December 31, 2001

MEMORANDUM TO: William D. Travers

Executive Director for Operations

FROM: Brian W. Sheron, Associate Director /original signed by W.Borchardt for/

 for Project Licensing and Technical Analysis

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT: NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER 2001 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF

PUBLIC PETITIONS UNDER 10 CFR 2.206

The attached combined report for November and December, 2001, gives the status of 10 CFR

2.206 petitions as of December 31, 2001. Currently, there are three open petitions, which have

been accepted for review under the 2.206 process, all in the Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation (NRR). 

Attachment 1 provides the detailed status of the open petitions. Attachment 2 shows the age

statistics for the open 2.206 petitions as of December 31, 2001. Attachment 3 shows the

statistics for all 2.206 petitions processed in the past 12 months.

This report and recently-issued Director's Decisions are placed in the Agencywide Documents

Access and Management System (ADAMS) making them readily accessible to the public.

Attachments: As stated

CONTACT: Ram Subbaratnam, NRR

415-1478
December 31, 2001

MEMORANDUM TO: William D. Travers

Executive Director for Operations

FROM: Brian W. Sheron, Associate Director /original signed by W.Borchardt for/

 for Project Licensing and Technical Analysis

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT: NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER 2001 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC

PETITIONS UNDER 10 CFR 2.206

The attached combined report for November and December, 2001, gives the status of 10 CFR

2.206 petitions as of December 31, 2001. Currently, there are three open petitions, which have

been accepted for review under the 2.206 process, all in the Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation (NRR). 

Attachment 1 provides the detailed status of the open petitions. Attachment 2 shows the age

statistics for the open 2.206 petitions as of December 31, 2001. Attachment 3 shows the

statistics for all 2.206 petitions processed in the past 12 months.

This report and recently-issued Director's Decisions are placed in the Agencywide Documents

Access and Management System (ADAMS) making them readily accessible to the public.

Attachments: As stated

CONTACT: Ram Subbaratnam, NRR

415-1478

DISTRIBUTION: 

 See next page * see previous concurrence

OFFICE PM:PDII LA:PDII SC:PDII D:PDII NMSS/IMNS/I

MOB

DD/D:DLPM

Eadensam For

JZwolinski

ADPT:NRR

NAME RSubbaratnam* Dunnington* RCorreia* HBerkow* PGoldberg* L. Marsh J. Zwolinski SBlack* BSheron

DATE 12/14 /01 12/ 14 /01 12/ 17 /01 12/ 17 /01 12/ 14 /01 12/26/01 12/ 26/01 12/20 /01 12/ 27/01

Accession No.ML013510136

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Distribution:

M. Satorius, OEDO

W. Kane, DEDR/OEDO

C. Paperillo, DEDMRS/EDO

P. Norry, DEDM/OEDO

J. Craig, AO/EDO

E. Julian, SECY

PDII r/f

S. Collins, NRR

J. Johnson, NRR

R. Borchardt, NRR

B. Sheron, NRR

E. Baker, OD

R. Subbaratnam, NRR

K. Cyr, OGC

L. Chandler, OGC

F. Cameron, OGC

J. Goldberg, OGC

J. Cordes, Jr., OCAA

F. Congel, OE

P. Lohaus, STP

M. Virgilio, NMSS

P. Goldberg, NMSS

F. Brown, NMSS

P. Anderson, OEDO (E-mail)

E. Dunnington, NRR

B. Boger, NRR

M. Stein, OE

G. Caputo, OI

J. Shea, OEDO

E. Adensam, NRR

J. Zwolinski, NRR

S. Black, NRR

H. Berkow, NRR

D. Skay, NRR

OCA

OPA

Regional Administrators

PUBLIC w/att 1, 2, & 3
1

Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206

December 31, 2001

(Table of Contents)

Attachment 1

Page

Facility Petitioner/EDO No. No.

Indian Point Unit 2 D. Katz/CAN/G20000568................................2

All Licensees Using Security Services 

Provided by Wackenhut Corporation D. Lochbaum/UCS/G20010159......................4

Salem Nuclear Generating Station, 

Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Hope Creek 

Generating Station, and Oyster Creek 

Generating Station Norm Cohen/ Unplug Salem

Campaign/G20010389...................................6

All 103 Operating Nuclear Power

Plants in the U. S. M. Kohn/National Whistleblower

Center/G20010485........................................7 

Indian Point Unit Nos. 2 and 3 Alex Matthiessen/Karl Coplan/Pace Environmental

Litigation Clinic, Inc., Riverkeeper, Inc. and

Village of Croton-on-Hudson, 

New York/G20010508,G20010556...............8
2

Attachment 1

Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206

Facility: Indian Point, Unit 2

Petitioner: Deborah Katz, et al. (CAN)

Date of Petition: 12/4/2000

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 12/11/2000

EDO Number: G20000568

Scheduled Completion Date: 11/21/2001

Last Contact with Petitioners: 11/23/2001

Petition Manager: C. Gratton

Case Attorney: J. Goldberg

Issues/Action Requested:

(1) That the licensee, ConEd, have its license suspended for the Indian Point Unit 2 (IP2) facility

due to persistent and pervasive negligent management, which has endangered the public health

and safety and the environment due to significant safety problems existent at the site for

decades. (2) Specifically, that NRC investigate the apparent misrepresentation of material fact

by the utility to determine whether the significantly insufficient engineering calculations relied on

to ensure adequacy of design of key systems, including the steam generator (SG) analysis and

the electric bus analysis at the IP2 reactor, were due to a lack of rigor and thoroughness or a

result of deliberately misleading information. (3) Should the investigation determine that ConEd

deliberately provided insufficient and false information, the petitioners specifically request that

ConEd's operating license be revoked for its IP2 reactor. (4) Should NRC not revoke the

license, and the IP2 reactor returns to operation, the petitioners specifically request that it

remain on the list of agency focus reactors to oversee the operation of the reactor until such time

as its management demonstrates that it can fulfill its regulatory requirements and commitments. 

(5) No license transfer requests should be approved for IP2 until such time that its management

can demonstrate that the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) backlog and the

maintenance requirements are up-to-date and workers have been retrained to the complete and

revised UFSAR. (6) NRC should keep IP2 off-line until the fundamental breakdown in

management is analyzed and corrected.

Background:

With the SG replacement having been completed at IP2 and the licensee in the process of

restart, the Petition Review Board (PRB) convened a meeting on December 20, 2000, to

consider the Immediate Action request related to plant restart (item 6). The petitioners were

informed of this decision by telephone on December 20, 2000. The PRB concluded that there

was insufficient information provided and that the petitioners did not substantiate any safety

concerns to justify delaying unit restart. The petitioners were, in accordance with Management

Directive (MD) 8.11, offered an opportunity to address the PRB in an open meeting. This

meeting was conducted on January 24, 2001, at NRC Headquarters. A PRB meeting to

consider the petitioners' issues (items 1 thru 5) was held on February 7, 2001. The PRB

recommended accepting the petition.
3

On March 9, 2001, the staff issued an acknowledgment letter to the petitioners and a summary

of the public meeting held on January 24, 2001.

On June 5, 2001, the petitioners requested that information contained in an April 26, 2001,

submittal to the IP2 license transfer proceedings be considered as further information to support

their request for enforcement actions against the licensee for systemic mismanagement of the

IP2 reactor facility. The PRB re-convened on June 28, 2001, to discuss the supplement and its

impact on issuance of the proposed Directorís Decision (DD). During the PRB meeting, it was

determined that the supplement did not meet the requirements to be reviewed under 10 CFR

2.206 because the request is already the subject of another agency proceeding (license transfer

proceeding). The petitioners were notified on July 2, 2001, that this information would not be

considered in the proposed DD. A closure letter for the supplement to the petition was sent to

the petitioners on July 31, 2001, explaining the reasons for the rejection.

The proposed DD on the original petition was issued on July 25, 2001.

Current Status: 

The petitioners responded to the proposed DD on September 14, 2001. The final DD-01-04 on

the petition was issued on November 21, 2001. In that decision, the staff concluded that the

information contained in the petition and the supplement did not warrant NRC staff action to

suspend or revoke the operating license for IP2. Likewise, the staff did not find any basis for

initiating an investigation into wrongdoing on the part of ConEd. For these issues, the

petitionersí requested actions were not granted. However, the NRC granted in part the

petitionersí request that IP2 remain on the list of agency focus plants (i.e., plants with

multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstones). The NRC staff did not grant the petitionersí request

to define under what conditions IP2 will be removed from the list of plants with multiple/repetitive

degraded cornerstones in the Reactor Oversight Process. In addition, the staff found that the

petitionersí request to delay or deny a request to transfer the operating license for IP2 until the

licenseeís management can demonstrate that the UFSAR, Condition Report backlog, and

maintenance requirements are up to date, and that plant workers have been retrained to the

modified UFSAR, did not meet the requirements for review under 10 CFR 2.206. After the

25-day Commission review, the DD became a final Agency action on December 17, 2001.
4

Facility: All Licensees Using Security Services Provided by

Wackenhut Corporation

Petitioner: D. Lochbaum (UCS)

Date of Petition: 04/24/2001

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 4/25/2001

EDO Number: G20010159

Scheduled Completion Date: 11/26/2001

Last Contact with Petitioners: 11/26/2001

Petition Manager: C. Patel

Case Attorney: J. Goldberg

Issues/Action Requested:

The petitioner requests that the NRC issue a Demand for Information (DFI) to each of the 

licensees listed in the petitioner's letter dated April 24, 2001, requiring each licensee to provide 

a docketed response as to how it complies with 10 CFR 26.10 and 10 CFR 26.20, specifically 

the requirements that: (1) ìFitness-for-duty (FFD) programs must: Provide reasonable

measures for the early detection of persons who are not fit to perform activities within the scope

of this part" [10 CFR 26.10]; and (2) "Licensee policy should also address other factors that

could affect fitness for duty such as mental stress, fatigue and illness." [10 CFR 26.20]

Background:

As a basis for the above requests, the petitioner stated that:

"An individual employed by Wackenhut Corporation and assigned duties as security officer at 

Indian Point Nuclear Unit 2 was fired on June 26, 2000. The individual had worked five straight 

12-hour shifts and declined to report for a sixth straight 12-hour shift because he reported to his 

managementó-in writingóthat it would be ëphysically and mentally exhausting.' The individual 

reported to his managementóin writingóthat he was fully aware of his condition and ëwould not 

want to be negligent in performing [his] duties as a security officer."

"The security officer had unescorted access to Indian Point 2 and thus was covered by 10 CFR 

Part 26 as specified in Section 26.2." 

Wackenhut has a requirement in its employment conditions that employees are required to 

report to work when directed, which is also ratified in its Collective Bargaining Agreement and 

the Security Officer's Handbook. 

The petitioner claims, "Thus a worker employed by Wackenhut Corporation at an NRC-licensed 

facility reported to his management that he felt unfit for duty, declined to report for mandated 

overtime, and was terminated."

The petitioner states that, "10 CFR 26.20 requires all licensees to have formal policy and written 

procedures for factors that could render plant workers unfit for duty. Fatigue is specifically 

mentioned in 10 CFR 26.20." The petitioner claims that the contractual right conflicts with the 

regulations stated in 10 CFR 26.10(a) and (b), and that in the subject case, the individual 
5

essentially provided "reasonable measures for early detection" of a condition rendering him unfit

to perform activities within the scope of Part 26. "Rather than respect the individual's judgment

or seek another opinion by a Medical Review Officer or other health care professional,

Wackenhut fired him."

In its meeting on May 7, 2001, the Petition Review Board (PRB) recommended accepting the

petition. An acknowledgment letter and Federal Register notice on the petition were issued on 

May 29, 2001. 

The PRB reconvened on June 25, 2001, to review progress on the petition. The PRB

considered ConEdís response to a ëchilling effectí letter on this subject.

The proposed Directorís Decision (DD) on the original petition was issued on September 28,

2001. 

Current Status: 

Comments on the proposed DD were received from the petitioner on October 2, 2001. The final

DD-05-01 on the petition was issued on November 26, 2001. In that decision, the staff noted

that the petition raised generic policy questions concerning how the NRC requirements apply to

circumstances involving individuals who declare themselves not fit for duty because of fatigue

and to the actions taken by licensees in response to such declarations. Specifically, the manner

in which a licensee or its contractor implements certain conditions of employment or policies for

preventing the abuse of leave can potentially discourage employees from reporting that they are

not fit for duty or contribute to inadequacies in the assessment of employee FFD. Either

outcome would undermine the effectiveness of a licenseeís FFD program. The staff noted that

these concerns may not be limited to licensees that use Wackenhut security personnel. As a

result, the staff did not believe that a regulatory action limited to licensees that use Wackenhut

security personnel is an appropriate means to address this concern. The staff also believed that

in matters concerning self-declaration of ìnot fit for duty,î the potential for conflicts with NRC

requirements was largely in the implementation of licensee policies, procedures, and conditions

of employment, rather than the written terms of these documents. Accordingly, a DFI requesting

such documents was not expected to provide significant new information to the staff and

therefore did not appear warranted. However, the staff granted the petitionerís request to the

extent that the NRC will address the petitionerís concerns through the generic communication

process. Specifically, the staff will develop a communication to all nuclear power plant licensees

subject to the requirements of Part 26. That communication will highlight the concerns identified

in the petition and articulate the NRCís requirements as they apply to matters involving a

workerís self-declaration of not fit for duty. Further, as the staff proceeds with proposals to

revise Part 26 and address worker fatigue through rulemaking, it will consider the need to clarify

the NRCís expectations concerning worker declarations of not fit for duty and work scheduling. 

After the 25-day Commission review, the DD became a final Agency action on December 21,

2001.
6

Facilities: Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2

Hope Creek Generating Station

Oyster Creek Generating Station

Petitioner: Norm Cohen, Unplug Salem Campaign 

Date of Petition: 9/17/2001

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 9/19/2001

EDO Numbers: G20010389

Scheduled Completion Date: 4/30/2002

Last Contact with Petitioners: 12/7/2001

Petition Manager: R. Fretz

Case Attorney: J. Goldberg

Issues/Action Requested:

The petitioner requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) order either the

closure of, or an immediate security upgrade at, the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit

Nos. 1 and 2, Hope Creek Generating Station, and Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. In

addition, the petitioner requested that: (1) the plantsí defenses be upgraded to withstand a jet

crash similar to that which occurred at the World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11, 2001;

(2) all the spent fuel pools be brought into the containment buildings until a new jet

bomber-proofed containment is built for them; (3) the NRC triple the number of Operational

Safeguards Response Evaluation (OSRE) security inspections; and (4) the NRC cancel

proposals to allow nuclear plants to conduct their own security inspections. 

Background:

The events of September 11, 2001, were cited as the basis for the request, with the petitioner

stating that the four New Jersey nuclear power plants are vulnerable to terrorist threats,

including a suicide airplane attack similar to that experienced at the WTC. 

Current Status:

Two closed PRB meetings were conducted on November 19, 2001, and November 29, 2001, to

consider the merits of the requested actions. The PRB concluded that the petition met the

threshold for processing under 10 CFR 2.206, and that the details provided in the petitionerís

request were found sufficient to warrant further inquiry (Part III of Management Directive (MD)

8.11). An acknowledgment letter and a single Federal Register notice common to this and two

other similar petitions (see pages 7 and 8) were issued on December 20, 2001. 

The petitioner was contacted on December 7, 2001, and informed of the staffís progress to 

date. The petitioner was informed that the NRC had advised all NRC licensees, after the

September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the WTC, to go to the highest level of alert, which they

promptly did. Since there were no credible threats, there was no need to order the plants to shut

down. Thus, the petitionersí immediate action requests were, in effect, partially granted by prior

NRC actions. The petitioner was informed that the NRC will follow the 10 CFR 2.206 petition

process as explained in MD 8.11 to the extent possible without compromising sensitive

information.
7

Facility: All Operating Nuclear Power

Plants (103) in the U. S.

Petitioner(s): Michael D. Kohn, National Whistleblower Center

Date of Petition: 10/24/2001

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 10/26/2001

EDO Numbers: G20010485

Scheduled Completion Date: 4/30/2002

Last Contact with Petitioners: 12/7/2001

Petition Manager: G. Shukla

Case Attorney: J. Goldberg

Issues/Action Requested:

The petitioner requested that the NRC take immediate short-term and long-term corrective

actions to protect the public against the possibility of terrorists seizing control of a large

commercial jetliner and crashing into a nuclear power plant in the United States. The petitioner

also requested that the NRC staff take certain specified compensatory measures to protect the

public and the environment from the catastrophic impact of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power

plant or a spent fuel pool.

Background:

As a basis for the above requests, the petitioner states that no commercial nuclear power plant

located within the United States was designed to withstand the impact of a large commercial

airliner. The petitioner cites the plantsí inability to be protected against terrorist attacks,

including a suicide airplane attack similar to the attack on the World Trade Center (WTC). The

petitioner discusses NRCís failure to adequately assess risk of malevolent airborne attack,

failure to adequately assess risk of terrorist attacks at spent fuel storage facilities, and failure to

adequately protect nuclear plants from terrorist attacks. 

Current Status:

There are two other petitions with similar requests concerning the security of nuclear power

plants in the U.S. subsequent to the terrorist attack on the WTC on September 11, 2001. (See

pages 6 and 8 for the current status of these petitions). 

The petitioner was contacted on December 7, 2001, and informed of the staffís progress to 

date. The petitioner was informed that the NRC had advised all NRC licensees, after the

September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the WTC, to go to the highest level of alert, which they

promptly did. Since there were no credible threats, there was no need to order the plants to shut

down. Thus, the petitionersí immediate action requests were, in effect, partially granted by prior

NRC actions. The petitioner was informed that the NRC will follow the 10 CFR 2.206 petition

process as explained in Management Directive 8.11 to the extent possible without compromising

sensitive information. An acknowledgment letter and a single Federal Register notice common to

this and two other similar petitions (see pages 6 and 8) were issued on December 20, 2001. 
8

Facility: Indian Point Units 2 and 3

Petitioner(s): Alex Matthiessen/Karl Coplan/Pace Environmental

Litigation Clinic, Inc., Riverkeeper, Inc. and

Villages of Hastings and Croton-on-Hudson, New 

York

Date of Petition: 11/8/2001, 11/21/2001and 11/26/2001

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 11/9/2001, 12/17/2001 and 12/07/2001

EDO Numbers: G20010508, G20010556, G20010567

Scheduled Completion Date: 4/30/2002

Last Contact with Petitioners: 12/27/2001

Petition Manager: P. Milano

Case Attorney: J. Goldberg

Issues/Action Requested:

The petitioners request that: (1) the NRC issue an order to the Indian Point 2 and 3 licensee for

a temporary shutdown to conduct a full review of vulnerabilities, security measures, and

evacuation plans; (2) the NRC require the licensee to provide sufficient information about

security for NRC to determine their ability to meet realistically expected threats and contemplate

making the measures permanent; (3) the NRC mandate specifically listed measures to set up

and protect a permanent no-fly zone and a defensive system to protect the ìentire facilityî; and

(4) a revision be made to the emergency planning to include terrorists risks and multiple attacks

on the infrastructure used in an evacuation. Finally, the petitioner requested that the NRC shut

down the Indian Point facility permanently if security cannot be sufficiently ensured, and order

the immediate conversion from spent fuel storage pools to a dry cask system. 

Background:

As a basis for the above requests, the petitioners state that no commercial nuclear power plant

located within the United States was designed to withstand the impact of a large commercial

airliner. The petitioners cite the plantís inability to be protected against terrorist attacks,

including a suicide airplane attack similar to the attack on the World Trade Center (WTC).

On November 21, 2001, the Village of Hastings-on-Hudson, New York, submitted its Board of

Trusteesí resolution calling for action very similar to those of the above petitioner and citing the

same bases. Since the resolution did not make reference to 10 CFR 2.206, the Village Clerk

was contacted on December 27, 2001, to explain the petition process and discuss the existing

petition. The Village Clerk asked to have this resolution treated as a supplement to the existing

petition.

On November 26, 2001, the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York, in accordance with their

Board of Trustees Resolution, requested that they join the Riverkeeper coalition as a copetitioner. The PRB acceded to the request and recommended that they be included into the

coalition and be acknowledged along with rest of the petitioners. 
9

Current Status:

There are two other petitions with similar requests concerning the security of nuclear power

plants in the U.S. subsequent to the terrorist attack on the WTC on September 11, 2001. (See

pages 6 and 7 for the current status of these petitions). 

The petitioners were contacted on December 20 and 27, 2001, and informed of the staffís

progress to date. An acknowledgment letter and a single Federal Register notice common to

this and the two other similar petitions (see pages 6 and 7) were issued on December 20, 2001.

The acknowledgment letter to the Village-of-Hastings will be issued in early January 2002, since

its supplement was received after December 20, 2001. The petitioners were informed that the

NRC had advised all NRC licensees, after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the WTC,

to go to the highest level of alert, which they promptly did. Since there were no credible threats,

there was no need to order the plants to shut down. Thus, the petitionersí immediate action

requests were, in effect, partially granted by prior NRC actions. The petitioners were informed

that the NRC will follow the 10 CFR 2.206 petition process as explained in Management

Directive 8.11 to the extent possible without compromising sensitive information.
Attachment 2

AGE STATISTICS FOR AGENCY 2.206 OPEN PETITIONS

As of December 31, 2001

ASSIGNED

ACTION

OFFICE

PETITION

 NUMBER

FACILITY Acknowledgment

Date

AGE

(days)*

Scheduled 

Completion

Date

Comments if not meeting the Agencyís 

120-day Completion Goal

NRR

G20010389 Salem 1, 2, Hope

Creek, OysterCreek

12/20/2001 11 4/30/2002 -

NRR

G20010485 All 103 Nuclear

Power Plants inthe U.S.

12/20/2001 11 4/30/2002 -

NRR

G20010508,G20010556,G20010567

Indian Point 2, 3 12/20/2001 11 4/30/2002 -

*Age calculated from the date of the acknowledgment letter.Note: The two columns representing resources expended by the action office and OGC have been deleted from information is difficult to obtain on a monthly basis and is of marginal utility for purposes of this report.
1

Attachment 3

Table on Status of Public Petitions

Under 10 CFR 2.206 for DDs Issued During the Last 12 Months

Petition Number Assigned Facility Petition DD Age 

Action Date Date at Closu

Office (Months

G20000138,136 NMSS Envirosafe, Idaho 3/13/2000 12/13/2000 8 G20000345 NMSS US Department of Defense 6/1/2000 1/9/2001 3 G20000462 NRR Haddam Neck 9/26/2000 12/19/2000 2 G19990011 NMSS Moab Site of Atlas Corp. 1/11/1999 5/7/2001* N/A G20000568 NRR Indian Point Unit 2 12/4/2000 7/25/2001 4 G20010159 NRR All Licensees using

Wackenhut Security 4/24/2001 9/28/2001 4 

1) Age calculated from the date of the acknowledgment letter to the proposed Directorís Decision issuance.2) Goals: Acknowledgment letter issued within 5 weeks from date of receipt; proposed DD issued within 4 months of ackn* No DD issued on this petition.