ML112430369: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED NUCLEAR REGULATORY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555*0001 October 17, 2011 Mr. Thomas Saporito P.O. Box 8413 Jupiter, FL 33468-8413 | {{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555*0001 October 17, 2011 Mr. Thomas Saporito P.O. Box 8413 Jupiter, FL 33468-8413 | ||
==Dear Mr. Saporito:== | ==Dear Mr. Saporito:== | ||
By letter dated August 1,2011 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML11214A228), and addressed to the Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission), you requested that the NRC take escalated enforcement action against Exelon Generation Company, LLC, the licensee for Limerick Generating Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2. Specifically, you asked that under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 2.206, the NRC deny the licensee's application for renewal of Operating License Numbers NPF-39 and NPF-85. Your request was referred to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) for evaluation. | By letter dated August 1,2011 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML11214A228), and addressed to the Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission), you requested that the NRC take escalated enforcement action against Exelon Generation Company, LLC, the licensee for Limerick Generating Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2. Specifically, you asked that under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 2.206, the NRC deny the licensee's application for renewal of Operating License Numbers NPF-39 and NPF-85. Your request was referred to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) for evaluation. After reviewing your request, NRR denied it by letter dated August 17, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML112231397), referring you instead to the license renewal process. By letter dated August 20, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11237A013), you asked the NRC Chairman to order the NRC staff to accept your request as a petition under 10 CFR 2.206. Your August 20, 2011, letter has been assigned back to NRR to provide a response. | ||
After reviewing your request, NRR denied it by letter dated August 17, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML112231397), referring you instead to the license renewal process. By letter dated August 20, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11237A013), you asked the NRC Chairman to order the NRC staff to accept your request as a petition under 10 CFR 2.206. Your August 20, 2011, letter has been assigned back to NRR to provide a response. | Management Directive (MD) 8.11, "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions" (ADAMS Accession No. ML041770328), is the governing procedure that the NRC staff uses to process 10 CFR 2.206 requests. This procedure contains no provision for appeals of NRC staff decisions made while evaluating 10 CFR 2.206 requests. Thus. your latest request is not being considered an appeal. However, to be responsive, the NRC staff will further explain the basis for our decision regarding your August 1, 2011, request. | ||
Management Directive (MD) 8.11, "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions" (ADAMS Accession No. ML041770328), is the governing procedure that the NRC staff uses to process 10 CFR 2.206 requests. | In accordance with MD 8.11, one criterion for rejecting a petition filed under 10 CFR 2.206 is that: | ||
This procedure contains no provision for appeals of NRC staff decisions made while evaluating 10 CFR 2.206 requests. | The request is to deny a license application or amendment. This type of request should initially be addressed in the context of the relevant licensing action, not under 10 CFR 2.206. | ||
Thus. your latest request is not being considered an appeal. However, to be responsive, the NRC staff will further explain the basis for our decision regarding your August 1, 2011, request. In accordance with MD 8.11, one criterion for rejecting a petition filed under 10 CFR 2.206 is that: The request is to deny a license application or amendment. | Because your request is to deny the LGS license renewal application, this criterion applies. and it is the basis for the staffs decision. This criterion applies regardless of whether you personally can demonstrate standing to intervene in the license renewal proceeding because, regardless of whether you become a party to the proceeding. the proceeding could lead to the result you seek,. which is denial of the licensee's renewal application. | ||
This type of request should initially be addressed in the context of the relevant licensing action, not under 10 CFR 2.206. Because your request is to deny the LGS license renewal application, this criterion applies. and it is the basis for the staffs decision. | In addition, MD 8.11 requires that the petition must contain a request for enforcement-related action. The action you seek, denial of a license renewal application, is not an enforcement related action. Rather, it is a licensing action. Thus, your August 1, 2011, request was subject to rejection under this criterion as well. | ||
This criterion applies regardless of whether you personally can demonstrate standing to intervene in the license renewal proceeding because, regardless of whether you become a party to the proceeding. | |||
the proceeding could lead to the result you seek,. which is denial of the licensee's renewal application. | T. Saporito -2 You also state that your August 1, 2011, request was submitted prior to the availability of the hearing process for license renewal. While this is correct, the timing of your submission is not relevant in determining the appropriate process to address your concerns, given that the license renewal application review is currently ongoing. | ||
In addition, MD 8.11 requires that the petition must contain a request for enforcement-related action. The action you seek, denial of a license renewal application, is not an related action. Rather, it is a licensing action. Thus, your August 1, 2011, request was subject to rejection under this criterion as well. | The NRC acknowledges receipt of the concerns you raise in your August 1, 2001, request, including your concern with reactor vessel embrittlement. However, your concerns fall within the scope of the license renewal application review. Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21 (c)(1), an applicant for a renewed license must identify time-limited aging analyses (TLAAs) in the renewal application. In accordance with this requirement, LGS, in their application dated June 22, 2011, (ADAMS Accession No. ML11179A101), Section 4.2, identified reactor pressure vessel neutron embrittlement as a TLAA. The NRC staff will document the results of its review of the renewal application, including the TLAAs, in a safety analysis report, which is scheduled to be issued in January 2013. Your specific concerns have been forwarded to the NRC's license renewal project manager for the LGS application, for consideration during that review. | ||
T. Saporito You also state that your August 1, 2011, request was submitted prior to the availability of the hearing process for license renewal. While this is correct, the timing of your submission is not relevant in determining the appropriate process to address your concerns, given that the license renewal application review is currently ongoing. The NRC acknowledges receipt of the concerns you raise in your August 1, 2001, request, including your concern with reactor vessel embrittlement. | Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the NRC. Please contact Peter Bamford, Project Manager for LGS, Units 1 and 2, if you have any questions. Mr. Bamford may be reached at 301-415-2833. | ||
However, your concerns fall within the scope of the license renewal application review. Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21 (c)(1), an applicant for a renewed license must identify time-limited aging analyses (TLAAs) in the renewal application. | Sincerely, | ||
In accordance with this requirement, LGS, in their application dated June 22, 2011, (ADAMS Accession No. ML11179A101), Section 4.2, identified reactor pressure vessel neutron embrittlement as a TLAA. The NRC staff will document the results of its review of the renewal application, including the TLAAs, in a safety analysis report, which is scheduled to be issued in January 2013. Your specific concerns have been forwarded to the NRC's license renewal project manager for the LGS application, for consideration during that review. Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the NRC. Please contact Peter Bamford, Project Manager for LGS, Units 1 and 2, if you have any questions. | ~£--- | ||
Mr. Bamford may be reached at 301-415-2833. | Robert Nelson, Deputy Director Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 cc: Distribution via Listserv | ||
Sincerely, Robert Nelson, Deputy Director Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 cc: Distribution via Listserv | |||
ML11179A101), Section 4.2, identified reactor pressure vessel neutron embrittlement as a TLAA. The NRC staff will document the results of its review of the renewal application, including the TLAAs, in a safety analysis report, which is scheduled to be issued in January 2013. Your specific concerns have been forwarded to the NRC's license renewal project manager for the LGS application, for consideration during that review. | |||
Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the NRC. Please contact Peter Bamford, Project Manager for LGS, Units 1 and 2, if you have any questions. Mr. Bamford may be reached at 301-415-2833. | |||
Mr. Bamford may be reached at 301-415-2833. | Sincerely, IRAI Robert Nelson, Deputy Director Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 cc: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION: G20110628tEDATS: OEDO-2011-0582tG20110570/EDATS: OEDO-2011-0539 PUBLIC LPL 1-2 RtF RidsNrrLAABaxter Resource RidsNrrDorlLpl1-2 RidsOgcRp Resource RidsNrrPMLimerick Resource RidsNrrMailCenter Resource RidsNrrOd Resource RidsNrrDpr Resource RidsOpaMail Resource MBanic, J\lRR MClark, OGC RidsNrrDorl Resource RidsRgn1 MailCenter Resource RidsSecyMailCenter Resource RidsOcaMailCenter Resource RidsEdoMailCenter Resource PKrohn, R 1 ADAMS Accession Nos* Pkg ML112430359* Incoming ML11237A013 , Letter ML112430369 OFFICE LPL 1-2/PM LPL 1-2/LA DLR/RPB1/BC OGC LPL 1-2/BC DPR/DD NAME PBamford ABaxter DMorey MClark HChernoff RNelson DATE 9/19/11 9/19/11 9/19/11 9/25/11 10/17/11 10/17/11}} | ||
Sincerely, IRAI Robert Nelson, Deputy Director Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 cc: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION: | |||
G20110628tEDATS: | |||
OEDO-2011-0582tG20110570/EDATS: | |||
OEDO-2011-0539 PUBLIC LPL 1-2 RtF RidsNrrLAABaxter Resource RidsNrrDorlLpl1-2 RidsOgcRp Resource RidsNrrPMLimerick Resource RidsNrrMailCenter Resource RidsNrrOd Resource RidsNrrDpr Resource RidsOpaMail Resource MBanic, J\lRR MClark, OGC RidsNrrDorl Resource RidsRgn1 MailCenter Resource RidsSecyMailCenter Resource RidsOcaMailCenter Resource RidsEdoMailCenter Resource PKrohn, R 1 ADAMS Accession Nos* Pkg ML112430359* | |||
Incoming ML11237A013 , Letter ML112430369 OFFICE LPL 1-2/PM LPL 1-2/LA DLR/RPB1/BC OGC LPL 1-2/BC DPR/DD NAME PBamford ABaxter DMorey MClark HChernoff RNelson DATE 9/19/11 9/19/11 9/19/11 9/25/11 10/17/11 10/17/11 |
Latest revision as of 16:24, 12 November 2019
ML112430369 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Limerick ![]() |
Issue date: | 10/17/2011 |
From: | Nelson R Division of Policy and Rulemaking |
To: | Saporito T Saprodani Associates |
Bamford, Peter J., NRR/DORL 415-2833 | |
Shared Package | |
ml112430359 | List: |
References | |
G20110628, OEDO-2011-0582 | |
Download: ML112430369 (3) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555*0001 October 17, 2011 Mr. Thomas Saporito P.O. Box 8413 Jupiter, FL 33468-8413
Dear Mr. Saporito:
By letter dated August 1,2011 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML11214A228), and addressed to the Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission), you requested that the NRC take escalated enforcement action against Exelon Generation Company, LLC, the licensee for Limerick Generating Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2. Specifically, you asked that under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 2.206, the NRC deny the licensee's application for renewal of Operating License Numbers NPF-39 and NPF-85. Your request was referred to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) for evaluation. After reviewing your request, NRR denied it by letter dated August 17, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML112231397), referring you instead to the license renewal process. By letter dated August 20, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11237A013), you asked the NRC Chairman to order the NRC staff to accept your request as a petition under 10 CFR 2.206. Your August 20, 2011, letter has been assigned back to NRR to provide a response.
Management Directive (MD) 8.11, "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions" (ADAMS Accession No. ML041770328), is the governing procedure that the NRC staff uses to process 10 CFR 2.206 requests. This procedure contains no provision for appeals of NRC staff decisions made while evaluating 10 CFR 2.206 requests. Thus. your latest request is not being considered an appeal. However, to be responsive, the NRC staff will further explain the basis for our decision regarding your August 1, 2011, request.
In accordance with MD 8.11, one criterion for rejecting a petition filed under 10 CFR 2.206 is that:
The request is to deny a license application or amendment. This type of request should initially be addressed in the context of the relevant licensing action, not under 10 CFR 2.206.
Because your request is to deny the LGS license renewal application, this criterion applies. and it is the basis for the staffs decision. This criterion applies regardless of whether you personally can demonstrate standing to intervene in the license renewal proceeding because, regardless of whether you become a party to the proceeding. the proceeding could lead to the result you seek,. which is denial of the licensee's renewal application.
In addition, MD 8.11 requires that the petition must contain a request for enforcement-related action. The action you seek, denial of a license renewal application, is not an enforcement related action. Rather, it is a licensing action. Thus, your August 1, 2011, request was subject to rejection under this criterion as well.
T. Saporito -2 You also state that your August 1, 2011, request was submitted prior to the availability of the hearing process for license renewal. While this is correct, the timing of your submission is not relevant in determining the appropriate process to address your concerns, given that the license renewal application review is currently ongoing.
The NRC acknowledges receipt of the concerns you raise in your August 1, 2001, request, including your concern with reactor vessel embrittlement. However, your concerns fall within the scope of the license renewal application review. Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21 (c)(1), an applicant for a renewed license must identify time-limited aging analyses (TLAAs) in the renewal application. In accordance with this requirement, LGS, in their application dated June 22, 2011, (ADAMS Accession No. ML11179A101), Section 4.2, identified reactor pressure vessel neutron embrittlement as a TLAA. The NRC staff will document the results of its review of the renewal application, including the TLAAs, in a safety analysis report, which is scheduled to be issued in January 2013. Your specific concerns have been forwarded to the NRC's license renewal project manager for the LGS application, for consideration during that review.
Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the NRC. Please contact Peter Bamford, Project Manager for LGS, Units 1 and 2, if you have any questions. Mr. Bamford may be reached at 301-415-2833.
Sincerely,
~£---
Robert Nelson, Deputy Director Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 cc: Distribution via Listserv
ML11179A101), Section 4.2, identified reactor pressure vessel neutron embrittlement as a TLAA. The NRC staff will document the results of its review of the renewal application, including the TLAAs, in a safety analysis report, which is scheduled to be issued in January 2013. Your specific concerns have been forwarded to the NRC's license renewal project manager for the LGS application, for consideration during that review.
Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the NRC. Please contact Peter Bamford, Project Manager for LGS, Units 1 and 2, if you have any questions. Mr. Bamford may be reached at 301-415-2833.
Sincerely, IRAI Robert Nelson, Deputy Director Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 cc: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION: G20110628tEDATS: OEDO-2011-0582tG20110570/EDATS: OEDO-2011-0539 PUBLIC LPL 1-2 RtF RidsNrrLAABaxter Resource RidsNrrDorlLpl1-2 RidsOgcRp Resource RidsNrrPMLimerick Resource RidsNrrMailCenter Resource RidsNrrOd Resource RidsNrrDpr Resource RidsOpaMail Resource MBanic, J\lRR MClark, OGC RidsNrrDorl Resource RidsRgn1 MailCenter Resource RidsSecyMailCenter Resource RidsOcaMailCenter Resource RidsEdoMailCenter Resource PKrohn, R 1 ADAMS Accession Nos* Pkg ML112430359* Incoming ML11237A013 , Letter ML112430369 OFFICE LPL 1-2/PM LPL 1-2/LA DLR/RPB1/BC OGC LPL 1-2/BC DPR/DD NAME PBamford ABaxter DMorey MClark HChernoff RNelson DATE 9/19/11 9/19/11 9/19/11 9/25/11 10/17/11 10/17/11