ML20217C178

Requests Hearing on Gj Galatis & We the People of the United States,Inc 950812 Petition,Submitted Per 10CFR2.206,for Purpose of Submitting Addl Evidence in Support of Petition. Request for Hearing Re AA Cizek 970303 Petition Renewed

ML20217C178
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone, Haddam Neck  File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	07/09/1997
From:	Hadley E HADLEY, E.C., WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES (WE THE PEOPLE
To:	Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
Shared Package
ML20217C047	List: DD-98-01, Forwards Director'S Decision DD-98-01 Denying AA Cizek 970303 Petition,Filed Per 10CFR2.206,to Modify Licenses by Placing Certain Conditions on OLs ML20217C096 ML20217C125 ML20217C135 ML20217C159 ML20217C178 ML20217C184 ML20217C190 ML20217C198
References
0000603, 2.206, 603, G970140, NUDOCS 9803260343
Download: ML20217C178 (4)

Text

~'

Y O '. M l'l 6 ,

I. ,

h4'. C(40(o03 + WONO I t

'O -

~

J 4 #4 g y cahn j

[vrd/ [ h, on io4o a wAm sTacet gg e o. sox s4e west waacsim. uA oes7e g

Gcidber .OGC ERN[s7c.HADLcv (sos) temss4 gg rcovNstL

./OLtEN PAYCUR OLSEN FAX (506) teS 7oO2 g WAITE P. STUML WebumAIL,OE REF:000060 /G970140--ASSIGNED TRAVERS July 9, 1997 CYS T0: TRAVERS ULL ma -

Leonard J. Callan MIRAGLJA Executive Director of Operations ZIMMERMAN U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission MARTIN Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 SLOSSON B0HRER re: Request for Licensing Actions 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206 Northeast Utilities i Millstone Units 1, 2 and 3, and Connecticut Yankee

Dear Mr. Callan:

On behalf of my clients, George J. Galatis and We the People of the United States, Inc. ("We the People"), I am writing to request that the hearing on their petition submitted pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.206, dated August Ql2 r 1995, be reconvened for the purpose of submitting additional evidence in support of the petition. At the same time, I renew my request for a hearing submitted on behalf of my client, Albert A. Cizek, on his S 2.206 petition, dated March 3, 1997.

As I am sure you are aware, a hearing on the petition submitted by Mr. Galatis and We the People originally was held on April 8,1996.

Nearly 15 months have passed since that hearing and no decision on the petition has been issued and none appears to be forthcoming.1 In that time, Petitioners have amassed a further body of evidence that is relevant and material to their contentions that NU engaged in knowing, willful and flagrant wrongdoing. Petitioners wish to present this evidence prior to a decision on the merits of their petition.

Petitioners fully acknowledge receipt of the disingenuous NRC document dated December 26, 1996 and entitled, " Partial Director's 1

/ Most recently, by letter dated June 30, 1997, Petitioners

( were advised that the staff still is reviewing the petition issues.

9803260343 980211 PDR 0 ADOCK 05000213 PDR

r..

f Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206." (Perhaps partial was intended to 1, refer to the Director?) At page 4 of the document, it clearly states, " Petitioners' issues 1 and 2 assert wrongdoing on the part of the licensee. The NRC staff has not yet completed its review of possible wrongdoing on the part of the Licensee and will address this issue (sic) in a subsequent Director's Decision." Since those were the only two issues raised by Petitioners that were accepted ,

as being within the scope of 5 2.206, what the next 16 pages of the  !

document " decides" remains a mystery to Petitioners.

Moreover, Petitioners are equally rystified by that portion of the purported decision that " granted" their requests. Petitioners specifically requested that the license of Millstone Unit 1 be revoked until the facility was in full compliance with the terms and conditions of its license and, thereafter, suspended for a period of 60 calendar days. Neither of these events has occurred.

Thus, Petitioners are at a loss to understand precisely what it is they won.

Petitioners are equally at a loss to understand how the NRC issued a " favorable" decision on their 5 2.206 petition without ever invoking the required proceeding. Section 2.206 clearly states that "(ajny person may file a request to institute a proceeding under S 2.202 to modify, suspend, or revoke a license, . . .

(emphasis added) Section 2.202, in turn, spells out an extremely detailed formal procedure which must be invoked prior to granting

, the action requested in a petition. No such proceeding has ever

been instituted. Section 2.206(b) does not permit the issuance of l 4

a favorable decision without the required proceeding. That section '

states, "the Director of the NRC office with responsibility for the subject matter of the request shall either institute a proceeding or shall advise the person who made" the request in writing that no proceeding will be instituted . . .. (emphasis added)

Petitioners further note that, under 5 2.206(b), they are entitled to a decision "[w]ithin a reasonable time . . .

Apparently, the NRC believes it is reasonable to undertake and complete the entire review process for the restart of the three Millstone units in less time than it takes to issue a decision on the 5 2.206 petition.

Given the fact that a reasonable period of time already has passed without a decision on the petition, my clients will not be prejudiced by any delay that results from a reconvening of the hearing.2 Jointly, Petit'oners further request that their reconvened hearing be combined with a hearing on the 9 2.206 petition filed by Mr.

Cizek on March 3, 1997. On April 8, 1997, Samuel J. Collins, 2

/ This should not be in any way construed as a waiver of my clients' right to a decision within a reasonable period of time in the absence of a decision to reconvene the hearing.

2

l Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), denied,

! without explanation, Mr. Cizek's request for a hearing. On April i 16, I wrote to Mr. Collins objecting to that denial and renewing l Mr. Cizek's request for a hearing. Specifically, I noted that no reason for the denial had been given and there was precedence for ,

holding the hearing. I further commented on the NRC's willingness I and ability to commit extraordinary resources to the restart effort, but not committing any resources to giving the public

, meaningful input to ensure the safe and legal operation of the Millstone units.

Mr. Collins has never responded to my April 16 letter. Therefore, ,

I only can conclude that he had no legitimate reason for denying the request. Indeed, it is my belief that the NRC has absolutely j no predetermined criteria for reviewing a request for a public 1 hearing under 5 2.206.3 . would note that the fact that Mr.

l Galatis appeared on the cover of Time Magazine and Mr. Cizek did not is hardly a legitimate reason for denying Mr. Cizek's request for a hearing.

The reconvening of the hearing is especially impcrtant since, time and again over the last several months, the NRC has declared that )

the public health and safety was never jeopardized at any of the Millstone units.' Thus, it would appear the NRC already has reached a conclusion on issues that impact upon the petition. It is obvious that this conclusion is based on evidence other than 1 I

that submittedduringtheg2.206 hearing, since NU submitted no f evidence at the hearing. Basic fairness, as well as the  !

constitutional requirement of due process of law, dictate that the i hearing be reopened so Petitioners will have the opportunity to rebut this new evidence.

3

/ Of course, this has a familiar ring to it. The NRC plans to conduct the entire Independent Corrective Action Verification Program (ICAVP), which will determine the restart dates of the Millstone units, without any predetermined criteria for reviewing the ICAVP findings.

l 4

/ Of course, this raises the very interesting question of why the three Millstone units have not been allowed to restart for the last several months. If the units are, and always have been, safe then it would seem to be an injustice of monumental proportions has been perpetrated on NU and the State of Connecticut. Clearly, it would be a gross abuse of authority for the NRC to keep the units closed because of its own bad publicity problems instead of for safety reasons.

5

/ Rather, as you will recall, NU chose to talk about the future instead of the past.

3

h .-

f For the reasons set forth above, Mr. Galatis and We the People t- request that the 5 2.206 hearing be reconvened for the taking of additional evidence and Mr. Cizek renews his request for a hearing.

Sin erely, bf cc. a. ca1 tie

'D S. Comley A. Cizek G. Mu11ey, OP3 I

1 l

l(L ,

l l

l

.1 l

\

l 4

i

~

e p

[% \ UNITED STATES g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WAe6WNeTON, D.o. Stees GOM

• • • • • August 7, 1997 Ernest C. Hadley, Esq.

1040 B Main Street West Wareham, MA C2576

Dear Mr. Hadley:

I am responding to your letters of April 16 and July 9, 1997, regarding my response of April 8, 1997, to the petition that you filed pursuant In.

to 10 CFR 2.206 (Petition) on behalf of Mr. Albert Cizek (Petitioner)latory particular, you repeated your request for the U.S. Nuclear Regu Commission (NRC) to hold a public hearing on the issues mentioned in the Petition and, if this request was denied, you asked the NRC to furnish you with its reasons for denying the request. Comments and requests in your j July 9,1997, letter not related to the Petition submitted by Mr. Cizek will be addressed in separate correspondence.

Although not explicitly stated in ny letter of April 8, 1997, in denying the j i

Petitioner's request for a public hearing before restart or decommissioning of any of the Millstone units or Haddam Neck, the NRC staff was guided by NRC Management Directive 8.11. " Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions," which specifies the process to be followed for petitions filed under 10 CFR 2.206.

This directive states that an informal public hearing is not automatic and will not be held simply because it is requested by a petitioner. Rather, the l i

staff will determine if an opportunity for an informal public hearing is to be offered to a petitioner according to the following criteria. The first l i

element listed below (a) must always be met and either one of the other following elements (b) or (c) must also be met.

(n) Informal public hearings will not be held if to do so will  !

compromise " sensitive" information that may need to be protected from disclosure, such as safeguards or facility security information, proprietary or confidential commercial information, or '

information relating to an ongoing investigation of wrongdoing.

(b)Thepetitionprovidesnewinformationwithreasonablesupporting facts that raises the potential for a significant safety issue. For nuclear reactors, a significant safety issue is an issue that, if validated, could lead to an occupational exposure dose equivalent

' exceeding 10 ren, could cause significant core damage, or could otherwise result in a significant reduction of protection of public 3

i health and safety. The information is considered 'new" if one of F the following applies:

i- - The petition presents a significant safety issue not previously

's evaluated by the staff.

- The petf, tion presents new information on a significant safety l issue previously evaluated.

- The petition presents a new approach for evaluating a significant safety issue previously evaluated and, on preliminary assessment,

'the new approach appears to have merit and to warrant u

l reevaluation of a significant safety issue previously evaluated.

l Y

I, Ernest C..Nadley -

2-j (c) The petition alleges violations of NRC requirements involving a signifir~' safety issue (which usually would include nearly all 1 Severit vel I, most Severity Level II, and possibly some Severity i Level la violations under the Connission's enforcement policy) for which new information or a new approach has been provided and presents reasonable supporting facts ~that tend to establish that the violation occurred.

In.this instance, the NRC staff concluded that item (a) may be satisfied.

However, with regard to items (b) and (c), the NRC staff reviewed the

'information presented in the Petition and concluded that neither item (b) nor item (c) were satisfied. Accordingly, based upon the application of Management Directive 8.1, an informal public hearing in this matter is not warranted.

Finally, as you note in your letter, the NRC staff did conduct an informal public hearing associated with a petition submitted by you pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.206 on behalf of Mr. George Galatis and We the People, Inc. The ,

then Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation informed you in his l letter to you of October 26, 1996, that an informal public hearing w:s appropriate in that instance due to the public interest in the matter, irrespective of whether Management Directive 8.11 was satisfied. These same considerations do not apply in this matter because there is already a public forum for the Petitioner to raise issues and ask questions. The NRC staff has been holding, and will continue to hold, regularly scheduled public meetings in the vicinity of the Millstone facility. At these meetings, members of the public can raise issues of concern. Thus, the Petitioner has a public forum in which to raise his concerns and disseminate his views. In fact, the Petitioner has attended these meetings and has made statements as well.

Accordingly, your request for a public hearing is denied.

I remain dedicated to ensuring that sound and readily understood decisions are made by the NRC staff throughout its review of the Millstone restart and the Haddam Neck decommissioning processes. Decisions made by the staff will be based on thorough review of relsvant safety information and with due regard for public invol fement in accordance with the Commission's regulations and policies.

Sincerely, MMk SamudJ.0otis Samuel J. Collins, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

~915IRIBitTION see next page DOCUMENT NAME: G:\REYNOLDS\HADLEY

• See previous concurrence u.w ..m am,e 0FFICE SPO-L

,n.wn a m.m.m c .cm u .u..m lC SPO-L:LAh(

f C TECH ED* l SPD-L:DD* l SP0:D ) l NAME SReynolds A. LBerry W BCalure PMcKee WTravens ,/

g.ogg.j.zg..;ga-t _ .m.p .w a NANE .t S%11V[ /m eFfi.ud DATE T O K /97- iff/97 07/ '/97 ,07[_/97 07/ /97 0FHCIAL RECORD COPY u

q

,.,b j

g g

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f

, f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20086-0001

% ***** /

October 14, 1997 David A. Lochbaum Nuclear Safety Engineer Union of Concerned Scientists 1616 P Street NW. Suite 310 Washington, D.C. 20036-1495

Dear Mr. Lochbaum:

This is in reference to your September 9.1997 letter to the Comission requesting a review of its enforcement program and providing comments on the subjectivity, timeliness, and consistency of NRC enforcement actions. The thrust of your comments is that there is too much subjectivity in enforcement and that civil penalties should be consistently imposed.

At the outset, you should be aware that the staff is in the process of reviewing its experience with the NRC Enforcement Policy (NUREG-1600) that was substantially revised in June 1995. An opportunity to comment on the revised policy was noticed in the Egderal Reaister at 62 Fed. Reg. 5494 (February 5.

1997). While the comment period has closed, we are considering your comments in the review.

While we share your concerns about the importance of timely and consistent enforcement actions, we do not believe that the desire for consistency should be achieved by assessing the same civil penalty to every violation as suggested by your comments. The policy reflects that the regulation of I nuclear activities, in many cases. does not lend itself to a mechanistic treatment. Judgment and discretion must be exercised in determining the appro)riate enforcement sanctions. including the severity levels of violations 1 and tne decision to issue a Notice of Violation or to propose or impose a I civil penalty and the amount of the penalty. These decisions are made after '

considering the principles of the Commission's Policy Statement and the significance of the violations and their surrounding circumstances. I Enforcement actions are used not only as a deterrent and to emphasize the i importance of compliance with Commission requirements, but also to encourage prompt identification and prompt, comprehensive correction of violations.

Thus, the licensee's response to a violation is a relevant consideration.

In assessing a civil penalty the Commission considers a number of factors.

including the severity of the violation, licensee's )ast performance, corrective action, whether the licensee identified tie violation. and willfulness, consistent with the legislative history to section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Admittedly, this requires subjective decisions to be made, but discretion is an im)ortant consideration in developing remedial sanctions. On balance, t11s is considered a strength of the program and not a weakness. It provides the opportunity to tailor regulatory messages to licensees and the licensed industry. Licensees against which civil penalties are assessed are being given clear notice of the need to

? 70+e44tW zM-

i y a

+.

• a 2

improve-their performance. We believe that enforcement is serving the Commission's safety mission.

As to timeliness, this is an area that the staff strives to improve. However, many of the more significant penalties are based on team inspections and investigations by the Office of Investigations. These require coordination within the agency, as well as. in the case of many investigations, the Department of Justice. As one might expect, the more significant violations are often more difficult to assess and take more time to determine the most effective enforcement action.

I have enclosed a copy of NUREG-1525. the 1995 Assessment of the NRC -

Enforcement Program, which discusses the philosophy behind the Commission's enforcement program and the development of its enforcement )olicy.

Recognizing that enforcement is a complex subject. I would Je pleased to discuss your comments with you in a public meeting. If you desire such a meeting, please call me at (301) 415 -2741.

Sincerely,

% b ames Lieberman. Director Office of Enforcement

Enclosure:

NUREG-1525. " Assessment of the NRC Enforcement Program"

. . . .. .. )