ML20212N252

Petition for Review & Decision to Reverse DG Eisenhut 860416 & HR Denton 860701 Decisions & to Institute Proceeding for Suspension of License NPF-39,per Author 860227,0429 & 0705 Submittals

ML20212N252
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	08/25/1986
From:	Anthony R ANTHONY, R.L.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
References
CON-#386-495 2.206, NUDOCS 8608280143
Download: ML20212N252 (1)

Text

[

gm.'w

^

U.S.NUCLEAa REGULATORY CouuIsSIos... OFFICE OF GEssRAL counsel RE: PHILA. ELEC. CO. Limerick Gen. Sta. Units 1 & 2 DOCKET'# h k August 25,1b PETITION FOR REVIEW AND DECISION BY OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL hk $6 ISIONS OF D.G.EISBNHUT 4/16/86 AND H.R.DENTON 7/1/86 ON PETITIONS BY R.L. ANTHONY /'NPF-39, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OFFOE TO THE COMMISSIO 1.1320$6%rgsg~gy'f{[~

ION OF LIC.

10 CFR SEC.

BRANCH On2/27/86Authony/F0EpetitionedtheCommissiontosuspendLic.FPF-39 for cause as specified in 10 CFR 50.100.

on 4/29/86 we again peti '

tioned the Commission for suspension and reconsideration of its refer-al to the Staff under Sec.2.206.

We believe tb6 Commission erred in referring our p'etitions to the Staff rather than making a decision itself as an administrative appeal entity.

We requested such a decision is our 7/5/86 petition to the Commission. We received a response from Mr. '

O.G. Burns, dated 8/13/86, stating the General Counsel's rationale for referral of our petitions to the Staff. We do not agree with the General Counsel's interpretation of the regulations as we set forth in a letter

[

of8/25/86.

Since'the General Counsel repeated the Commission's refusal to act directly on our petitions,although such " petitions received from men-bers of the public"'are authorized in 10 CFR 1 32 (b), we now take re-h course,to the provision in the same section for General Counsel review of and decision ou "decisien.1 reached by staff offices under 10 CFR 2.206 while we still take exception to the referrals un' der Sec. 2.206.

We assert that Mr.Eisenhut's and Mr.Denton's decisions refusing to take actics on suspension of the license did not consider the specific vio-lations and submission of false information which we present'ed as con-I olusive bases for suspencion' of the licease for cause.

We further main-tain that,the public Attterest is compromised if the same directors who issue licenses take control over petitions for suspension.

We assert that this is not the intent of the Admin. Procedures Act,NEPA,and AEA.

for We,hereby petition 3 eneral Counsel review of the Director's decisions G

of 4/16 5.nd 7/1/86 and a decision to reverse the Directors' decisions and in'stitute proceeding immediately for suspension of license NPF-39 for'cause on the basis of our subaiesions of 2/27/86,4/29/86,and7/5/86, lihich we imoorporate here by reference in toto, under 10 CFR 1 32 (b).

I l

Cc NRC' Sec, Docketing,D.G.Eisenhut,H.RDenton, Respectfully submitted, Staff Counsel, Conner & Fetterhahr

g. { ' g[

l' M MCl4 AE4 Sh5/56 Mde#/,'

f Box 186 Moylan,Pa 5

860828014386082b

~

- '[

PDR ADOCK 05000352 G

PDR

.