ML20217B404

Responds to Submitted as Petition Under 10CFR2.206 Seeking Certain Action by NRC W/Respect to Fp&L. Request Will Not Be Reviewed,Per 10CFR2.206,due to Listed Reasons

ML20217B404
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	04/21/1998
From:	Lieberman J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Saporito T SAPORITO, T.J.
References
2.206, EA-98-009, EA-98-9, NUDOCS 9804230029
Download: ML20217B404 (3)

Text

_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

TDC 5

/*o %*

i3 DR UNITED STATES m

[

j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

1. E WASHINGTON, D.C. 20665-0001

\\ *****/

April 21, 1998 Mr. Thomas J. Saporito, Jr.

Executive Director National Litigation Consultants 6230 W. Indiantown Road, Suite 7-355 Jupiter, Florida 33458

SUBJECT:

PETITION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 - REQUEST FOR AGENCY ACTION WITH RESPECT TO EA 98-009 CONCERNING NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF civil PENALTY FOR FLORIDA POWER &

LIGHT's ST. LUCIE FACILITY

Dear Mr. Saporito:

I am responding to your March 30,1998 letter on behalf of the National Litigation Consultants (NLC or Petitioners) which you submitted as a petition under 10 C.F.R. 2.206 seeking certain action by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) with respect to its licensee Florida Power & Light Company (FPL). Specifically, you requested that (1) the NRC grant Petitioners a hearing with respect to EA 98-009 Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty -

$88,000 (NOV) (NRC Special Inspection Report Nos. 50-335/97-16;50-389/97-16) and (2) the NRC grant Petitioners leave to intervene in said hearing on behalf of the public; to calllicensee witnesses; to call NRC witnesses; to conduct cross examination of witnesses; to engage in pre-hearing discovery; and to assist the NRC in the administration of its Congressionally mandated duty to protect public health and safety under 10 C.F.R. Part 50.

As a basis for your request, you asserted that the NOV is not sufficierit to dissuade the licensee from allowing the violation to recur and fails to insure that public health and safety will be protected during continued operations at the St. Lucie Facility.

The Commission has interpreted 10 C.F.R. 2.206 to require 'that any request submitted pursuant to that regulation be a request for enforcement action. In addition, a petition will not be reviewed under 10 C.F.R. 2.206 if it is a request to reconsider or reopen a previous enforcement action which does not present significant new information that indicates that the previous enforcement action was in error as provided in the Commission's Enforcement Policy (NUREG 1600). Your request is neither a request for enforcement action, nor does it present significant new information that indicates that the prior enforcement action taken by the Commission was in error. Therefore, your request will not be reviewed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206.

Sincerely,

~

James Lieberman, Director

\\C Office of Enforcement cc: See next page h

~

9904230029 980421 PDR ADOCK 05000335 P

PDR

Thomas J. Saporito, Jr. cc:

Billie Pirner Garde, Esq.

Clifford, Lyons, & Garde 1620 L. Street, NW, Suite 625 Washington, DC 20036-5631 1

I i

j

)

1 Thomas J. Saporito, Jr.

DISTRIBUTION LCallan, EDO AThadani, DEDE HThompson, DEDR PNorry, DEDM JBlaha, AEDO SBurns, OGC LReyes,Ril SCollins, NRR KCyr, OGC JGoldberg, OGC BGleaves, NRR j

JLieberman, OE EDO R/F Day File Subject File (EDO 980197) i l

l i

l lc p

pt

,g O

O{s@ /

D;Okk TRIS 5')Goidberd Jherman 04/b /98 04//(o /98 i Od/31/98 Doc Name: G:\\980197.gt j

j