ML20057F445
| ML20057F445 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1993 |
| From: | Gray J NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20057F444 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 9310180011 | |
| Download: ML20057F445 (3) | |
Text
.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docket No. 50-271 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION RECEIPT OF PETITION UNDER 10 C.F.R. C 2.206 Notice is hereby given that on September 1,
- 1993, Messrs. Richard Daley and Jonathan M. Block submitted a Petition i
on behalf of the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, to i
the Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regarding the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY).
The Petition has been referred to the Office of Enforcement for preparation of a response pursuant ta 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206.
The Petitioners request that the NRC reconsider the civil penalty assessed against VY for operating outside Technical Specifications (TS) from October 15, 1993 to April 6,
- 1993, because the Petitioners believe that CRC enforcement action was inadequate.
I a
The Petitioners recite the basic facts that formed the basis for l
E1.93-112 and assert that the NRC staff did not deal with the Licensee in a manner commensurate with the severity of the violations.
Specifically, the Petition states that in October of 1992, routine surveillance of control rod scram insertion revealed that VY was operating outside TS 3.3.C.1.1 and 3.3.C.1.2.
It goes on to state that limiting conditions for 9310100011 931012 PDR ADOCK 05000271 0
PDR 1
operating the plant require an immediate shutdown under such circumstances and VY did not shut down or report this situation to the NRC.
The Petition then states that VY continued to operate until the situation was again observed in April of 1993 and then an on-site safety inspection of VY was conducted by NRC Region I from April 14 to 16, 1993.
The report of that inspection, which was issued on May 24, 1993, with a cover letter from the Director, Division of Reactor Safety, NRC Region I, contained six questions for VY.
The Petitioners allege that Questions 2 through 5 of that letter were not adequately answered.
i Specifically, the disputed questions are as follows:
....(2) the specific reasons for not shutting down the plant when required by i
the Technical Specifications and the approved test procedure, (3) the reasons for not pursuing a root cause determination and corrective actions for approximately six months, (4) the results of your historical reviews of control rod testing to determine if there were previous Technical Specification violations, (5) your design control processes, including one-for-one equivalency evaluations, as they apply to material changes in safety-related i
equipment,....."
i i
i l
The Petitioners' claim that VY did not adequately answer these j
questions is based upon Petitioners' examination of the available materials VY submitted to the NRC and their belief that this
P alleged failure to answer such questions is part of what the Regional Administrator referred to as " programmatic weaknesses" at VY.
The Petition states that these allegedly unanswered questions provide a sufficient basis to warrant review of the penalty assessed to VY and Petitioners ask that such a review be undertaken immediately.
As provided by Section 2.206, appropriate action with regard to the specific issues raised in the Petition will be taken within a reasonable time.
A copy of the Petition is available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street, N.W.,
Washington D.C.
20555 and at the Local Public Document Room for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant located at Brooks Memorial Library, 224 Main Street, Brattleboro, Vermont 05301.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this I day of b b b6(-
1993.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jh ti 7
Jp eph
. Gray, epu Director O
ic of Enfo eme
.