays with the review of the EP plan.
Facility:
Donald C. Cook. Units 1 and 2 Petitioner:
D. Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists Date of Petition:
10/9/97 Director's Decision To Be issued by:
NRR Date Referred to Review Organization:
10/15/97 EDO Number:
GT97724 OGC Number:
P-97-013 Scheduled Completion Date:
6/30/98 Last Contact with Petitioner:
02/23/98 i
Petition Manager:
John Stang Case Attorney:
R. Hoefling issues / Action Requested:
Petitioner requests that the operating licenses for Donald C. Cook Units 1 and 2 be modified, revoked, or suspended until there is reasonable assurance that their systems are in conformance with design and licensing bases requirements. The petitionar also requests that a public hearing into this matter be held in the Washington, DC area prior to the first unit at D.C. Cook being authorized to restart so that the pet!tioner can present information supporting the contentions in this petition.
i Current Status:
The acknowledgment letter was issued on 12/9/97. The petitioner was contacted by telephone on 12/19/97 and 1/5/98 to discuss the status of the petition. The petitioner sent in a letter on 1/6/98 objecting to the use of the MD 8.11 criteria to determine if a public hearing would be held without first asking him if he had new information to present. The letter stated that he did have new information but did not provide it. A public meeting (not hearing) was held on 1/12/98 to a!!ow the petitioner to present his concerns.
The petitioner sent in an addendum to the petition on 1/12/S3, which provided a written copy of the issues he presented at the j
1/12/98 meeting. In addition, the petitioner submitted a request on 1/15/98, to review the draft confirm?. tory action letter (CAL) followup inspection report prior to Cook being authorized to restart.
l An acknowledgment letter for both the 1/12 and 15/98, letters is in concurrence. The petitioner was contacted by phone on 2/10/98 to clarify how issues he raised in the 1/12/98, letter were addressed ;n 13 1
)
the acknowledgment letter, and to provide him with a general status update on Cook and the CAL. The petitioner was contacted i
by phone on 2/23/98, to advise him of a meeting to be held at the Cook site to discuss their status on the CAL ano other issues.
The petitioner sent in an addendum to the petition on 1/12/98, which provided a written copy of the issues he presented at the 1/12/98 meeting. In addition, the petitioner submitted a request on 1/15/98, to review the draft CAL followup inspection report prior to Cook being authorized to restart. An acknowledgment letter for both the 1/12 and 15/98, letters is in concurrence. The petitioner was contacted by phone on 2/10/98 to clarify how issues he raised in the 1/12/98, letter were addressed in the acknowledgme.it letter, and to provide him with a general status update on Cook and the CAL.
Facility:
Seabrook Petitioner:
J. D.oughty, The Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Date of Petition:
12/18/97 Director's Decision To Be issued by:
NRR i
Date Referred to Review Organization:
12/19/97 EDO Number:
G970873 OGC Number:
P-97-015 i
Scheduled Completion Date:
5/15/98
)
Last Contact with Petitioner:
1/15/98 i
Petition Manager:
C. Smith Case Attorney:
C. Holzle issues / Action Requested:
Petitioner requests that the operating licenses for i
Seabrook be suspended, until such time that the following occurs: (1) a thorough root cause analysis of the leaks that developed in *B" train of RHR piping, (2) a review of the documentation associated with welds in the area of the leakage, including inspection reports, (3) a review of the piping qualification, and (4) a review of the procedures for assuring future piping quality. Petitioner requests a determination of the implications of this incident for all plant systems before the plant is allowed to restart.
i Current Status:
A Director's Decision denying the petitioner's request to suspend the operating license for Seabrook Station was issued on 3/17/98.
See Attachment 2.
14
Facility:
Millstone Units 1. 2. & 3 Petitioners:
R. Bassilakis, Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) and P. Gunter, Nuclear information and Resource Service (NIRS)
Date of Petition:
2/2/98 Director's Decision To Be issued by:
NRR Date Referred to Review Organization:
2/4/98 EDO Number:
GT980070 OGC Number:
P-98-002 Scheduled Completion Date:
7/10/98 Last Contact with Petitioners:
3/27/98 Petition Manager:
S. Dembek Case Attorney:
M. Raf ky issues / Action Raquested:
The Petition requests three actions: (1) The revocation of the license to operate Millstone Units 1,2, and 3 as the result of onCoing intimidation and harassment of its workforce by NU management; (2) The revocation of the license to operate Millstone Units 1,2, and 3 as the result of persistent licensee defiance to adherence to NRC regulations and directives to create a
- questioning attitude" for its workers to challenge management 01 nuclear safety issues without fear of harassment, intimidatien, or reprisals by NU: and (3) That NRC refer the Nuclect Oversight Focus 98 List and the reported licensee management attempt to destroy the list to the Department of Justice for invertigatior: of a potential coverup.
Current Status:
The petition maneger telechoneo the petitionerr on 2/17/98 informing hem that the petition pocess is prblic. The petitioners responded via e-mail that they were aw:*e the petition process was public. The acknowledgment letter has been drafted and is in the concurrence chain for final review and issuar. :e. The acknc,wledgment letter was sent to the petitiones on 3/11/98. On 3/27/98, the petition manager sent the pe:itioners a copy of the Millstone licensee's response to a 2/10/98 NRC request for additionc information.
l 15 J
i I
Facility:
St. Lucia 1 & 2. Turkey Point 3 & 4 Petitioners:
T. Saporito, Jr. Natioral Litigation Consultants Date of Petitions:
2/26, 2/27, 3/6, and supplemented 3/15,3/17,3/29, and 3/30
(
Director's Decision To Be issued by:
NRR Date Referred to Review Organization:
3/2/98 (earliest)
EDO Number:
G980124/5, G980138, G980203/4 OGC Number:
P-98-003 Scheduled CorW* ion Datr 10/28/98 Last Contact w.
.tific % i 4/7/98 Petition Manager:
W. Gleaves Case Attorney:
S. Chidakel issues / Action Requested:
Petitioner requests that the NRC take enforcement action to modify, suspend or revoke Florida Power & Light's (FPL's) operating licenses until the licensee can demonstrate that employees can freely raise safety concerns; escalated enforcement action due to discriminatory practices of the licensee; that the Agency's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) conduct a public hearing and permit petitioner leave to intervsne in such a hearing; that the NRC require the licenses to post a written notice alongside each NRC Form-3 currently posted at the licensee's nuclear facilities, which alerts employees that they can directly contact the NRC about safety concerns and ensure that all employees are made aware through the licensee's General Employee Training Program; that the NRC require FPL to provide the Agency with written documents authored by Mr. James Broadhead, under affirmation th at the Agency's requirements as described above have been fully complied with: that the NRC investiga:a tiie circumstances surrounding recent adverse employment actions taken i
against licensee employee Mr. John Giles and other licensee empicyees at the St. Lucie plant; to determire if a
" hostile work environment" exists at the St. Lucie plant; I
and to de: ermine if a " chilling effect" has been suffidently instilled at the licensee's nuclear stations; to determine if the licsnsee's Employee Concern:: Program is effectively utilized by the employees; and to determine whether licensee management neede, further training in sddressing employee concerns and inteipersonal skills; that the NRC investigate recent adverse employment actions against Mr. Cf.rries Bogecki at the St. Lucie plent; that the NRC initiate an Augmented Maintenance inspection Team to determine why the licensee's performance at the St. Lucie 16 e
i
plant has continually deteriorated over the past several years; to determine if layoffs have resulted in a core work force that is not trained or skilled to properly maintain the balance of the plant; to determine whether the licensee has an adequate number of cmployees to safely operate and maintain the St. Lucie plant; and to determine whether FPL management has acted imprudently in i
purchasing other power stations in the eastern United States; that the NRC, ORDER FPL to submit a plan for an independent written appraisal of the St. Lucie plant and corporate organizations; that the Commission issue an ORDER designating a time and place for a public hearing and grant petitioner leave to intervene at such hearing on behalf of the public; that the NRC issue FPL a Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the cumulative amount of $500,000 for repetitive violations at
(
the St. Lucie plant; that the NRC issue an ORDER requiring FPL to immediately inform all employees at its nuclear stations, in writing, that the employees are encouraged to raise safety concerns directly to the NRC without first identifying those safety concerns to FPL; that the NRC issue an ORDER requiring FPL to immediately implement, in its general employee training program, an extensive training module which clearly outlines the employee protaction previsions under 42 U.S.C. 5851, Energy Reorganization Act; that the NRC require FPL to inform employces about how to file a discrimination comp!aint with the U.S. DOL: that the NRC issue an ORDER requiring FPL to immediately implement, a training module which outlines the litigation proceedings when a complaint is filed with the DOL by the employee; that the NRC require the licensee to permit NLC to address its employees to advise them of their right to protection under the ERA:
that the NRC require FPL to permit NLC to address its employees on a monthly basis in order to maintain a working relationship with the employees; that the NRC ORDER FPL to immediately inform Mr. James Murphy, in writing, that FPL encourages him to raise safet/ concerns directly to the NRC and that FPL will not take any reprisals against him for such conduct; that the NRC provide all NRC licensee employees nationwide with a means to confidentially identify safety concerns via the internet; that the NRC modify its NRC Form-3 to incluoe instructions about how te secess the internet for reporting safety concerns to the NRC confidentially; that the NRC investigate whether FPL's settlement of John Giles' f
17
_~...
i Section 211 complaint may " chill" the licensee's work i
force; that the NRC take immediate actions to protect i
licensee employees from reprisals for engaging in protected activities; that the NRC ORDER FPL to immediately shut down all four nuc! ear units until it j
determines that employees are encouraged to raise safety I
concerns; that the NRC investigate the storm drains from the RCA at St. Lucie that flow into an unlined pond outside of the RCA.
Current Status:
The petition manager telephoned the petitioner on 4/7/98 inferming him that t?ie petition process is public, and that an acknowledgment letter has been developed. The petitioner informed the project manager that more supplements should be expected in the near future. The acknowledgment letter is in the concurrence chain for fins' review and issuance.
l END OF STATUS REPORT l
l i
l 1
I 18 Attachtnent 1 s
~ -. -.
i
[
t Decisions Pending Before the Commission and the Courts Facility:
Saabrook Petitioner:
J. Doughty, The Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Date of Petition:
12/18/97 t
EDO Number:
G970J73 OGC Number:
P-97 015 Petition Manager:
C. Smith Case Attorney:
C. Holzle i
A final Director's Decision was i: sued 3/17/98. The final Director's Decision was subject to review by the Commission for 25 days, This >etition is now closed, and will no longer be listed in this report.
l I
t f
19
l l
< < <- NOT FOR EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION -> > >
Petitions involving the Office of Enforcement (OE),
the Office of Investigations (01), the laspector General (IG), and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and Other Sensitive Information Petitioners:
G. Galatis, and E. Hadley on behalf of We the People, Inc.
i Facility /EDO No.:
Millstone /EDO603 Comments:
The O! report and issues regarding potentiallicensee wrongdoing have been forwarded to the Department 'f Justice for review and coordination.
Petitioners:
R. Bassilakis Facility /EDO No.:
Connecticut Yankee /GT97181 i
Comments:
OE and 01 are awaiting decision from Department of Justice.
END OF PENDING ACTIONS i
i l
l 20 I
I
..