ML20134L560
| ML20134L560 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1997 |
| From: | Miraglia F NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134L556 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 9702190204 | |
| Download: ML20134L560 (5) | |
Text
__.
8 la*
1 ~.
~
i 7590-01-P U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0fMISSION Docket No. 50-271 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 Notice is hereby given that on December 6, 1996, the Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. (CAN or Petitioner) filed a Petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 with the Secretary of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requesting evaluation of certain documents relating to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station operated by the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Licensee) to determine whether enforcement action was warranted.
The first document included in the Petition is a CAN memorandum dated December 5, 1996, that reviews information presented by the Licensee at an enforcement conference held on July 23, 1996, involving the Vermont Yankee residual heat removal system minimum flow valves. CAN raises a concern that the corrective action taken by the Licensee in opening these valves may have introduced an unreviewed safety question with regard to containment isolation.
The second document included in the Petition is a CAN memorandum dated December 6, 1996, that reviews certain licensee event reports (LERs) submitted by the Licensee in the latter part of 1996. A variety of issues are discussed including fire protection, tornado protection, thermal protection for piping lines, equipment operability, and equipment testing. On the basis of its analysis of the LERs, CAN reaches certain conclusions regarding the performance of the Licensee and actions that should be taken.
9702190204 970212 PDR ADOCK 05000271 Q
\\ On the basis of these documents, CAN requests that the NRC determine whether enforcement action is warranted pursuant to 10 CFR 2.205.
The issues in the Petition are being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. As provided by 10 CFR 2.206, appropriate ' action with regard to these issues will be taken within a reasonable time. By letter dated February 12, 1997 the Acting Director acknowledged receipt of the Petition.
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. 20555-0001, and at the local public document room located at Brooks Memorial Library, 224 Main Street, Brattleboro, VT 05301.
i FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO MISSION 1242)L. $JA'CLC LL raha,NtingDirector Frank J.
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of Feb. 1997, i
~.~ m-..~e w. ~ n.- a.>
w.w.u.. u I
F I
l 4
l d;
as Y
s l
l
-449/ 2 ??l } e f/r*.
1 1
1 1
i i
l
]
t-
introduction Off er mg. unaer cenam circumstash es, an mfor-e mal pubhc hearmy to a pentioner.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulaton Commmion (NRC) was estabbshed m 19% to pn teet public health and l
ng cope of 4, primmt myn.
ou salelv m the civihan use of nuclear pow er and materi-dence to all participants mvolved in a petition is-als in the United States. As part of its res[xmsibilitics, NRC is micrested in assessing all potential health Identifying a smgle apeng contact for each peti-e and safety issues related to lin nsed activitics and en-tion.
courapes members of the pubhc to bring serious is-Keeping the petitmner mformed of the status sucs to its attenoon.
w thin every 60 days.
Secuon 2.2W>o! Title 100f the Codcoffedera/Regula-Establishing an electronic hulleun board to pro-e tions (10 CFR 2.200) describcE the petition process-
{
VEdC the status of all pendmg pelihons to the the primary mechanism for the public to request en-pubh,e.
g forcement action by NRC in a public proecss.* This process permits anyone to petition NRC to take en.
j The Pelition Process forcement action related to NRC licensees or li-censed activities. Dependinp on the resuh-ofits eval-The 2.206 process provides a simple, effective mecha-uation. NRC could moJify, suspend, or revoke an nism for anyone to request enforcement action and NRC-iwued license or take any ot her appropnate en-obtain NRC's prornpt. Ihorough, and objective evalu-i ation of underlying safety issues. I: is separate and forcement action to resolve a problem. Requests Ihat l
distinct from t he processes for rulemaking and licens-raise b alth and safet) issues without requestmg en-f ing, ahhough they too allow the public to raise safety forecrr at setion are reviewed by means other than i
concerns to NRC.
the 2.266 P4ocess.
i In 1993. NRC reassessed ihe 2.206 petition process to Under the 2.206 process, the petitioner submits a re-determine whether it was effective, understandabic, quest in writing to NRC's Executis e Director for Op-and credible. As part of its reassessment. the agency erations, ider tifying the affected beensee or beensed held a public workshop and obtamcJ extensive com-activhy, the requested enforcement action to be tal-en. and the facts t he peti;ioner believes provide sufD-ments from citizens' groups, the nuclear industry.
i former petitioners, and State and kical governments.
l cient grounds for NRC to take enforcement actica.
i Unsupported assertions of " safety problems." gen :r-As a result. NRC made improvements to the 2.206 process to increase opportunities for meaningful al opposition to nuclear power, or identification of public participation and to improve communications safety issues without seeking enforcement action arc between the petitioner and NRC.
not considered sufficient grounds for consideranon as a 2.206 petition.
Rese improvements include-After receiving a request. NRC deterrnines whether (1 ; the request qualifies as a 2.206 petition,(2) an in-
- The NRC also has on allegation process m w hich indindu-vestipalson of potertttal wrongdoinp is appropriate, ah who raise pmennal wety concerns for NRC renew are afforded a de;w of protection of their idenoty. Specific and G)an mformal nublic hearing is warranted. 'lhe ruidance on 1:, allegantn pmeess is contamed in NRC NRC. sends an acknowledgment letter to the petition-hianayement imeetive b.b. -Management of Allega-cr and a copy to the licensee. If the request is ac.
tions. and desen5cd in a separate pamphlet armtahic i
from the Ofhce of Pubbe Af: airs Other proccsses for pub-ecpted for revicw as a 2.206 petitson NRC punlishes a he involvement are hsted a: the end of ttus pamphlet notice in the /rderalRegiMer if the request is not ac-cepted. NRC notthes the petitioner of its decision
1 and indicates th t the petitioner's underlying safety e significant safety issue not previously evaluated or concerns will be considered outside the 2.206 process, provides a new approach or information on a signifi.
cant safety issue previously evaluated by NRC. No in-On the basis of an evaluation of the petition, the ap.
formal public hearing is offered if the petition in-propriate office director issues a decision and, if war-volves sensitive information such as safeguards, facil-r:nted, NRC takes appropriate enfortement action, ity security, proprietary, or confidential commercial Throughout the evaluation process, NRC sends co.
information. The NRC publishes a notice in the Fed-pies of all pertinent correspondence to the petitioner cral Register 30 days in advance of each informal pub-and the affected licensee. In most cases, NRC places
[
lic hearing.
correspondence in the Public Document Room l
(PDR)in Washington, D. C., as well as the appropri-He informal public hearing is usually held near the e
ate Local Public Document Room (LPDR) near the affected facility or,if the petition raises genericissues affected facility. However, the agency withholds in-l covering facilities nationwide, in the Washington, formation that would compromise an investigation or D.C., area. To the extent practicable, the informal ongoing enforcement action relating to issues in the public hearing is scheduled during the evening hours petition.The NRC also sends the petitioner other in.
I and should last no longer than three hours.The NRC formation such as peninent generic letters and bulle-I does not offer any preliminary decisions during the tins.
j informal public hearing. Although not adjudicatory j
in nature, the informal public hearing is transcribed, ne NRC notifies the petitioner of the petition's sta, and the text is made public shortly afterwards.
j tus every 60 days, or more frequently if a significant cction occurs. Monthly updates on all pending 2.206 petitions are available in the PDR and on an elec-Director's Decision tronic bulletin board, which is available to the public through the Internet-De NRC's official response to a 2.206 petition is a written director's decision that addresses the con-Inf:rmtd Public Hearing cerns raised in the petition. The agency's goalis Io is-sue a decision within 120 days from the date of the ac-An informal public hearing serves not only as a I
knowledgment ietter. However, additional time may source of potentially valuable information for NRC be needed to conduct an investigation, hold an infor-to evaluate a 2.206 petition, but also affords the peti, mal public hearing, complete an inspection, or ana-i tioner substantive involvement in the review and lyze particularly complex technicalissues. If the goal decision-making process through direct discussions is not met, the NRC staff wi!! promptlyinform the pe-with NRC and the licensee. An informal public hear.
titioner of a schedule change.
ing is offered only if the petition meets certain re-quirements;it is not offered automatically or solely at The director's decision includes the professional the petitioner's request. Note that an informal public staff's evaluation of all pertinent information from
{
hearing can be offered at any time during NRC's re-the petition, correspondence with the petitioner and view of a petition.
the licensec, information from any informal public hearing, results of any investigation or inspection, To qualify for an informal public hearing, the petition and any other documen'ts related to petition issues.
must present newinformation that raises a significant The director's decision is provided to the petitioner safety issue or alleges violation of NRC require.
and the licensee and is published in the Federa/ Regis-ments. Information is considered "new"ifit presents
'cr-i
l 1
Director's decisions may be issued as follows:
(PC) and a modem, by calling 1-800-303-%72 (com-munication parameters 8-N-1-F). De FedWorld A decision granting a petition in full, explains bulletin board can be accessed via the Internet:
the basis for the decision and grants the action requested in the petition (e.g., NRC issuing an Telnet Access fedworld. gov (192.239.93.3) order to modify, suspend, or revoke a license).
FTP Site Access - ftp.fedworld. gov A decision denying a petition, in full, provides WWW the reascn for the denial and discusses all mat-ters raised in the petition.
(Home Page) -
http://www.fedworld. gov A partial director's decision may be issued Files on public petitions can be found in the NRC-when-PUB library that can be selected from any FedWorld The NRC decides not to grant the enforce.
file system.There are PCs located at the main PDR l
e ment action requested in the petition but and several 1.PDRs which are available to the public.
takes other appropriate enforcement action Call 202-634-3273 for infc.. nation about PC access at (e.g., requesting facility or procedural modi-the PDR and call 1-800-638-8081 for the LPDRs.
fications) to resolve the identified safety I
concerns, thus partially denying the petition; or Other Processes for Public involvement Some of the issues associated with the peti-In addition to the 2.206 petition process, NRC has e
tion can be completed and significant sched-several other ways that permit the public to express ule delays are anticipated before resolution concerns on ' matters related to the NRC's regulatory of the entire petition.
activities.
%c Commission will not entertain requests for re-The NRC's al/cgation process affords individ uals e
view of a director's decision. Ilowever, on its own, it who raise safety concerns a degree of protection may review a decision within 25 calendar days. After.
of theiridentity.
i wards, NRC writes to the petitioner indicating wheth-Under the provisions of 10 CFR 2.802, NRC e
cr the Commission has reviewed the decision and sends copies to the licensee and PDR.
provides an opportunity for the public to peti-tion the agency regarding its rulemaking activi-ties.
NRC Management Directive 8.11. " Review Process ne NRC's licensingprocess offers members of e
for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions," contains more detailed informatic.2 on citizen petitions. For a free copy of the public, who are specifically affected by a li-the directive, write to the Superintendent of Docu.
censing action, to for,aally participate in licens-ments, U. S. Government Printing Office, P. O. Box in8 Proceedings. This process applies not only to 37082. Washington, DC 20013-7082, or call the mitial licensing actions but also to license 202-512-1800.
amendments and otheractivities such as decom-missioning and license renewals.
For major regulatory actions invohing prepara-Electronic Access to Petitions e
tion of environmentalimpact statements, NRC The NRC's electronic bulletin board on 2.206 peti-offers separate opportunities for public partici-tions may be accessed, using a personal computer pation in its environmentalproceedings.
-m.
w w.-
e ' 'Itc public can attend a number of meetings in-eluding open enforcement confcrences. period-i ic media briefings by Regional Administrators, l
and special meetings held near the affected faci-litics to inform local communities and respond l
to their questions.
More information on these activities can be NRC's pamphlet entitled,"PublicInvolvement in the Nuclear Regulatory Process."
1 l
i i
L Office of Public Affairs U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, DC 20555-0001 Telephone 301-415-8200 or 1-800-368-5642 i
NUREGIBR-0200, Rev.1 n
,j 1
1 December 1995 1
Clos 1996 - 167-970 QL2 4
a 4
T d
l l
,e
p.
a YWUh k
in a ?
l'
$# h[h(j;n j
EDO. Principal Correspondence Control i
e-7 lFROM:
DUE: E is/37 EDO CONTROL: G960950 DOC DT: 12/06/96 FINAL REPLY:
lJon2than Block.
'Attorn13y for Citizens Awareness Network, Inc.
l TO:.
Offic:e of Secretary lFOR SIGNATURE OF :
- CRN CRC NO: 96-1232 IDESC:
ROUTING:
' ~2.206 PETITION REQUESTING ENFORCEMENT ACTION Taylor l
CONCERNING VERMONT YANKEE Milhoan Thompson Blaha Miraglia, NRR Lieberman, OE
,DATE: 12/17/96 Miller, RI i
i
- l. ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
OGC Cyr
^
lSPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
i NRR RECEIVED:
JANUARY 16, 1997 l
NRR ACTION:
DRPE:VARGA NRR ROUTING:
MIRAGLIA kCIlO[l THADANI
~
~
ZIMMERMo.N
, v v +~
DUE-niu NRR D-r v-n~n urr w
- ncu u SHER 0!
I TRAVERS J. KENNEDY bf - g y> / ((
MARTIN B0HRER L
)
i i
CONTROLLED CORRESPONDENCE FROM:
Jonathan Block, Milano/Rooney Atty. for Citizens Awareness Network.
EDO #:
G960950 PLANT:
VERMONT YANKEE
{
SUBJECT:
2.206.
REQUESTING ENFORCEMENT ACTION RE INFORMATION IN ATTACHED DOCUMENTS.
DATE REFERRED TO NRR:
January 16, 1997, as 2.206
[ Received earlier on 12/18 as reg. ticket]
DATE DUE TO EDO:
Feb. 7, 1997. (acknowledgement letter).
Feb. 4 to NRR Mailroom.
FOR SIGNATURE OF:
ISSUES RAISED:
WEEKLY MEETINGS AND CURRENT STATUS:
CONTACTS:
NRR:
OGC:
,