October 25, 2002

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 2002 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS

UNDER 10 CFR 2.206

The attached report gives the status of 10 CFR 2.206 petitions as of September 30, 2002. 

Currently, there are seven open petitions, which have been accepted for review under the 2.206

process: five in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and two in the Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards. 

Attachment 1 provides a detailed status of the open petitions.

Attachment 2 shows the age statistics for the open 2.206 petitions as of September 30, 2002.

Three safeguards-related petitions exceeded the 120-day goal for issuing the proposed

Director’s Decision (DD). The reasons for this were discussed in the May/June report. Another

open petition has exceeded the 120-day goal. The staff postponed issuing a proposed DD on

this petition to incorporate the Commission's direction regarding safety of shipments of spent

nuclear fuel. The proposed DD was issued on August 29, 2002. 

Attachment 3 shows the age trend of closed petitions for the last 3 years. One proposed DD

was issued this month: the proposed response to the petition from the Union of Concerned

Scientists was issued on September 5 -- 114 days from the issuance of the acknowledgment

letter.

This report and recently issued DDs are placed in the Agencywide Documents Access and

Management System. In making these readily accessible to the public, the staff has identified

another vehicle to address one of our performance goals, i.e., to enhance public confidence.

Attachments: As stated

CONTACT: Donna Skay, NRR

415-1322
October 25, 2002

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 2002 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS

UNDER 10 CFR 2.206

The attached report gives the status of 10 CFR 2.206 petitions as of September 30, 2002. 

Currently, there are seven open petitions, which have been accepted for review under the 2.206

process: five in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and two in the Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards. 

Attachment 1 provides a detailed status of the open petitions.

Attachment 2 shows the age statistics for the open 2.206 petitions as of September 30, 2002.

Three safeguards-related petitions exceeded the 120-day goal for issuing the proposed

Director’s Decision (DD). The reasons for this were discussed in the May/June report. Another

open petition has exceeded the 120-day goal. The staff postponed issuing a proposed DD on

this petition to incorporate the Commission's direction regarding safety of shipments of spent

nuclear fuel. The proposed DD was issued on August 29, 2002. 

Attachment 3 shows the age trend of closed petitions for the last 3 years. One proposed DD

was issued this month: the proposed response to the petition from the Union of Concerned

Scientists was issued on September 5 -- 114 days from the issuance of the acknowledgment

letter.

This report and recently issued DDs are placed in the Agencywide Documents Access and

Management System. In making these readily accessible to the public, the staff has identified

another vehicle to address one of our performance goals, i.e., to enhance public confidence.

Attachments: As stated

CONTACT: Donna Skay, NRR

415-1322

DISTRIBUTION: See next page

Accession No.: ML022770005

OFFIC

E

PM:PDI LA: PDI SC: PDI-1 D: PD1 D:DLPM NMSS ADPT:NRR

NAME DSkay SLittle SRichards for RLaufer SRichards JZwolinski PGoldberg BSheron 

DATE 10/10/02 10/10/02 10/15/02 10/15/02 10/24/02 10/11/02 10/25/02

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC

WKane, DEDR/OEDO

CPaperillo, DEDMRS/EDO

PNorry, DEDM/OEDO

JCraig, AO/OEDO

JShea, OEDO

PAnderson, OEDO

EJulian, SECY

SCollins, NRR

RLaufer

SRichards

JJohnson, NRR

RBorchardt, NRR

BSheron, NRR

CMohrwinkel, NRR

RSubbaratnam, NRR

KCyr, OGC

LChandler, OGC

FCameron, OGC

JGoldberg, OGC

JCordes, Jr., OCAA

FCongel, OE

PLohaus, STP

MVirgilio, NMSS

PGoldberg, NMSS

FBrown, NMSS

EDunnington, NRR

BBoger, NRR

MStein, OE

GCaputo, OI

JZwolinski, NRR

TMarsh, NRR

HBerkow, NRR

DSkay, NRR

OCA

OPA

Regional Administrators

PDI-1 READING

SLittle
Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206

September 30, 2002

(Table of Contents)

Attachment 1

Page

Facility Petitioner/EDO No. No.

Salem Nuclear Generating Station, 

Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Hope Creek 

Generating Station, and Oyster Creek 

Nuclear Generating Station Norm Cohen/Unplug Salem

Campaign/G20010389....................................1

All 103 Operating Nuclear Power

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

Center/G20010485.........................................3

Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Alex Matthiessen/Karl Coplan/Pace 

Unit Nos. 2 and 3 Environmental Litigation Clinic, Inc., 

Riverkeeper, Inc., et al./G20010508, 

G20010556, G20010567, G20020034,

G20020051, G20020064, G20020073,

G20020085, G20020092, G20020095,

G20020096, G20020097, and 

G20020098.....................................................5

Carolina Power & Light (CP&L)/

Progress Energy Jim Warren of North Carolina Waste 

Awareness and Reduction Network 

(NC WARN)/GT200100461............................8

All 103 Operating Nuclear Power

Plants in the U. S. D. Lochbaum/Union of Concerned 

Scientists, et al./G20020142.........................10

James A. Fitzpatrick/Entergy Tim Judson of Citizens Awareness 

Network (CAN), et al., and New York 

Public Interest Research Group

(NYPIRG)/G20020136..................................12

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant Terry Lodge of Toledo Coalition for 

Safe Energy/G20020246..............................13
Attachment 1

Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206

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

Hope Creek Generating Station

Oyster Creek Nuclear 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 Number: G20010389

Proposed DD issuance: May 16, 2002

Scheduled Completion Date: 9/24/02 10/31/02

Last Contact with Petitioners: 6/5/2002

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 plants’ 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 power 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. 

Two closed Petition Review Board (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 petitioner’s 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 4 and 6) were issued on

December 20, 2001.

The petitioner was contacted on December 7, 2001, and 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. However, the petitioner's immediate action

requests were, in effect, partially granted in that the NRC had taken actions in response to the

September 11, 2001, event by issuing many safeguards and threat advisories to the industry. 

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.
- 2 -

The petitioner was contacted again on January 9, 2002, and informed of the progress on this

petition and the scheduled completion date of April 30, 2002. Orders were sent to all licensees

on February 25, 2002, to formalize the heightened security measures and to require certain

additional enhancements. A PRB meeting was held on February 28, 2002, to determine the

staff actions on this petition in light of the Orders. The PRB recommended that the petition

managers issue separate Director’s Decisions (DDs) for each of the security-related petitions

discussed on pages 2, 4, and 6 rather than one combined DD.

The petitioner was contacted on March 7, 2002, and informed of the status of the staff’s review. 

On March 18, 2002, the PRB met with representatives of the Reactor Safeguards, Radiation

Safety, and Emergency Preparedness Branch of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

(NRR), and the Office of the Executive Director for Operations to re-consider the policy of

withholding security-related petitions from the public in light of new guidance on releasing

documents. The PRB, with the agreement of NRR’s Executive Team and representatives of

the offices listed above, decided to make this petition, and the other security-related petitions,

public.

The proposed DD was forwarded to the petitioner and licensees on May 16, 2002. The NRC

staff requested comments by June 21, 2002. On June 5, 2002, Michael Kohn of the National

Whistleblower Center requested that the comment period for a similar petition be extended to

August 10, 2002. Since Mr. Kohn’s comments might affect the UNPLUG Salem petition, the

staff offered to grant a similar extension to Norm Cohen. Mr. Cohen accepted the staff’s offer

to extend the comment period to August 10, 2002. Comments were received on August 10,

2002.

Current Status:

The staff is evaluating the comments on the proposed DDs. Due to the significant number of

comments received and the importance associated with these petitions, the final DD will require

extensive, high-level reviews by both NRR and NSIR. The need for significant review, coupled

with competing priorities by the staff, required the expected issuance date of the final DD to be

extended to October 31, 2002.
- 3 -

Facility: All Operating Nuclear Power

Plants (103) in the U. S.

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

Date of Petition and Supplement: 10/24/2001 and 1/16/2002

Director’s Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 10/26/2001

EDO Number: G20010485

Proposed DD issuance: 05/16/2002

Scheduled Completion Date: 9/24/02 10/31/2002

Last Contact with Petitioners: 10/03/2002

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 it 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 plants’ 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 NRC’s failure to adequately assess risk of malevolent airborne attacks,

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

failure to adequately protect nuclear power plants from terrorist attacks.

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

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

pages 2 and 6 for the current status of these petitions).

The petitioner was contacted on December 7 and 20, 2001, and informed of the staff’s 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. However, the petitioner's immediate action requests were, in effect, partially

granted in that the NRC had taken actions in response to the September 11, 2001, event by

issuing many safeguards and threat advisories to the industry. Furthermore, Orders were sent

to all licensees on February 25, 2002, to formalize the heightened security measures and to

require certain additional enhancements. 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 2 and 6)

were issued on December 20, 2001. By letter dated January 16, 2002, Winston & Strawn

provided comments on the petition on behalf of several licensees, in support of the NRC
- 4 -

acknowledgment letter to Michael D. Kohn dated December 20, 2001. These comments were

considered in preparing the proposed Director’s Decision (DD).

A Petition Review Board (PRB) meeting was held on February 28, 2002, to determine the staff

actions on this petition in light of the Orders. The PRB recommended that the petition

managers issue separate DDs for each of the security-related petitions discussed on pages 2,

4, and 6 rather than one combined DD.

The petition manager contacted Michael Kohn on March 15, 2002, and informed him of the

progress of his petition and issuance of Security Orders on February 25, 2002. On March 18,

2002, the PRB met with representatives of the Reactor Safeguards, Radiation Safety, and

Emergency Preparedness Branch of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), and the

Office of the Executive Director for Operations to re-consider the policy of withholding 

security-related petitions from the public in light of new guidance on releasing documents. The

PRB, with the agreement of NRR’s Executive Team and representatives of the offices listed

above, decided to make this petition, and the other security-related petitions, public.

The proposed DD on the petition was issued on May 16, 2002. The NRC staff requested

comments by June 21, 2002. The petitioner requested an extension of the comment period

until August 10, 2002. Both the petitioner and the licensee were granted an extension until

August 10, 2002. Comments were received on August 10.

Current Status:

The staff is evaluating the comments on the proposed DDs. Due to the significant number of

comments received and the importance associated with these petitions, the final DD will require

extensive, high-level reviews by both NRR and NSIR. The need for significant review, coupled

with competing priorities by the staff, required the expected issuance date of the final DD to be

extended to October 31, 2002.
- 5 -

Facility: Indian Point Units 2 and 3

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

Litigation Clinic, Inc., Riverkeeper, Inc., et al. 

Date of Petition: 11/8/2001, plus several supplements

Director’s Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 11/9/2001

EDO Numbers: G20010508, G20010556, G20010567, G20020034, 

G20020051, G20020064, G20020073, G20020085,

G20020092, G20020095, G20020096, G20020097,

G20020098, and G20020378

Proposed DD issuance: 05/16/2002

Scheduled Completion Date: 9/24/02 10/31/02

Last Contact with Petitioners: 9/9/02

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 “entire facility”; 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 plant’s 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

Trustees’ resolution calling for action very similar to that of the above petitioner and citing the

same bases. 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. A response letter was sent to Hastings-onHudson on January 29, 2002.

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

Board of Trustees Resolution, requested that they too join the Riverkeeper, Inc., et al. as a

co-petitioner. The PRB acceded to the request and recommended that they be included and 

acknowledged along with the rest of the petitioners. A response letter was sent on 

December 20, 2001.

Mr. Matthiessen was contacted on December 20 and 27, 2001, and informed of the staff’s

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

this and the two other similar petitions (see pages 2 and 4) were issued on December 20, 2001. 
- 6 -

The petitioners were informed that the NRC had advised all NRC licensees, after the

September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, 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. 

However, the petitioner’s immediate action requests were, in effect, partially granted in that the

NRC had taken actions in response to the September 11, 2001, event by issuing many

safeguards and threat advisories to the industry. Furthermore, Orders were sent to all

licensees on February 25, 2002, to formalize the heightened security measures and to require

certain additional enhancements. 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.

The NRC received letters from the Town of Stony Point, dated December 12, 2001, and the

Bedford Central School District, dated December 13, 2001. Also included as part of this petition

are letters received from Nyack Public Schools, the Peace and Community Action Committee,

the Village of Dobbsferry, the Town of Newcastle, and the Hastings-on-Hudson school district in

February 2002. These letters make identical requests to the Riverkeeper petition and the

petitions from the Villages of Hastings and Croton-on-Hudson. The staff will treat these as

co-petitioners, and their letters as supplements to the petition.

Mr. Matthiessen was contacted on January 7, 2002. He requested a meeting with the Petition

Review Board (PRB). The PRB decided at its meeting on January 24, 2002, that such a

meeting was unnecessary because the petitioners did not indicate that they had additional

information to provide to the staff. A PRB meeting was held on February 28, 2002, to

determine the staff actions on this petition in light of the Orders. The PRB recommended that

the petition managers issue separate Director’s Decisions (DDs) for each of the security-related

petitions discussed on pages 2, 4, and 6 rather than one combined DD.

A letter was sent to Mr. Matthiessen on March 13, 2002, informing him of the staff’s decisions

related to his requests for a meeting and specific documents, which he made in the January 7,

2002, phone call.

On March 18, 2002, the PRB met with representatives of the Reactor Safeguards, Radiation

Safety, and Emergency Preparedness Branch of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

(NRR), and the Office of the Executive Director for Operations to re-consider the policy of

withholding security-related petitions from the public in light of new guidance on releasing

documents. The PRB, with the agreement of NRR’s Executive Team and representatives of

the offices listed above, decided to make this petition, and the other security-related petitions,

public.

The proposed DD was forwarded to the petitioner and licensees on May 16, 2002. The NRC

staff requested comments by June 21, 2002. On June 5, 2002, Michael Kohn of the National

Whistleblower Center requested that the comment period for a similar petition be extended to

August 10, 2002. Since Mr. Kohn’s comments might affect the UNPLUG Salem petition, the

staff offered to grant a similar extension to Norm Cohen. Mr. Cohen accepted the staff’s offer

to extend the comment period to August 10, 2002.

On June 6, 2002, Brian M. O’Hare, a citizen from New York City, New York, submitted a petition

calling for action very similar to that of the other co-petitioners and citing the same bases. Mr.

O’Hare called for the NRC to adopt the resolution in the Riverkeeper petition. The PRB met on

June 27, 2002, and recommended that, since the requested enforcement actions and bases

were similar, it met the threshold for processing under 10 CFR 2.206. The PRB decided that
- 7 -

Mr. O’Hare will be added to the list of petitioners. The petition manager provided Mr. O’Hare

with a copy of the proposed DD of May 16, 2002.

Comments were received on the proposed DD on August 10, 2002.

Current Status:

The staff is evaluating the comments on the proposed DDs. Due to the significant number of

comments received and the importance associated with these petitions, the final DD will require

extensive, high-level reviews by both NRR and NSIR. The need for significant review, coupled

with competing priorities by the staff, required the expected issuance date of the final DD to be

extended to October 31, 2002.
- 8 -

Utility Carolina Power & Light (CP&L)/Progress Energy

Petitioner: Jim Warren of North Carolina Waste Awareness and

Reduction Network (NC WARN)

Date of Petition and supplement: November 5, 2001, and February 12, 2002

Director’s Decision to Be Issued by: NMSS

Date Referred to Review Organization: 12/11/2001

EDO Number: G200100461

Proposed DD issuance (completed): 8/29/2002

Scheduled completion date: 10/29/02

Last Contact with Petitioner: 5/30/2002 7/17/2002 8/29/02

Petition Manager: David Pstrak

Case Attorney: Jack Goldberg

Issues/Action Requested:

The petitioner requests that NRC require CP&L to halt rail shipments of spent nuclear fuel. 

The petitioner stated that the Department of Energy (DOE) suspended a shipment of fuel

assemblies due to the threat of terrorist attacks on the shipment during transport. The

petitioner believes the NRC should also require CP&L to suspend rail shipments of irradiated

fuel indefinitely to ensure the safety of the citizens in North Carolina.

Background:

The petitioner states that DOE suspended a shipment of spent fuel assemblies following the

terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, because of the potential for a terrorist attack on the

shipment. The petitioner requests that NRC require indefinite postponement of all spent fuel

shipments within the CP&L system. The petitioner states that failure to do so would indicate a

conflict between DOE and NRC positions on the safety of rail shipments of spent fuel.

The Petition Review Board (PRB) met on January 16, 2002, and agreed that the incoming

petition meets the criteria to be considered under the 2.206 process. The PRB decided not to

grant the part of the petition that requested immediate action to halt the rail shipments of spent

fuel within the CP&L system. The PRB determined it was appropriate to send an

acknowledgment letter to Mr. Warren, and it was issued on January 31, 2002.

The petitioner sent the NRC Chairman another letter dated February 12, 2002, in which he

requested once again that NRC halt the shipments of spent fuel by CP&L to the Harris Plant. 

This letter is being treated as a supplement to the original petition. A Director’s Decision (DD)

is being developed and will be structured around the interim compensatory measures (ICMs) for

transportation of spent fuel. The petitioner was informed that his letter of February 12, 2002, is

currently in review and will be considered along with the previous letter (November 5, 2001) in

the 2.206 process.

On May 30, 2002, the staff informed the petitioner that it would not meet the goal of issuing the

proposed DD within 120 days while they awaited Commission guidance on the draft ICMs.

The staff received a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) on the Transportation ICMs on 

June 28, 2002, which provided additional guidance and direction to move forward with

addressing the ICMs with industry and stakeholders. A meeting was held on 7/30/02 with state

and industry representatives to discuss the details of the ICMs and to gain an understanding of

their impact. Many comments were received.
- 9 -

The staff determined that the ICMs should be issued prior to sending the draft Director’s

Decision to the petitioner and licensee for comment. Therefore, the staff requested and

received an extension until August 29, 2002, to issue the proposed Director’s Decision. On July

17, 2002, the petition manager called Jim Warren of NC WARN to apprise him of the status of

NRC’s response to his petition and inform him of the extension that was granted and the reason

for the extension.

A decision was made to issue the proposed Director’s Decision without the benefit of the ICMs

being finalized since issuance of the ICMs was imminent. The proposed DD was sent to the

petitioner and licensee on August 29, 2002.

Current Status:

Comments were received from the petitioner and are being reviewed by the staff. The final DD

is expected to be issued by October 29, 2002. 
- 10 -

Facility: All Operating Nuclear Power

Plants (103) in the U. S.

Petitioner(s): David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists, 

Date of Petition and supplements: 3/11/2002, 3/21/2002, and 3/22/2002

Director’s Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

EDO Number: G20020142

Proposed DD issuance (completed): 9/05/2002

Scheduled Completion Date: 11/08/2002

Last Contact with Petitioners: 9/05/2002

Petition Manager: D. Jaffe

Case Attorney: J. Goldberg

Issues/Action Requested:

The petitioner is requesting that the NRC order the licensees of all operating nuclear power

plants to take measures that will reduce the risk from sabotage of irradiated fuel. Specifically,

those measures are:

(1) to impose a 72-hour limit for operation when the number of emergency diesel generators

(EDGs) is one less than the number in the Technical Specifications Limiting Condition for

Operation whenever the reactor is in any mode of operation other than hot shutdown, cold

shutdown, refueling, or defueled, and

(2) to impose a requirement that the time it would take the spent fuel pool water to boil after

forced circulation stops must be at least 24 hours.

Background:

As the basis for the first requested action, the petitioner stated that the transmission lines and

substations constituting the electrical grid are virtually unprotected targets for terrorists. 

Likewise, the switchyard at the typical nuclear power plant is outside the security perimeter

fences. The likelihood that a successful terrorist attack against the electrical grid could cascade

into a station blackout and result in reactor core damage increases the longer the EDGs are out

of service.

As the basis for the second requested action, the petitioner stated that terrorists could

successfully attack the offsite power transmission lines and/or the water intake system for

cooling water and cause spent fuel pool cooling to be stopped. Restricting the time-to-boil to a

minimum of 24 hours reduces the likelihood that any such terrorist actions would result in

damage to the irradiated fuel in the spent fuel pool because plant workers would have more

time to restore the normal cooling system or provide a backup system.

The petitioner was contacted on March 20, 2002. He requested a teleconference with the

Petition Review Board (PRB), which was held on March 26, 2002. The petitioner submitted

supplements to his petition on March 21 and 22, 2002. The supplements list other groups who

wish to be added as co-petitioners. Following the teleconference with the petitioner, the PRB

met on March 26, 2002, and agreed that the incoming letter meets the criteria to be considered

under the 2.206 process. However, the PRB decided not to grant the part of the petition that

requested immediate action pending further evaluation. An acknowledgment letter and a

Federal Register notice on this petition were issued on May 8, 2002. The petition manager

contacted the petitioner on June 6, 2002, to inform him of the status of the review.
- 11 -

The PRB met on July 18, 2002, to discuss the status of the technical branches’ review and the 

content of the proposed Director’s Decision. 

Current Status:

The proposed DD was sent to the petitioners on September 5, 2002. Comments were received

and are being reviewed by the staff. The staff expects to issue the final DD by November 8, 2002.
- 12 -

Facility: James A. FitzPatrick/Entergy

Petitioner: Tim Judson of Citizens Awareness Network (CAN), et

al., and petitioners from New York Public Interest

Research Group (NYPIRG)

Date of Letter: 2/21/2002

Director’s Decision to Be Issued by: NMSS

Date Referred to Review Organization: 3/11/2002

EDO Number: G20020136

Proposed DD issuance (completed): 8/13/2002

Scheduled Completion Date: 11/01/2002

Last Contact with Petitioner: 8/13/2002

Petition Manager: Julia Barto

Case Attorney: Jack Goldberg

Issues/Actions requested:

The petitioners request that the NRC order the licensee to suspend the dry cask storage program

at the FitzPatrick site. In addition, the petitioners request that the NRC require the licensee to

perform several technical and safety evaluations to justify use of the HI-STORM 100 dry cask

storage system and the HI-TRAC 100 transfer cask. The petitioners also submit a Demand for

Information requesting all information filed regarding dry storage at FitzPatrick be made public. 

The petitioners request that the Petition Review Board (PRB) submit the petition to Office of the

Inspector General for review of the Spent Fuel Project Office’s (SFPO’s) compliance with NRC

regulations, and that NRC review whether staff in SFPO are misguided or complacent. The

petitioners further request the NRC conduct an investigation to determine whether the licensee

has deliberately circumvented the appropriate technical and regulatory review for the cask design

changes.

Background:

The petitioners believe that the design changes made to the HI-STORM 100 storage system are

significant enough that NRC review and approval was required, and that there is strong reason to

believe that these site-specific changes have been made in violation of NRC regulations and

rulings, the Certificate of Compliance for the cask design, and the General License for the storage

of spent fuel at power reactor sites in 10 CFR Part 72, Subpart K.

The acknowledgment letter was issued on April 12, 2002.

The staff review of the petitioner’s Demand for Information showed that the only related document

received by the NRC was a licensee evaluation performed under 10 CFR 72.48. This document,

submitted earlier for review in conjunction with the inspection program, was made publicly

available as of May 10, 2002 and a copy was provided to the petitioners. 

The proposed DD was issued on August 13, 2002. Comments were received on August 27, 2002. 

Current Status:

The staff is reviewing the comments on the proposed DD. The final DD is scheduled to be issued

by November 1, 2002.
- 13 -

Facility: Davis Besse Nuclear Power Plant

Petitioner: Terry Lodge of Toledo Coalition for 

Safe Energy

Date of Letter: 4/24/2002

Director’s Decision to Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 4/24/2002

EDO Number: G20020246

Proposed DD issuance (completed): 08/16/2002

Last Contact with Petitioner: 08/16/2002 10/15/02

Final DD issuance (completed): 10/15/2002

Petition Manager: W. Macon

Case Attorney: Jack Goldberg

Issues/Actions requested:

The petitioners request that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issue an Order to FirstEnergy,

the owner of the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant, requiring a Verification by an Independent

Party (VIP) for issues related to the reactor vessel head problem. The petitioners propose a VIP

team to consist of a material corrosion expert, an instrumentation and control/electrical engineer, a

mechanical engineer, a system engineer, and at least one administrative staffer.

Background:

On August 14, 1996, the NRC issued an Order to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO),

the owner of the Millstone Nuclear Plant. That Order required NNECO to bring in an independent

team of consultants to verify that the company had adequately fixed a number of problems at

Millstone. The petition contends that the repeated failures to properly respond to diverse warning

signs of damage to the reactor vessel head at Davis-Besse are analogous to the recurring

problems at Millstone. These failures are documented in an NRC Confirmatory Action Letter

(CAL) issued to FirstEnergy on March 13, 2002, in a probable cause summary report completed

by FirstEnergy on March 22, 2002, and in other references cited by the petitioners.

The petitioners, in accordance with Management Directive (MD) 8.11, were offered and accepted

an opportunity to participate in the open portion of the PRB meeting via telephone, to make a

presentation to the PRB concerning the letter dated April 24, 2002, and articulate their concerns. 

The licensee also participated in the meeting on May 9, 2002. The PRB concluded that the

petition satisfies the criteria for processing under 10 CFR 2.206 (Part III of MD 8.11). The

petitioners do not request any immediate action, nor do they request action to be taken and

completed by a certain date or prior to restart of Davis-Besse.

An acknowledgment letter and a Federal Register notice on this petition were issued on 

June 4, 2002.

On July 18 and 24, 2002, the PRB met with the petition manager to discuss the plan for

addressing the petitioner’s concerns. 
- 14 -

The proposed DD was issued on August 16, 2002. Comments were received from the petitioner

on August 29, 2002, and from the licensee on August 30, 2002.

Current Status:

The staff issued the final DD on October 15, 2002.
Attachment 2

AGE STATISTICS FOR AGENCY 2.206 OPEN PETITIONS

As of September 30, 2002

ASSIGNED

ACTION

OFFICE

FACILITY Incoming 

petition

PRB

meeting1

Acknowledgment 

letter / 

days from

incoming2

Proposed DD

issuance

Date/ age3

Scheduled

date for

final DD/

age 4

Comments 

NRR

Salem 1, 2, Hope Creek,Oyster Creek

9/17/01 11/19/01 12/20/2001

93

05/16/02

complete

148

10/31/02

79

Initial PRB meeting handling of safeguawith related petitionTechnical staff resonew NSIR and the in issuing proposed 

NRR

All 103 Nuclear PowerPlants in the U.S.

10/26/01 11/19/01 12/20/2001

54

05/16/02

complete

148

10/31/02

79

NRR Indian Point 2, 3 11/08/01 11/19/01 12/20/2001

42

05/16/02

complete

148

10/31/02

79

NMSS Carolina Power &

Light(CP&L)/ ProgressEnergy

11/05/01 1/16/02 01/31/2002

85

8/29/2002

complete

210

10/29/02

33

Delay in holding inimail distribution dereview office until mIssuance of proposCommission's latesshipments.

NRR All 103 Operating

Nuclear Power Plants inthe U.S.

3/11/02 3/26/02 05/08/2002

57

09/05/2002

completed

114

11/08/02

45

NMSS FitzPatrick/Entergy 2/21/02 3/29/02 04/12/2002

50

08/13/2002

completed

121

11/01/02

59

NRR Davis Besse/FENCO 4/24/02 5/09/02 06/04/2002

40

08/16/2002

completed

73

10/15/02

completed

45

1) Goal is to hold a PRB meeting, which the petitioner is invited to participate in, within 2 weeks of receipt of petition (thertwo weeks from the date that the letter is issued until it is received by the reviewing organization).2) Goal is to issue acknowledgement letter within 5 weeks of the date of incoming petition.3) Goal is to issue proposed DD within 120 days of the acknowledgment letter.4) Goal is to issue final DD within 45 days of the end of the comment period.
Attachment 3

NOTE: Includes both NMSS and NRR petitions