ML20214M696
| ML20214M696 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 09/08/1986 |
| From: | Conner T CONNER & WETTERHAHN |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| CON-#386-636 2.206, OL, NUDOCS 8609110229 | |
| Download: ML20214M696 (3) | |
Text
h5b Law orrscEs D0LKETED CONNER & WETTERIIAIIN, P.C.
USNRC 17 4 7 I'E N N S Y LVA N I A AV E N U E. N. W.
WAfillIN GTON, D. C. 20000
.g gFrigE{
Q_,
.m.. a.g.ac..ours.
September 8, 1986 BRANCH CABLE ADDRESS: ATONLAW eder.trnuMam
,'.. o u.
0 W 7,1Cf a
Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Chilk:
This responds to various correspondence recently submitted by Robert L.
Anthony to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on behalf of Friends of the Earth.
Specifically, Mr. Anthony has submitted a letter dated August 21, 1986 which purports to petition the Commission for relief pursu-ant to 10 C.F.R. 550.100; a letter dated August 25, 1986, which purports to seek review by the Of fice of the General Counsel of decisions by the NRC Staff pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S2.206; and a letter dated August 25, 1986, responding to an earlier letter to Mr. Anthony from Stephen G.
Burns, Acting Acsistant General Counsel for Enforcement.
We provide the following as background and comment on behalf of Licensee Philadelphia Electric Company.
On February 27,
- 1986, Mr.
Anthony petitioned the Commission to suspend the operating license for the Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1,
on the basis of its authority specified in 10 C.F.R.
S50.100.
The Commission referred that petition to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for a response.
By letter dated April 16, 1986, the Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, determined that the " petition" submitted by Mr. Anthony did nothing more "than merely recite facts which the agency has itself developed through inspections, adjudications or notifica-tions."
Because the petition simply disagreed with the NRC's
- actions, the Acting Director determined that it provided an insufficient basis for Staff action pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.206.
8609110229 860908 PDR ADOCK 05000352 O
PDR f.M 03
Samuel J. Chilk
,S:ptember 8, 1986 Pcg3 2 In correspondence dated April 29 and July 5, 1986, Mr.
Anthony protested this decision, claiming that the comunis-l sion erred in referring the matter initially to the Staff i
pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.206.
By letter dated August 13, 1986, Mr. Burns, the Acting Assistant. General Counsel for Enforcement, replied to these protests and explained why the earlier petitions had been referred to the Staff under Section 2.206 rather than handled by the Commission directly pursuant to Section '50.100.
As Mr. Burns stated, Section 50.100 "merely codifies the plenary authority of the-Connaission granted to it by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
It "does not grant to members of the public a procedural right to petition the Commission."
The procedural right to petition the NPC is granted solely by l
Section 2.206, which explicitly states that the NRC Staff decides such petitions.
Without any justification, Mr. Anthony's most recent f
spate of correspondence seeks to revisit these matters, k
i Based upon the statement in 10 C.F.R. Part 1 of the duties l
of the Of fice of the General Counsel, Mr. Anthony requests the General Counsel to " reverse" the earlier decisions by the NRC Staff denying Mr.
Anthony relief under Section 2.206.
Obviously, Mr. Anthony has misread the provisions of 10 C.F.R.
$1.32(b),
which merely state, inter alia, that the Office of the General Counsel is responH 5le for L
reviewing rulings by the NRC Staf f under Section 2.206 in providing legal
_ advice and reconunendations to the Commissioners.
- Moreover, the provisions of 10 C.F.R.
$2.206 (c) (2) expressly provide that a petitioner may not seek Commission review of an adverse decision by the Director on a petition under Section 2.206.
Such decisions are reviewable only in the discretion of the Commission.
i The other matter raised by Mr. Anthony involves a new l
petition purportedly filed under Section 50.100, based upon a letter dated August 5,
1986 from Robert M.
- Bernero, i
Director, Division of BWR Licensing, to the Licensee.
In that letter, Mr. Bernero stated the NRC Staff's concern regarding the testing at Limerick of certain excess flow check valves in the early part of 19.86.
Mr. Bernero cited ~a departure 'from expected standards of communication, but
[
concluded that no plant operational safety significant l
aspects of the valve testing had been identified.
i Therefore, Mr.
Bernero stated that no further need for corrective action had been identified and that no response to the August 5, 1986 letter was required.
Thus, Mr. Anthony's petition is another classic case of simply reciting facts which the NRC has itself developed t
e a
....._......J..~......._._..._.__.J..._._....:.
u _.
Samuol J. Chilk
~
S ptember 8, 1986
'
- Pcg2 3 through its regulatory oversight of the Licensee.
Inasmuch as the NRC Staff has determined that there was no legal violation, much less a willful violation, and no need for l
further corrective
- action, no basis exists for action pursuant to Section 2.206.
Accordingly, Mr. Anthony's " petitions" of August 21 and l
August 25, 1986 should be denied.
Sincerely, M*dd.
Tro Conner, Jr.
I add l
cc:
Eugene J. Bradley, Esq.
Robert L. Anthony e
i 0
9 8
g e
e a