July 15, 2004

MEMORANDUM TO: Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director for Operations

FROM: Brian W. Sheron, Associate Director

 for Project Licensing and Technical Analysis

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT: MAY/JUNE 2004 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS

UNDER TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS,

SECTION 2.206

The attached reports give the status of petitions submitted under Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, Section 2.206. As of June 30, 2004, there were four open petitions, which were

accepted for review under the 2.206 process: two in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,

and two in the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards. One final Director’s Decision

was issued in June 2004.

Attachment 1 provides a detailed status of the open petitions.

Attachment 2 provides the status of incoming letters that the staff has been reviewing to

determine if they meet the criteria for review under the 2.206 process.

Attachment 3 shows the age statistics for the open 2.206 petitions as of June 30, 2004.

Attachment 4 shows the age trend of closed petitions for the last 3 years.

This report, Director’s Decisions, and other 2.206-related documents 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/DLPM

415-1322
July 15, 2004

MEMORANDUM TO: Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director for Operations

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

 for Project Licensing and Technical Analysis

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT: MAY/JUNE 2004 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS

UNDER TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS,

SECTION 2.206

The attached reports give the status of petitions submitted under Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, Section 2.206. As of June 30, 2004, there were four open petitions, which were

accepted for review under the 2.206 process: two in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,

and two in the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards. One final Director’s Decision

was issued in June 2004.

Attachment 1 provides a detailed status of the open petitions.

Attachment 2 provides the status of incoming letters that the staff has been reviewing to

determine if they meet the criteria for review under the 2.206 process.

Attachment 3 shows the age statistics for the open 2.206 petitions as of June 30, 2004.

Attachment 4 shows the age trend of closed petitions for the last 3 years.

This report, Director’s Decisions, and other 2.206-related documents 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

ADAMS Accession Number: ML041610518

OFFICE PM:PDI-1 LA:PDI-1 D:PDII NMSS ADPT:NRR

NAME DSkay SLittle HBerkow PGoldberg BSheron

DATE 6/30/04 6/21/04 7/01/04 7/6/04 7/12/04

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
DISTRIBUTION FOR MAY 2004 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS UNDER

TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, SECTION 2.206

Dated: 

PUBLIC

PDI-1 Reading File

SCollins, DEDR/ EDO

MVirgilio, DEDMRS/ EDO

PNorry, DEDM/ EDO

WKane, DEDH/ EDO

WDean, AO/ EDO

TBergman, OEDO

PAnderson, OEDO (Email after this document has been put into ADAMS)

EJulian

RLaufer

CHolden

JDyer, NRR

RBorchardt, NRR

BSheron, NRR

CMohrwinkel, NRR

KCyr, OGC

LChandler, OGC

JGoldberg, OGC

JCordes, Jr., OCAA

FCongel, OE

PLohaus, STP

JStrosnider, NMSS

PGoldberg, NMSS

CAbrams, NMSS

BBoger, NRR

GCaputo, OI

LMarsh, NRR

HBerkow, NRR

DSkay, NRR

OCA

OPA

Regional Administrators

SLittle
Status of Open Petitions

Facility Petitioner/EDO No. Page

Indian Point Units 2 and 3 Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General

of the State of Connecticut

G20030216.................................................... 1

Indian Point Units 2 and 3 Riverkeeper

G20030545......................................................3

Vermont Yankee New England Coalition

G20040284......................................................5

Sequoyah Fuels Cherokee Nation and State of Oklahoma

G20030704......................................................6

Radiac Research Corporation Michael Gerrard

G20030681.......................................................7

Attachment 1
Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206

Facility: Indian Point Units 2 and 3

Petitioner: Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of the State

of Connecticut

Date of Petition: April 23, 2003, as supplemented on June 3, 2003,

and October 16, 2003

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NRR

EDO Number: G20030216

Proposed DD Issuance: 05/17/04

Final DD Issuance 08/16/04

Last Contact with Petitioner: 5/17/04

Petition Manager: Harold Chernoff

Case Attorney: Jack Goldberg

Issues/Actions requested:

That the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC):

a. Order the licensee to conduct full review of vulnerabilities, security measures, and

evacuation plans and to suspend operations, revoke the operating license, or adopt

other measures resulting in temporary shutdown of Indian Point Units 2 and 3.

b. Require the licensee to provide sufficient information to document the existing

security measures which provide protection against terrorist attacks.

c. Modify the licensee’s operating license to mandate specifically a defense and

security system sufficient to protect the entire facility, including electric equipment,

containment, spent fuel storage, and the control room from a land or water based

terrorist attack.

d. Order the revision of the licensee’s Emergency Response Plan and the Radiological

Emergency Response Plans of the State of New York and nearby counties to

account and prepare for terrorist attacks. These revisions must contemplate not

only the full range of realistic effects of a terrorist attack on the Indian Point facility,

but also a comprehensive response to multiple attacks on the region’s infrastructure

that could affect execution of the evacuation plans.

e. If, after taking the above actions, the NRC cannot adequately ensure the security of

the Indian Point facility against terrorist threats, or cannot ensure the safety of New

York and Connecticut citizens from terrorist attacks, that it take prompt action to

permanently retire the facility.
-2-

Background:

A closed PRB meeting was held on May 8, 2003, to discuss whether the petition

satisfies the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206. During this meeting the PRB

decided that no immediate action was necessary.

By letter dated June 3, 2003, the Petitioner filed a Supplement to his original 2.206

Petition. The supplement provided additional information in support of the petition in

three major areas: (1) shadow evacuation effects, (2) family separation, and (3) recent

design basis threat changes.

On June 19, 2003, the PRB held a conference call with the petitioner’s representative

(Assistant Attorney General, Robert Snook) to afford the petitioner the opportunity to

provide additional information or clarification with regards to the original petition and the

recently submitted supplement. Following the conference call, the PRB determined that

the petition satisfied the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206. An acknowledgment

letter was sent to the petitioner on July 3, 2003.

The licensee submitted a response to the petitioner’s first supplement (dated June 3,

2003) on October 15, 2003.

The petitioner filed a second supplement to his petition on October 16, 2003.

Based on the significant additional amount of information contained in the licensee’s

response and the supplement to the petition, the staff requested and was granted an

extension of time to respond to the petition to January 9, 2004. The petition manager

contacted the attorney general’s staff on November 5, 2003, and offered him an

opportunity to discuss the supplement with the PRB. This request was declined.

A letter acknowledging the petitioner's second supplement was issued on December 13,

2003.

The staff held a conference call with the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) on January 29, 2004, to discuss FEMA’s comments on the proposed Director's

Decision. On February 12, 2004, NRR received FEMA's comments and concurrence.

The staff made substantive changes to the proposed Director's Decision to reference

the February 2004 Riverkeeper court decision (which upheld the NRC’s conclusion in

the Director’s Decision related to Riverkeeper’s petition) and to legally strengthen

aspects of the proposed Director’s Decision. Subsequent to these changes, the revised

Director’s Decision was sent back to FEMA for its review and comment.

Current Status:

On May 17, 2004, the staff issued the proposed Director’s Decision. The petitioner

submitted comments by letter dated June 18, 2004.
-3-

Facility: Indian Point Units 2 and 3

Petitioner: Alex Matthiessen, Riverkeeper

David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists

Date of Petition: September 8, 2003, as supplemented on

September 22, 2003

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NRR

EDO Number: G20030545

Proposed DD Issuance: February 19, 2004

Final DD Issuance June 18, 2004

Last Contact with Petitioner: June 18, 2004

Petition Manager: Brian Benney

Case Attorney: Antonio Fernandez

Issues/Actions requested:

That the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC):

1. Issue an Order requiring Entergy to immediately shut down Indian Point Units 2 and

3 and maintain the reactors shut down until such time that the containment sumps

are modified to resolve the Generic Safety Issue 191 problem; or

2. Issue an Order requiring Entergy to prevent restart of Indian Point Units 2 and 3

from their next scheduled refueling outages until such time that the containment

sumps are modified to resolve the GSI-191 problem, and

Require Entergy to (a) maintain all equipment needed for monitoring leak-beforebreak of reactor coolant pressure boundary components within containment fully

functional and immediately shutdown the affected reactor upon any functional

impairment to monitoring equipment, and (b) refrain from any activity under 

10 CFR 50.59, 10 CFR 50.90, Section VII.C, or GL 91-18 Revision 1 that increases

or could increase the probability that a loss of coolant accident occurs.

Background:

A public PRB meeting was held with the petitioners on September 24, 2003. The

petitioners presented the staff with a supplement to their petition dated September 22,

2003. The transcript from the meeting will also be treated as a supplement to the

petition. The licensee stated that it would be submitting a response to the petition. 

Following the conference call, the PRB determined that the petition satisfied the criteria

for review under 10 CFR 2.206.

Several letters have been received by the NRC separately in support of the Riverkeeper

petition. The NRC staff will inform the authors of those letters of the status of its review

of the Riverkeeper petition but will not open separate 2.206 reviews for the additional

letters.
-4-

The staff issued a letter to the petitioner on October 22, 2003, acknowledging receipt of

the petition and addressing the need for immediate action. The staff concluded that

there is no need to take immediate action. By letter dated October 29, 2003, the

petitioner responded to the acknowledgment letter. The October 29, 2003, letter

included an additional assertion that the licensee is not complying with 10 CFR 50.46

regarding analysis and reporting of emergency core cooling system performance. 

The staff issued the proposed Director’s Decision to the petitioner and the licensee on

February 19, 2004.

The staff received comments on the proposed Decision from the Petitioner and a letter

from Congressman Engel on March 30, 2004. The staff issued a response to

Congressman Engel on April 29, 2004.

Current Status:

The staff issued the final Decision on June 18, 2004.
-5-

Facility: Vermont Yankee

Petitioner: Raymond Shadis, New England Coalition

Date of Petition: April 22, 2004

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NRR

EDO Number: G20040284

Proposed DD Issuance: September 27, 2004

Final DD Issuance TBD

Last Contact with Petitioner: May 28, 2004

Petition Manager: Alan Wang

Case Attorney: Steven Lewis

Issues/Actions requested:

That the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) order a halt to all fuel movement at Vermont

Yankee until such time as the licensee has rendered an accurate and NRC-verified account of

the location, disposition, and condition of all irradiated fuel, including fuel currently loaded in the

reactor core.

Background:

On April 21, 2004, Vermont Yankee formally notified the NRC that two short spent fuel

rod segments were not in the spent fuel pool in the location specified in documents. The

segments are described as about 7 inches long and 17 inches long, respectively. Both

are approximately the diameter of a pencil. These segments had been placed in a

special container at the bottom of the spent fuel pool in 1980. The licensee initiated an

investigation to attempt to locate the missing segments. On May 19, 2004, Entergy

reported to the NRC that the visual inspection of the spent fuel pool was essentially

complete. A camera search of the spent fuel pool did not detect the unaccounted for

spent fuel rod segments.

Current Status:

The staff contacted the petitioner on April 28, 2004, to discuss the 2.206 process. 

Following this call, the NRC sent a letter to the petitioner notifying him that all fuel

movements had been completed for the current refueling outage prior to the NRC’s

receipt of their petition. The staff concluded that the petitioner had not identified a

safety concern that would prevent the plant from restarting. 

The Petition Review Board (PRB) held a teleconference with the petitioner on May 5,

2004. During this teleconference, the petitioner clarified his request to exclude fuel

movements associated with locating the missing fuel pin segments from the scope of his

request. Following the teleconference, the PRB met in closed session and determined

that the petition satisfied the criteria for review under the 2.206 process. An

acknowledgement letter was issued to the petitioner on May 28, 2004.

The NRC determined that its Director’s Decision would be based partly on the actions

taken by the licensee to locate the missing fuel. The staff called the licensee on May

11, and discussed with them a request to document the actions they are taking and the

results of these actions. The requests discussed in this phone call are discussed in a

letter to Entergy dated May 21, 2004. By letter dated June 8, 2004, Entergy submitted

its response to the NRC’s request.

Facility: Sequoyah Fuels
-6-

Petitioner: Kelly Hunter Burch, State of Oklahoma and Julian

Fite, representing Cherokee Nation

Date of Petition: November 19, 2003

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NMSS

EDO Number: G20030704

Proposed DD Issuance: 12/31/06

Final DD Issuance TBD

Last Contact with Petitioner: 03/02/04

Petition Manager: Myron Fliegel

Case Attorney: Antonio Fernandez

Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC deny the request for an amendment to the materials license of Sequoyah

Fuels Corporation. The amendment seeks approval of a proposed ground water

corrective action plan and a proposed ground water monitoring plan.

Background:

This petition was originally submitted as a hearing request to the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Panel in response to a notice of a license amendment request by Sequoyah

Fuels. The petitioners each submitted a hearing request after the published deadline. 

Therefore, the ASLB dismissed the hearing requests and referred them to the Executive

Director for Operations under the provisions of 10 CFR 2.1205(i)(2) for appropriate

disposition under 10 CFR 2.206. Subsequently, the Cherokee Nation appealed the

ASLB’s decision to the Commission. 

The Commission reaffirmed the ASLB decision on January 15, 2004. The Petition

Review Board held a meeting with representatives of the two petitioners and the

licensee on January 28, 2004.

The staff issued acknowledgment letters to the petitioners on March 2, 2004. 

Current Status:

The staff anticipates that completion of the licensing action (review of the groundwater

monitoring and corrective action plans) will take approximately 2 years. During this time,

the staff will be working with the petitioners to understand their concerns and will

consider the petitioners’ issues while they evaluate the licensing action request. A

decision regarding the 2.206 petition will be made before the staff makes a final decision

on the license amendment request. Because of the time period anticipated to resolve

his petition, the staff has informed the petitioner that status updates will be provided as

necessary, but not necessarily be every 60 days as called for by NRC guidance.
-7-

Facility: Radiac Research Corporation

Petitioner: Michael Gerrard, representing Neighbors Against

Garbage

Date of Petition: November 4, 2003, as supplemented on 

February 27, 2004

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NMSS

EDO Number: G20030681

Proposed DD Issuance: 6/14/04

Final DD Issuance TBD

Last Contact with Petitioner: 6/14/04

Petition Manager: Charlie Cox 

Case Attorney:

Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC close the Radiac Research Corporation because a threat to the common

defense and security exists at the facility that is not being considered by the local

licensing agency. The petitioner claims that this threat exists because the facility is

located in a major population center; security at the facility is poor; and an adjoining

hazardous waste storage facility is permitted to handle flammable liquids, reactives, and

oxidizers, and has inadequate fire prevention and suppression systems.

Background:

The staff held internal PRB meetings to address the question of immediate action and

has concluded that there is no need for immediate action. The petitioner was informed

of this decision. Due to scheduling difficulties, a meeting with the petitioner and

licensee was delayed to February 20, 2004. At this meeting, the petitioner and licensee

indicated that they would submit supplemental information that addresses the

applicability of their petition to the 2.206 criteria. On February 27, 2004, the licensee

submitted a letter requesting that the NRC dismiss the petition as not meeting the

criteria of 2.206. The petitioner also submitted a letter on February 27, 2004, that

addressed the question of whether the petition meets the criteria for a 2.206 petition. 

After considering the petition and supplemental letters, the staff accepted the petition for

review under 2.206.

On February 19, 2004, a separate letter was submitted to the NRC by Community Board

No. 1 of the City of New York with similar concerns regarding Radiac Research

Corporation. The staff issued a letter to the Community Board on March 30, 2004,

indicating that it will consider the board’s comments in its review of the application.

Representative Velacquez, in whose district Radiac is located, wrote a letter to

Chairman Diaz on December 10, 2003, citing concerns similar to those in the petition. 

Chairman Diaz replied by letter dated February 24, 2004, stating that the NRC would

consider his concerns as part of the review of the petition.

The staff sent a letter to the petitioners on April 27, 2004, stating that the petition meets

the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206.
-8-

Current Status:

On June 14, 2004, the staff issued a proposed Director’s Decision to the petitioners. 

Comments are due by July 14, 2004.
Status of Potential Petitions Under Consideration

Facility: All operating nuclear power plants

Petitioner: David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists

Date of letter: May 14, 2004 (G20040350)

Responsible Office: NRR

PRB meeting: May 25, 2004

Issues/Actions requested:

That the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issue Confirmatory Orders to the licensees of

all operating nuclear power reactors for all regulatory commitments placed on dockets

between January 1, 2000, and June 30, 2004.

Status:

The Petition Review Board held a conference call with the petitioner on May 25, 2004. 

The NRC determined that the request did not meet the criteria of 10 CFR 2.206 and

informed the petitioner of this decision. The reasons for this decision will be

documented in a letter to the petitioner which is scheduled to be issued in July.

Facility: Turkey Point, Unit 3

Petitioner: Thomas Saparito

Date of letter: June 10, 2004 (G20040393)

Responsible Office: NRR

PRB meeting: June 24, 2004

Issues/Actions requested:

That the Nuclear Regulatory Commission order the shutdown of Turkey Point, Unit 3,

and reinstate all safety inspection requirements in Order EA-03-009 in its entirety.

Status:

The PRB held a conference call with the petitioner on June 24, 2004. During this call,

the petitioner provided additional information and indicated that he would supplement his

petition. The staff will defer making a decision on whether the letter meets the criteria of

2.206 pending receipt and review of the additional information. 

Facility: Pilgrim

Petitioner: Mary Lampert

Date of letter: June 12, 2004 (G20040422)

Responsible Office: NRR

PRB meeting: July 1, 2004

Issues/Actions requested:
-10-

That the Nuclear Regulatory Commission require Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station to

cease operations during a strike of its workers if a strike occurs.

Resolution:

The petitioner was contacted on June 29, 2004. The petitioner accepted an opportunity

to address the PRB. This teleconference is scheduled for July 1, 2004.

Facility: Vermont Yankee

Petitioner: Michael Mulligan

Date of letter: June 17, 2004 (G20040418)

Responsible Office: NRR

PRB meeting: TBD

Issues/Actions requested:

That the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ask for the resignation of Entergy CEO or the

shutdown of all of Entergy’s nuclear power plants.

Status:

The Petition Review Board met internally and determined that this request is more

appropriately handled under the allegation process. The petitioner has been contacted

and offered an opportunity to address the Board prior to its final determination.

Facility: Maine Yankee

Petitioner: Randall Speck, Special Counsel for the State of Maine

Date of Letter: November 15, 2002

Responsible Office: NMSS

PRB meeting: To be scheduled 

Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC conduct a hearing on the efficacy of indefinite, long-term spent fuel

storage at Maine Yankee.

Status:

The petitioner has also requested a hearing, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, regarding the

October 16, 2002, safeguards order and interim compensatory measures. On

December 10, 2002, the staff sent a letter to the petitioner stating that a decision on the

acceptability of the 2.206 petition will be held in abeyance until the staff makes a

determination on the hearing request. This letter remains as a potential 2.206 petition

but the staff cannot consider whether it will be treated as a 2.206 petition until the

Licensing Board settles the issues before it.

 
-11-

Attachment 2
AGE STATISTICS FOR AGENCY 2.206 PETITIONS

ASSIGN

ED

ACTION

OFFICE

FACILITY Incoming 

petition

PRBmeeting1

Acknowledgment 

letter / 

days from

incoming2

Proposed DDissuanceDate/ age3

Scheduled

date for

final DD/

age 4

Comments if no

Com

NRR Indian Point 04/23/03 05/08/03 (1) 07/03/03

70

(2) 12/15/03

10/31/03

01/09/04

2/26/045/17/04

147

8/16/04 2Staff delayed iss

pending submit

petitioner (rece

scheduling conflic

petitioner was n

3Age of petition is c

acknowledgment 

petition was 

NRR Indian Point 09/08/03 9/24/03 10/22/03

37

2/19/04

120

6/18/04

complete

NMSS Sequoyah Fuels 11/19/03 01/28/041 2/26/04

97

12/31/06 TBD 

Commission actio

review 

NMSS Radiac Corp. 11/04/03 2/20/04 4/27/04 6/14/04

49

TBD Due to scheduling 

petitioner and lice

NRR Vermont Yankee 4/22/04 5/11/04 5/28/04

36

9/27/04 TBD

1) Goal is to hold a PRB meeting, which the petitioner is invited to participate in, within 2 weeks of receipt o

often a delay of up two weeks from the date that the letter is issued until it is received by the reviewing o

2) Goal is to issue acknowledgment 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.