April 11, 2003

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: MARCH 2003 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 March 31, 2003, there were three open petitions, which were

accepted for review under the 2.206 process: two in the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and

Safeguards and one in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

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 March 31, 2003.

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: Robert Clark, NRR

(301) 415-2297
April 11, 2003

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: MARCH 2003 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 March 31, 2003, there were three open petitions, which were

accepted for review under the 2.206 process: two in the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and

Safeguards and one in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

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 March 31, 2003.

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: Robert Clark, NRR

(301) 415-2297

DISTRIBUTION: See next page

Accession No.: ML030980326 *See previous concurrence

**Concurred by email

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

NAME RClark SLittle HBerkow JZwolinski PGoldberg BSheron

DATE 4/09/03 4/08/03 04/08/03 4/09/03 4/08/03 4/10/03

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
DISTRIBUTION FOR MARCH 2003 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS

UNDER TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, SECTION 2.206

Dated: April 11, 2003 

PUBLIC

WKane, DEDR/OEDO

CPaperillo, DEDMRS/EDP

PNorry, DEDM/OEDO

JCraig, AO/OEDO

JShea, ODEO

PAnderson, OEDO

EJulian

SCollins, NRR

RLaufer

SRichards

RBorchardt, NRR

BSheron, NRR

CMohrwinkel, NRR

KCyr, OGC

LChandler, OGC

JGoldberg, OGC

JCordes, Jr., OCAA

FCongel, OE

PLohaus, STP

MVirgilio, NMSS

PGoldberg, NMSS

FBrown, NMSS

BBoger, NRR

MStein, OE

GCaputo, OI

JZwolinski, NRR

LMarsh, NRR

HBerkow, NRR

RClark, NRR

OCA

OPA

Regional Administrators

PDI-1 Reading 

SLittle

DWidmayer
Attachment 1

Status of Open Petitions

Page

Facility Petitioner/EDO No. No. 

Oyster Creek Generating Station Edith Gbur for Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch/

G20020385................................................... 1

Waltz Mill Pennsylvania Site Viacom, Inc.

G20020629.................................................... 3

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Congressman Dennis Kucinich

G20030048.................................................... 5
Attachment 1

Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206

Facility: Oyster Creek Generating Station

Petitioner: Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch

Date of Letter: June 21, 2002, as supplemented on July 18, 2002

Director’s Decision to Be Issued by: NMSS

EDO Number: G20020385

Proposed DD issuance: 12/10/2002

Last Contact with Petitioner: 02/24/03

Petition Manager: Steve O’Connor

Case Attorney: Jack Goldberg

Issues/Actions requested:

The petitioner requests that the NRC issue an order to the licensee, suspending the dry cask

storage program at Oyster Creek Generating Station (Oyster Creek). 

Background:

As a basis for the above requests, the petitioner raised concerns with: the location of the

Oyster Creek independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) relative to local roads and

communities; the ability of the NUHOMS dry spent fuel storage system to survive a sabotage

attack; the adequacy of Oyster Creek security measures for fuel handling activities; the

adequacy of the Oyster Creek emergency evacuation plan; and the quality of the NUHOMS

systems planned for use at Oyster Creek.

The petitioner participated in a telephone call with the Petition Review Board (PRB) on July 18,

2002. In response to the PRB discussion, the petitioner provided additional information on

July 18, 2002, to supplement the petition request. This information is also being considered in

the review of the petition.

The petitioner’s request for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to immediately

suspend the license for the NUHOMS dry spent fuel storage system and halt transfer of spent

fuel from wet pool storage to dry storage modules at Oyster Creek was denied because the

safety concerns were reviewed and determined not to pose an undue risk to public health and

safety. The Commission does not believe that immediate action is required because the

licensee for Oyster Creek is not planning to load additional fuel canisters until 2003.

An acknowledgment letter and Federal Register notice were issued on August 7, 2002. On

October 30, 2002, a teleconference was held with the petitioner and her counsel regarding the

status of the proposed Director's Decision (DD). The petitioner asked that we specifically

address certain accident scenarios discussed in the petition in our response. She also asked if

there was any way that the petitioners could get a hearing for the Oyster Creek ISFSI issues. 

An additional teleconference with the petitioner was held with a staff member of the Office of

General Counsel present on November 4, 2002, to further discuss the issue of a hearing. The
-2-

staff prepared a proposed DD that was sent to the petitioners and the licensee for comment on

December 10, 2002. Since the petitioner did not receive the proposed DD, it was re-sent on

January 7, 2003, and the comment period was extended to February 6, 2003. The petitioner

did not meet the February 6, 2003, date to respond to the proposed DD. The staff called the

petitioner on February 6, 2003, to determine when to expect comments to proposed DD. The

petitioner stated that they were still working on the response. The petitioner was contacted

again on February 24, 2003, to check on status of their response. Petitioner agreed to provide

comments by February 28, 2003.

Current Status:

The staff received petitioners’ comments on the proposed DD on March 5, 10, and 19, 2003. 

The staff is currently reviewing petitioner’s comments. The DD is scheduled to be issued

April 18, 2003. 
-3-

Facility: Waltz Mill Pennsylvania Site 

Petitioner: Viacom, Inc.

Date of Letter: October 30, 2002 

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NMSS

EDO Number: G20020629

Proposed DD issuance: TBD

Last Contact with Petitioner: 02/20/03

Petition Manager: Patrick Isaac (NRR) / Derek Widmayer (NMSS)

Case Attorney: Jack Goldberg

Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC issue an order to Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (Westinghouse),

the holder of license SNM-770 on the Waltz Mill, Pennsylvania Site, which would require

Westinghouse’s cooperation in the decommissioning of the Westinghouse Test Reactor

(WTR) license TR-2. In particular, the order would require Westinghouse to:

(1) provide certain radiological survey data to NRC which NRC has requested. The

survey data in question determines what residual radioactivity remains in-situ. 

(2) accept under SNM-770 certain residual byproduct materials now held under Viacom

license TR-2 and located at the WTR.

Background:

Viacom is the current holder of NRC facility license TR-2 which authorizes possession,

but not operation, of the WTR. To complete the Final Decommissioning Plan, two

provisions still need to be accomplished. These are determining the residual

radioactivity remaining in-situ and preparing the necessary amendments for and

requesting the transfer of the remaining residual radioactivity and WTR facilities to the

SNM-770 license.

At the time the decommissioning plan was approved, Westinghouse was the NRC

licensee under both TR-2 and SNM-770, and so the transfer of the residual radioactive

material from one materials license to another, held by the same licensee on the same

site, was straightforward. Viacom now holds the TR-2 license while Westinghouse

holds the SNM-770 license. Westinghouse’s and Viacom’s decommissioning

responsibilities to each other at the Waltz Mill Site are set forth in an Asset Purchase

Agreement. By refusing to accept the transfer to the SNM-770 license, Viacom alleges

that Westinghouse is in violation of Section 50.5 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR). 

Westinghouse submitted a response to the petition on December 20, 2002. Viacom has

indicated that they will not respond to the Westinghouse response at this time.
-4-

On February 20, 2003, a public PRB meeting was held in Rockville, Maryland with the

petitioner and both licensees (Viacom and Westinghouse). At the meeting, lawyers and

staff personnel from both companies provided additional information to support their

position. 

At the March 6, 2003, closed PRB meeting, the staff agreed to accept the petition for

review under 10 CFR 2.206.

There are several reasons why it took the staff 4 months to determine whether this

petition met the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206. First, the petition involves

complex legal and contractual issues. Second, the staff had to await both parties’

responses to the petition, which took the parties several months, and then had to review

and evaluate the responses prior to engaging in the public PRB meeting. The

petitioners were not available to meet with the PRB until February 20, 2003. Following

the public PRB meeting, there was still some uncertainty among the cognizant staff

groups and management regarding acceptance of these issues as a petition. Finally, at

the March 6, 2003, closed PRB meeting, agreement was reached to accept the petition

for review under 10 CFR 2.206.

Current Status:

On March 13, 2003, a letter was sent to the petitioner and both licensees (Viacom and

Westinghouse) informing them that the petition met the acceptance criteria for review

under 10 CFR 2.206 and would be reviewed in accordance with Management

Directive 8.11. A Federal Register notice was published on March 27, 2003.

Westinghouse sent a letter to the NRC on March 26, 2003, indicating their intent to file a

supplement to their December 20, 2002, response to the Viacom petition. 

Westinghouse stated in the letter that the supplement will be provided by May 5, 2003. 

Viacom sent a letter to the NRC on March 28, 2003, objecting to NRC consideration of

this Westinghouse supplement. 

A proposed DD is being developed. The schedule for issuance of the proposed DD may

be impacted by NRC’s decision on whether to accept the Westinghouse supplemental

filing. 
-5-

Facility: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station

Petitioner: Congressman Dennis Kucinich

Date of Letter: February 3, 2003 

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NRR

EDO Number: G20030048

Proposed DD issuance: TBD

Last Contact with Petitioner: 2/14/03

Petition Manager: Dan Collins (NRR)

Case Attorney: Jack Goldberg

Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC immediately revoke FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company’s

(FirstEnergy) license to operate the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS) for

the reasons given in the background. 

Background:

On March 5, 2002, during a refueling outage, FirstEnergy performed inspection of the

DBNPS reactor pressure vessel head penetration (VHP) nozzles in accordance with

NRC Bulletin 2001-01. During this inspection, the licensee discovered cracks in several

VHP nozzles. Subsequent to the machining process to repair VHP Nozzle 3, the nozzle

was observed to displace, or tip in the downhill direction as the machining apparatus

was withdrawn. The displacement led DBNPS personnel to examine the region

adjacent to VHP Nozzle 3. The licensee discovered a cavity with a surface area of

approximately 20-30 square inches. Upon further examination, the licensee identified

that the cavity extended completely through the 6.63 inch-thick carbon steel reactor

pressure vessel (RPV) head down to a thin internal liner of stainless steel cladding. 

Although the exposed cladding withstood the primary system pressure during previous

plant operation, it was not designed to be a reactor coolant system pressure boundary. 

Boric acid corrosion of the carbon steel RPV head was the primary contributor to the

RPV head degradation.

In response to the licensee's identification of extensive damage to the pressure

boundary material of the RPV head on March 5, 2002, the NRC dispatched an

Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) to DBNPS on March 12, 2002, to examine conditions

that led to the head degradation. The NRC also issued a Confirmatory Action Letter

(CAL) to the licensee on March 13, 2002, which stated that NRC approval is required for

restart DBNPS. The CAL also documented a number of actions that the licensee must

implement before the NRC will approve a restart. The NRC also enhanced monitoring

of corrective actions at DBNPS, as described in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0350,

“Oversight of Operating Reactor Facilities in a Shutdown Condition with Performance

Problems,” to provide the required oversight throughout the plant's shutdown and

restart. The AIT follow-up special inspection report (50-346/02-08) dated October 2,

2002, cited a number of violations of the DBNPS operating license and NRC

regulations.
-6-

Using information from various publicly available documents (such as NRC inspection

reports, newspaper articles, and reports published by the Union of Concerned

Scientists) to support his case, the Petitioner offers the following five basic arguments,

in various forms, on why the DBNPS operating license must be revoked:

1. NRC regulations and guidelines require revocation of the DBNPS license.

2. Revocation of the DBNPS license is necessary to hold FirstEnergy accountable

for its violations of NRC regulations and its own operating license.

3. If the NRC doesn’t revoke the DBNPS license, NRC isn’t appropriately using the

authority granted it by Congress.

4. Revocation of the DBNPS license is necessary in order to ensure that

FirstEnergy is complying with all NRC regulations and guidelines.

5. Revocation of the DBNPS license is required in order for there to be consistency

in the manner that the NRC enforces its regulations.

The staff issued an acknowledgment letter on February 10, 2003, to inform the

Petitioner that the PRB has determined that the petition meets the acceptance criteria

for review under 2.206. The acknowledgment letter also informed the Petitioner that,

pending completion of the NRC’s investigative process, the NRC does not have

sufficient basis to immediately revoke the DBNPS operating license. Thus, the

Petitioner’s request for immediate revocation of the license was denied. 

The staff called the Petitioner’s staff on February 14, 2003, to explain the 2.206 process

and to offer an opportunity to address the PRB. The Petitioner's staff indicated that they

do wish to address the PRB but need more time to prepare for the presentation. 

Current Status:

1. The petitioner informed the staff on March 12, 2003, that a supplement would be

issued in lieu of a presentation to the PRB.

2. The petitioner submitted a supplement to the original petition on March 27, 2003,

to address the following additional concerns:

a. boric acid dust may have corroded electrical systems & cable trays

b. as-built design may not conform to design or licensing bases

c. training of personnel may not meet licensing basis

d. DBNPS does not have ability to detect 1 gallon per minute leakage within

1 hour

e. procedures instituted by NRC may not uncover or address other systems

that may be degraded i,e., reactor coolant pump seal gasket leakage 

f. The O350 Panel will end and the plant will return to normal monitoring

under the reactor oversight process (ROP) before Lessons Learned Task

Force recommendations regarding the ROP are implemented

g. The Office of Investigations investigation must be completed before NRC

allows DBNPS to restart
-7-

3. A closed PRB meeting was held on April 2, 2003, to discuss the additional

information provided by the petitioner’s March 27, 2003, supplement to the

original petition. The staff decided that no immediate action was warranted, that

the supplement should be consolidated with the existing petition, that no new

allegations were presented by the petitioner, and that an acknowledgment letter

was not necessary. Licensee’s response to the supplement is tentatively

scheduled for April 11, 2003.

4. Laura Gerke of the Office of Congressional Affairs contacted the Petitioner’s

staff and explained that we have received the supplement to the petition,

understand the arguments being made and determined that a clarifying

conference call is unnecessary. She also indicated that the proposed DD is

scheduled to be issued within 120 days from the date of the original

acknowledgment letter which was issued on February 10, 2003.
Attachment 2

Status of Potential Petitions Under Consideration

Facility: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station

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 Atomic Power Station.

Resolution:

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. 

Facility: Palo Verde Generating Station

Petitioner: Thomas Saparito representing the National Environmental

Protection Center

Date of Letter: January 17, 2003

Responsible Office: NRR

Public PRB meeting: N/A

Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC issue a civil penalty against Arizona Public Service (APS) and against the

licensee’s law firm; that the NRC cause an investigation through extensive interviews to

determine if employees feel free to raise environmental safety concerns to the licensee

or to the NRC without fear of reprisal, harassment, or intimidation; that the NRC take

actions to cause an investigation of APS to determine through extensive interviews

whether employees are knowledgeable and aware of how to file a discrimination

complaint under 10 CFR 50.7, and under Occupational Safety Health Administration

(OSHA) and Environment Protection Agency (EPA) statues; that the NRC investigate

through extensive interviews to determine if employees are provided training by the

licensee with respect to employee protection provisions under 10 CFR 50.7 and OSHA

and EPA statutes.

Resolution:

By letter dated March 18, 2003, the NRR staff formally notified the petitioner that the request

would not be reviewed under 2.206. The petitioner’s concerns were addressed as controlled

correspondence. No further action is needed.
-2-

Facility: Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2

Petitioner: Raymond Shadis representing the New England Coalition on

Nuclear Pollution 

Date of Letter: February 17, 2003

Responsible Office: NRR

Public PRB meeting: To be scheduled

Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC investigate if the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2, Security

Superintendent revealed Safeguards Information (SGI) to the public.

If SGI was released to the public, that the NRC take appropriate enforcement action

immediately. The petitioner also requests that such enforcement action be taken not

only with respect to the individual, but also with respect to the handling of SGI by the

licensee and the NRC, in general, so that such revelations as may compromise

adequate protection of the public health and safety, and which may be inimical to the

common defense, are prevented in the future.

Resolution:

By letter dated March 26, 2003, the NRR staff notified the petitioner that the request

would not be reviewed under 10 CFR 2.206 but would be processed by the Allegation

Program. No further action is needed.
Attachment 3

AGE STATISTICS FOR AGENCY 2.206 PETITIONS

ASSIGNED

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

NMSS Oyster Creek 6/21/02 7/18/02 8/07/02

47

12/10/2002

120

04/18/03

NMSS Waltz Mill Site 10/30/02 02/20/03 02/28/03 TBD ---

NRR DBNPS 02/03/03 N/A 02/10/03

7

03/07/03

33

04/18/03

75

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

up two weeks from the date that the letter is issued until it is received by the reviewing organization).

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.
Attachment 4