October 17, 2000

MEMORANDUM TO: William D. Travers

Executive Director for Operations

FROM: Brian W. Sheron, Associate Director/RA/

for Project Licensing and Technical Analysis

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT: SEPTEMBER REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS

UNDER 10 CFR 2.206

The attached monthly report gives the status of 10 CFR 2.206 petitions as of October 16, 2000.

During this reporting period, Director's Decision (DD-00-04) on Indian Point Unit 2

(G20000133) was issued and the petition was closed. Thus, there are five open petitions: one

in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), three in the Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), and one in the Office of Enforcement (OE).

Attachment 1 provides the detailed status of petitions for NRR, NMSS, and OE. Attachment 2

shows the age and staff hours expended on open 2.206 petitions as of September 30, 2000.

Attachment 3 shows the statistics for the 2.206 petitions processed in the past 12 months.

This report and recently issued Director’s Decisions are placed in the Agencywide Document

Access and Management System (ADAMS), and on the NRC’s external home page, making

them readily accessible to the public. The URL address is

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/PUBLIC/2206/index.html.

Attachments: As stated

CONTACT: Ram Subbaratnam, NRR

415-1478
October 17, 2000

MEMORANDUM TO: William D. Travers

Executive Director for Operations

FROM: Brian W. Sheron, Associate Director/RA/

for Project Licensing and Technical Analysis

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT: SEPTEMBER REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS

UNDER 10 CFR 2.206

The attached monthly report gives the status of 10 CFR 2.206 petitions as of October 16, 2000.

During this reporting period, Director's Decision (DD-00-04) on Indian Point Unit 2

(G20000133) was issued and the petition was closed. Thus, there are five open petitions: one

in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), three in the Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), and one in the Office of Enforcement (OE).

Attachment 1 provides the detailed status of petitions for NRR, NMSS, and OE. Attachment 2

shows the age and staff hours expended on open 2.206 petitions as of September 30, 2000.

Attachment 3 shows the statistics for the 2.206 petitions processed in the past 12 months.

This report and recently issued Director’s Decisions are placed in the Agencywide Document

Access and Management System (ADAMS), and on the NRC’s external home page, making

them readily accessible to the public. The URL address is

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/PUBLIC/2206/index.html.

Attachments: As stated

CONTACT: Ram Subbaratnam, NRR

415-1478

C:\22900.wpd DISTRIBUTION: See next page *See previous concurrence.

OFFICE PM:PDII LA:PDII SC:PDII* D:PDII* NMSS/IMNS/IMOB* D:DLPM ADPT:NRR

NAME RSubbaratnam Dunnington RCorreia HBerkow PGoldberg JZwolinski/SBlack BSheron

DATE 10/17/2000 10/17/2000 10/6/2000 10/6/2000 10/6/2000 10/16/2000 10/17/2000

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Distribution:

M. Satorius, OEDO

F. Miraglia, DEDR/OEDO

C. Paperillo, DEDMRS/EDO

P. Norry, DEDM/OEDO

J. Craig, AO/EDO

E. Julian, SECY

PDII r/f

S. Collins, NRR

R. Zimmerman, NRR

J. Johnson, NRR

B. Sheron, NRR

E. Baker, OD

R. Subbaratnam, NRR

K. Cyr, OGC

D. Dambly, OGC

L. Chandler, OGC

F. Cameron, OGC

J. Goldberg, OGC

J. Cordes, Jr., OCAA

R. Borchardt, OE

P. Lohaus, STP

W. Kane, NMSS

P. Goldberg, NMSS

S. Moore, 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

A. Kugler, NRR

OCA

OPA

Regional Administrators

PUBLIC w/att 1, 2, & 3
Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206

September 30, 2000

(Table of Contents)

Attachment 1

Page

Facility Petitioner/EDO No. No.

Atlas Corporation Dagget, et al./G19990011....................................2

Indian Point Unit 2 D. Lochbaum/UCS/G20000133...........................4

Envirosafe of Idaho Envirocare and Snake River Alliance

/G20000138,G20000136.....................................6

Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 & 2 D. Lochbaum/UCS/G20000232...........................7

Hydro Nuclear Services S. T. Doyle/G20000357.......................................8

US Department of Defense and all

services/users of depleted uranium D. Rokke/G20000345........................................10
2

Attachment 1

Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206

Facility: Moab site of Atlas Corporation (Present

Licensee, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,

Trustee)

Petitioner: Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund

Date of Petition: 1/11/99

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NMSS

Date Referred to Review Organization: 1/12/99

EDO Number: G19990011

OGC Number: P-99-02

Scheduled Completion Date: TBD*

Last Contact with Petitioner: 10/16/2000

Petition Manager: Myron Fliegel

Case Attorney: J. Goldberg

Issues/Action Requested:

The petitioner requests NRC to take six immediate actions to halt impacts to and to ensure the

conservation of the endangered species of fish in the Colorado River near the Atlas site.

Background:

On August 2, 1988, Atlas submitted an application for a license amendment to revise its site

reclamation plan for uranium mill tailings at its no longer operating site near Moab, Utah. On

March 30, 1994, a notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement was published

in the Federal Register. In January 1996, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was

published for public comment. On July 29, 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in

accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), issued a final biological

opinion for impacts to federally listed endangered species from the reclamation of the Atlas mill

tailings site. On October 12, 1998, and November 13, 1998, the petitioner notified NRC of its

intent to sue under the ESA. On December 16, 1998, the petitioner filed a Motion for Preliminary

Injunction against NRC in the U.S. District Court, District of Utah.

A petition was filed on January 11, 1999, requesting the NRC to take six immediate actions

related to potential impact on endangered fish in the Colorado River due to contaminants from

the Atlas uranium mill tailings pile. A Petition Review Board (PRB) meeting was held on

January 26, 1999, and the petitioner’s requests for immediate action were denied by a letter of

that date. In the letter, it was noted that none of the six items identified in the petition addresses

a health, safety, or environmental concern that requires emergency steps before a complete

review as provided for in 10 CFR 2.206. An acknowledgment letter for this petition was

published in the Federal Register on February 12, 1999. On May 13, 1999, the staff received a

supplement to the 2.206 petition requesting immediate action on several items: (1) to suspend

the issuance of the license amendment to permit reclamation; (2) to initiate a supplemental

National Environmental Policy Act process; and (3) to reinitiate consultation with FWS under the

ESA.

* Schedule for completion will be set following resolution of the litigation issues.
3

Earthjustice had, on January 27, 1999, petitioned the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB)

to intervene on the Atlas Corporation’s proposal to reclaim the Moab mill tailings and on the

cleanup of contaminated groundwater, citing the impacts to the endangered fish in the Colorado

River and its belief that the biological opinion was erroneous. On May 27, 1999, the NRC wrote

to the petitioner, acknowledging receipt of the supplement, denying immediate action, and

notifying the petitioner that NRC was deferring action on the 2.206 petition, pending a decision

by the ASLB on the petitioner’s request for a hearing on similar issues.

On September 17, 1999, the staff filed responses to the ASLB presiding officers’ questions of

July 30, 1999. On September 29, 1999, the staff provided the ASLB with a copy of its

September 29, 1999, letter to Dames & Moore, notifying that organization that it had been

selected to become the Trustee for the Atlas Moab site, since the Atlas Corporation is in

bankruptcy. Copies of both filings were sent to the petitioner. Dames & Moore subsequently

withdrew as trustee and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP was chosen to be the trustee.

On October 18, 1999, Earthjustice filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th

Circuit, arguing that the May 27, 1999, letter and a May 28, 1999, license amendment constitute

final agency action and a de facto denial of the 2.206 petition. On November 3, 1999, OGC filed

a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. A copy of the

motion was sent to the petitioner. On November 23, 1999, the petitioner filed a response to the

NRC motion to dismiss, arguing that the rejection of its request for immediate action and

subsequent lack of action on the part of the NRC in issuing a final Director’s Decision constitutes

a final agency action. NRC filed its reply with the court to the petitioner’s response on

December 2, 1999.

On October 28, 1999, the ASLB presiding officer found the Earthjustice petition of January 27,

1999, to be timely, and entertained further argument on the issue of petitioner’s standing. On

November 16, 1999, Earthjustice requested the presiding officer to rule on whether the ASLB

has jurisdiction with respect to determining whether NRC has complied with the ESA. On

December 6, 1999, the staff filed a response arguing that the ASLB should deny the petitioner’s

November 16, 1999, motion.

On December 27, 1999, an Order transferring source material license SUA-917 from Atlas

Corporation to the Maob Mill Reclamation Trust was signed. The Order transfers the license to

the Trust and orders the Trust and the Trustee (PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP) to perform

reclamation of the uranium mill tailings site in accordance with the terms and conditions of the

license. The terms and conditions of the license include reasonable and prudent measures in

the U.S. FWS final biological opinion, as well as mitigative measures developed by the NRC

staff. The Order was effective December 30, 1999, and was published in the Federal Register

on January 3, 2000.

On January 13, 2000, the petitioner filed a reply with the ASLB in support of its motion originally

filed on November 16, 1999, for a preliminary ruling on jurisdiction. On February 17, 2000, the

ASLB granted the petitioner’s request for hearing. The PRB, in consultation with the Office of

the General Counsel (OGC), deferred action on this 2.206 petition pending resolution of the

litigation before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and of the petition before the ASLB.

On June 22, 2000, the petitioner wrote to NRC requesting it to reinitiate consultation with FWS

on two additional issues. On July 21, 2000, NRC wrote to the petitioner stating that it will

consider the June 22, 2000, letter as a second supplement to the original petition, which is being

held in abeyance, pending the hearing before the ASLB.

Current Status:

There was no change in status for this month.
4

Facility: Indian Point Unit 2

Petitioner: David A. Lochbaum, Union of Concerned

Scientists (UCS), on behalf of Nuclear

Information & Resource Service, PACE Law

School Energy Project, and Public Citizen’s

Critical Mass Energy Project

Date of Petition: 3/14/2000

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 3/14/2000

EDO Number: G20000133

OGC Number: -

Scheduled Completion Date: 10/6/2000 (Completed)

Last Contact with Petitioners: 8/31/2000

Petition Manager: L. Wiens

Case Attorney: J. Goldberg

Issues/Action Requested:

Petitioners request that the NRC issue an Order to ConEd Company of New York preventing the

restart of Indian Point Unit 2 (IP2) until the following conditions are satisfied: (1) all four steam

generators (SGs) are replaced; (2) the SG tube integrity concerns identified in Dr. Joram

Hopenfeld’s Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) and in generic safety issue GSI-163, “Multiple

Steam Generator Tube Leakage,” are resolved; (3) Potassium Iodide (KI) tablets are distributed to

residents and businesses within the 10-mile emergency planning zone or stockpiled in the vicinity

of the IP2 facility; (4) concerns as to the adequacy of emergency preparedness at the IP2 site are

addressed; and (5) the requirement to conduct biennial emergency plan exercises is satisfied. The

petitioners also requested that a public meeting be held in the vicinity of the IP2 facility as soon as

possible.

Background:

Petition Review Board (PRB) meetings were held on March 16, March 21, April 17, April 27,

June 22, and July 20, 2000. The petitioners were provided with an opportunity to address the PRB

in open sessions during the March 16, June 22, and July 20, 2000 meetings, and did so with the

licensee present.

The PRB initially concluded that only the first issue (SG replacement) met the threshold for

processing under 10 CFR 2.206. An acknowledgment letter and Federal Register notice on the

petition were issued on April 5, 2000. The petitioners’ request for a public meeting was granted

and conducted on April 7, 2000. During that meeting the petitioners provided additional supporting

information for the other issues contained in their petition. Further, by letter dated April 12, 2000,

Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy Project supplemented the petition with regard to the KI issue,

and by letter dated April 14, 2000, the UCS supplemented the petition with regard to the DPO. A

supplemental acknowledgment letter dated June 26, 2000, was issued, which accepted the KI issue

as meeting the 2.206 criteria; however, the DPO issue was determined to still not meet the criteria.

Two additional supplements were received on the petition. A June 29 supplement provided

comments on the IP2 SG operational assessment and stated that the regulations require each

licensee at a site to conduct a biennial full-participation emergency exercise. A July 13

supplement requested the PRB include the resolution of the Dr. Hopenfeld DPO in the 2.206

process. Of the five issues listed above, the requests for resolution of Dr. Hopenfeld’s DPO

(second request) and the request that a new emergency exercise be conducted due to alleged

inadequate emergency preparedness at IP2 (fourth request) were determined not to meet the

criteria for review under 2.206. Additionally, on August 8, 2000, ConEd announced that it will

replace the IP2 SGs during the current outage. A third acknowledgment letter addressing the

June 29, and July 13, 2000, petition supplements was issued on August 31, 2000.
5

Current Status:

The Director’s Decision (DD-00-04) on this petition was issued on October 6, 2000. The decision

partially granted the petitioner’s request, i.e the request that the licensee be ordered to replace the

existing steam generators prior to IP2 resuming operation, is granted, in that the licensee has

committed to this action and completing it prior to restart. Although the other two issues

concerning distribution or stockpiling of KI and the requirement to conduct biennial exercises have

merit, the DD concluded that the action requested was not necessary to ensure that the licensee

adhered to the requirements of their license. The decision is under Commission review for a final

agency action.
6

Facility: Envirosafe of Idaho

Petitioner: Envirocare and Snake River Alliance

Date of Petition: 3/13/2000

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NMSS

Date Referred to Review Organization: 3/16/2000

EDO Number: G20000138, G20000136

OGC Number: -

Scheduled Completion Date: 10/25/2000

Last Contact with Petitioners: 9/12/2000

Petition Manager: J. Lusher

Case Attorney: J. Goldberg

Issues/Action Requested:

Snake River Alliance is requesting that the NRC: (1) take jurisdiction of 11e.(2) material; (2)

take action to ensure the workers and the public are fully protected from radiation exposure; and

(3) enforce the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and NRC’s regulation governing disposal of mill

tailings byproduct material as defined in section 11e.(2) of Uranium Mill Tailing Radiation Control

Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). Envirocare contends that the Commission’s current interpretation of

UMTRCA is erroneous and that it should be revised as soon as possible. It also requests that

the NRC recognize its authority over all section 11.e.(2) material, and should take appropriate

enforcement action to ensure that all such material is disposed of at section 11e.(2)-licensed

facilities.

Background:

The Executive Director for Operations has agreed in principle that the petitions from Snake River

Alliance and Envirocare can be consolidated and handled as one petition because the requested

actions are similar per Management Directive (MD) 8.11, Page 9. This was finalized in the

Petition Review Board (PRB) meeting held on April 11, 2000. The petitioners, in accordance

with MD 8.11, were provided with an opportunity to address the PRB in an open session to

articulate the petition, with the owners of the facility present.

A PRB meeting on the petitions was held on April 11, 2000. The Petition Manager advised the

petitioners by phone on April 12, 2000, that the petitions have been consolidated and accepted

as a single petition for review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process. The acknowledgment letters

and the Federal Register Notice on the petitions were issued on April 25, 2000.

The Petition Manager was informed by Mr. Bickwit, representing Envirocare, that a response

was filed with the Document Control Desk on August 30, 2000, on behalf of Envirocare of Utah

to reply to: (1) the joint supplemental response filed by Envirosafe Services of Idaho, Inc. and

the Environmental Technology Council; and (2) the letter response filed by the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, both submitted in opposition to petitions filed under 10 CFR 2.206 by the Snake

River Alliance and Envirocare relating to the Commission’s interpretation of the UMTRCA.

Current Status:

On September 10, 2000, the Petition Manager filed an extension request to move the completion

date to October 25, 2000, because of the late filing of rebuttal to the Corp’s response from Mr.

Bickwit. The Office of the General Counsel and staff has prepared a draft Director’s Decision

which is under review.
7

Facility: Hatch Nuclear Units 1 & 2

Petitioner: David A. Lochbaum, Union of Concerned

Scientists (UCS)

Date of Petition: 5/3/2000

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 5/4/2000

EDO Number: G2000232

OGC Number: -

Scheduled Completion Date: 10/20/2000

Last Contact with Petitioners: 9/18/2000

Petition Manager: L. Olshan

Case Attorney: J. Goldberg

Issues/Action Requested:

The petitioner requested that the NRC issue a demand for information to the owner of Hatch

regarding the liquid and gaseous radwaste systems.

Background:

A PRB meeting on the petition was held on May 15, 2000. The petitioner was provided with an

opportunity to address the PRB in an open session, and did so with the licensee present.

The PRB concluded that the petition meets the threshold for processing under 10 CFR 2.206

and also concluded that the details provided in the petitioner’s request were sufficient to warrant

further inquiry. The acknowledgment letter and the Federal Register Notice on the petition were

issued on June 20, 2000. A request for additional information was sent to the licensee on

June 27, 2000, and the response was received on July 26, 2000.

Current Status:

The Director’s Decision on this petition is in review and is on course to meet the scheduled

completion date.
8

Facility: Hydro Nuclear Services

Petitioner: Shannon T. Doyle

Date of Petition: 7/18/2000

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: OE

Date Referred to Review Organization: 7/24/2000

EDO Number: G20000357

OGC Number: -

Scheduled Completion Date: 10/29/2000

Last Contact with Petitioners: 9/29/2000

Petition Manager: N. Hilton

Case Attorney: J. Goldberg

Issues/Action Requested:

The petitioner requested that the NRC take enforcement action against Hydro Nuclear

Services/Westinghouse and/or its successors (Hydro Nuclear) for willfully failing to comply with a

Department of Labor (DOL) order. Specifically, the DOL Administrative Review Board (ARB)

issued an order in "Shannon T. Doyle vs. Hydro Nuclear Services," 1989-ERA-22, which

requires Hydro Nuclear Services, a former division of Westinghouse, to take certain actions. As

a basis for his request, the petitioner stated that after a full 2 months of the order becoming

administratively final, Hydro Nuclear had not complied with the order, therefore creating a

potential chilling effect, which serves as a disincentive to workers in the nuclear industry to step

forward to identify potential safety problems.

The petitioner stated that responsibility for the failure to comply with the DOL order originated at

the highest corporate level and deserved a Severity Level I classification. He requested that the

NRC immediately "debar" Westinghouse from doing business in the nuclear industry at least

until such time that they fully comply with the ARB order. Additionally, a fine should be

immediately assessed against Westinghouse commensurate with a Severity Level I violation,

and each day of noncompliance should count as a separate violation, with its own fine.

Background:

The petitioner initially filed a complaint with DOL in 1988. The petitioner's complaint was not

found to have merit by both DOL Wage and Hour Division and an Administrative Law Judge

(ALJ). However, on March 30, 1994, the Secretary of Labor reversed the previous decisions and

found for the petitioner. On June 18, 1995, the NRC issued an enforcement action based on the

Secretary of Labor's decision. After numerous legal proceedings, the DOL ARB issued a final

order on May 17, 2000, awarding various damages to the petitioner. Hydro Nuclear had also

requested a stay of the remedy pending appeal to the US Court of Appeals; however, in the DOL

ARB order, the ARB denied Hydro Nuclear a stay. As of July 18, 2000, the date of the petition,

the petitioner had not received the monetary portion of the settlement.

As established by the Energy Reorganization Act, any person adversely affected by a DOL order

may obtain review of the order in the United States court of appeals. According to

Westinghouse, Hydro Nuclear filed a petition for review of the ARB order with the United States

Court of Appeals on May 18, 2000, in the Sixth Circuit. The petition challenges both the liability

and damages aspects of the order. In addition, on July 3, 2000, Hydro Nuclear renewed its stay

request with respect to the monetary portions of the ARB order in a motion made to the United

States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in connection with a proceeding

filed to obtain execution of the monetary judgment portion of the ARB order. In an order issued

August 14, 2000, the District Court granted Hydro Nuclear's motion for a stay of the monetary

portion pending appeal, stayed the proceeding before the District Court, and ordered that a bond

be posted on behalf of Hydro Nuclear to guarantee payment in the event a final judgment is

rendered for the petitioner by the Court of Appeals.
9

The Petition Review Board (PRB) met in an informal session on August 30, 2000, and

deliberated the merits of this petition. The petitioner was contacted and offered an opportunity

to address the PRB in an open session to articulate his concerns raised in the petition. The PRB

meeting was conducted on September 14, 2000, with Hydro Nuclear participating. The PRB

decided that the request does not meet the threshold because it does not satisfy the second

criterion stipulated in Part III of Management Directive 8.11 for reviewing the petition, i.e., among

other requirements, the petitioner failed to provide some element of support beyond the bare

allegation. Also, in regard to the petitioner’s allegation that Hydro Nuclear’s failure to comply

with a DOL order created a chilled environment in the nuclear industry, the PRB concluded that it

did not find any support for such an allegation in the petition. Further, the staff has concluded

that because Hydro Nuclear is pursuing its case in the courts, as is its right, NRC involvement at

this point would not be appropriate.

Current Status:

After the PRB meeting, the petitioner’s attorney submitted additional information, and review of

this information determined that it was not material to the petition, and thus did not alter the

PRB’s earlier recommendations. The petitioner was informed by telephone of the PRB decision

and was offered another opportunity to address the PRB. A conference call is being planned.
10

Facility: US Department of Defense and all

services/users of depleted uranium (DU)

Petitioner: Doug Rokke

Date of Petition: 6/1/00

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NMSS

Date Referred to Review Organization: 7/18/00

EDO Number: G20000345

OGC Number: ---

Scheduled Completion Date: 1/8/2001

Last Contact with Petitioner: 9/8/2000

Petition Manager: Roberto J. Torres

Case Attorney: J. Goldberg

Issues/Action Requested:

The petitioner requested a formal NRC hearing to consider: (1) the revocation of the master DU

license for the US Department of Defense (DOD) and all services; (2) implementation of fines

and consideration of personal criminal liability; (3) formal protection under the whistleblower

statutes for him and all others who are trying to obtain medical care for all DU casualties; and

(4) completion of environmental remediation of all DU contamination.

Background:

The petitioner served as a health physicist for the depleted uranium team in Operation Desert

Storm (i.e., Gulf War), and after the Gulf War served as the DOD/Army Depleted Uranium

Project Director. The petitioner alleges that he became sick from DU exposure and

subsequently was denied medical care. The US Navy has a master material license issued by

NRC Region II. On February 19, 1999, during a training exercise, DU ammunition was

expended on the Live Impact Area of the Vieques Naval Range, on Vieques Island, Puerto Rico.

The NRC was notified of the incident by the Naval Radiation Safety Committee (NRSC)

Executive Secretary on March 5, 1999. The NRSC identified the issuance of the DU ammunition

and the subsequent firing of it as a Severity Level IV violation of the Navy’s Master Material

License (MML); specifically, a violation of Naval Radioactive Material Permit Number 13-00164-

L1NP.

A team of Navy Health Physicists was deployed to Vieques between March 10 and 19, 1999.

The team performed visual and radiological surveys and recovered a total of 57 DU ammunition

penetrators. NRC conducted an inspection on March 22-23, 2000, of the NRSC actions as a

result of this incident. Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC determined that the

NRSC properly identified a Severity Level IV violation and appropriately issued a Notice of

Violation to the responsible command. NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2810, “Master Material

License Inspection Program,” states that the NRC will not take any further enforcement action,

to cite or to pursue escalation for Severity Level IV violations by permittees that have already

been identified and adequately corrected by the MML’s Radiation Safety Committee. The

petitioner was contacted on July 25, 2000, and was informed of the 10 CFR 2.206 process.

Subsequent attempted contacts, including a letter dated August 8, 2000, offering him an

opportunity for a presentation to the PRB, received no response.

Current Status:

The PRB met on August 29, 2000, and accepted the petition. An acknowledgment letter and a

Federal Register notice on the petition were issued on September 8, 2000.
1

Attachment 2

AGE AND RESOURCE EXPENDITURES FOR AGENCY 2.206 OPEN PETITIONS

As of September 30, 2000

ASSIGNEDACTIONOFFICE

PETITION NUMBER OGC

NUMBER

FACILITY AGE

(months)*

Scheduled

Completion Date

Resources

Expended by Action

Office (HOURS)1

Resources

Expended by OGC

(HOURS)1

NMSS G19990011 P-99-02 ATLAS CORPORATION 3** TBD2 5 65 E

tt

s2dtCp

NMSS G20000138,136 ENVIROSAFE OF IDAHO 5 10/25/2000 158 25 D

oletp

NRR G20000232 - HATCH UNITS 1 & 2 3 10/20/2000 194 6OE G20000357 - HYDRONUCLEAR SERVICES - TBD 90 14NMSS G20000345 - DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE - 1/8/2001 66 2

1 Staff professional time only; does not include management or administrative time.2 Projected completion date. See Attachment 1 for explanation.

*Age calculated from the date of the acknowledgment letter.** The clock on this petition stopped as of May 27, 1999.
1

Attachment 3

Table on Status of Public Petitions

Under 10 CFR 2.206 for DDs Issued and/or Closed During the Last 12 M

Petition Number Assigned Facility Petition DD Age 

Action Date Date at Closu

Office

GT97181 NRR Connecticut Yankee 3/11/97 9/9/99 29 G19990201 NRR Millstone 3/31/99 9/28/99 4 G19990224 NRR Nine Mile Point 1 & 2 4/5/99 10/28/99 4 G19990268 NRR Nine Mile Point 1 5/24/99 11/28/99 5 GT96919 NRR Millstone 1, 2 & 3 11/25/96, as

amended 12/23/96 2/16/2000 37 

G19990465 NRR Indian Point Unit 2 9/15/99 4/13/2000 6 G20000062 NRR Indian Point Unit 3 2/10/2000 7/26/2000 4 G20000133 NRR Indian Point Unit 2 3/14/2000 10/6/2000 6 1) Age calculated from the date of the acknowledgment letter.2) Goals: Acknowledgment letter issued within 5 weeks from date of receipt; DD issued within 4 months of acknowledgment letter.