October 27, 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: SEPTEMBER 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 September 30, 2004, there was one open petition that was

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

(NRR). One petition was closed in September by NMSS.

Attachment 1 provides a detailed status of the open petitions.

Attachment 2 provides the status of incoming letters that the staff is 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 September 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 our performance goal of

ensuring openness in our regulatory process. 

Attachments: As stated

CONTACT: Donna Skay, NRR/DLPM

415-1322
October 27, 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: SEPTEMBER 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 September 30, 2004, there was one open petition that was

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

(NRR). One petition was closed in September by NMSS.

Attachment 1 provides a detailed status of the open petitions.

Attachment 2 provides the status of incoming letters that the staff is 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 September 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 our performance goal of

ensuring openness in our regulatory process. 

Attachments: As stated

CONTACT: Donna Skay, NRR

415-1322

DISTRIBUTION: See next page

ADAMS Accession Number: ML042790290

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

NAME DSkay SLittle HBerkow PGoldberg JLyons BSheron

DATE 10/15/04 10/8/04 10/8/04 10/12/04 10/14/04 10/18/04

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
DISTRIBUTION FOR SEPTEMBER 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

EMerschoff, 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

SLewis, 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

OCM/DOC

Regional Administrators

SLittle
Status of Open Petitions

Facility Petitioner/EDO No. Page

Vermont Yankee Nuclear New England Coalition

Power Station G20040284......................................................1

Radiac Research Corporation Michael Gerrard

G20030681.......................................................3

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

Facility: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

Petitioner: Raymond Shadis, New England Coalition

Date of Petition: April 22 and September 10, 2004

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NRR

EDO Number: G20040284

Proposed DD Issuance: December 27, 2004

Final DD Issuance TBD

Last Contact with Petitioner: September 22, 2004

Petition Manager: Alan Wang

Case Attorney: Stephen Lewis

Issues/Actions requested:

That the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) order a halt to all fuel

movement at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee) until such time as

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc (Entergy or 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 (SFP) 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 SPF 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 SPF was essentially

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

rod segments.

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 his 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 a closed session and

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

acknowledgment 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
-2-

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

May 11, 2004, 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

described in a letter to Entergy dated May 21, 2004. By letter dated June 8, 2004,

Entergy submitted its response to the NRC’s request.

On July 13, 2004, Entergy notified the NRC that the fuel rod segments had been located

in the SFP. The pieces had been stored in a unique aluminum cylinder which was

previously thought to be part of an existing in-pool structure.

Current Status:

The petitioner supplemented his petition on September 10, 2004. The supplement

requested further verification of the current inventory of special nuclear material on site. 

The PRB held a second teleconference with the petitioner on September 22, 2004. 

Based on the new information in the supplement and additional requests for action, the

NRC staff extended the expected completion date of its review to December 27, 2004. 

The staff will request additional information from the licensee regarding its material

accountability activities at Vermont Yankee.
-3-

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 9/15/04

Last Contact with Petitioner: 6/14/04

Petition Manager: Charles Cox

Case Attorney: Antonio Fernandez

Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC close the Radiac Research Corporation (Radiac) 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 NRC 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. 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.
-4-

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

Comments on the proposed Decision were submitted by the petitioner on July 13, 2004

Current Status:

The final Director’s Decision was issued on September 15, 2004.
Status of Potential Petitions Under Consideration

Facility: All BWRs with Mark I and II containments

Petitioner: Nuclear Security Coalition

Date of Petition: August 10, 2004

EDO Number: G20040549

PRB meeting: September 23, 2004

Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC: 

(1) Issue a demand for information to the licensees for all Mark I and II BWRs and

conduct a 6-month study of options for addressing structural vulnerabilities;

(2) Present the findings of the study at a national conference attended by all interested

stakeholders, providing for transcribed comments and questions;

(3) Develop a comprehensive plan that accounts for stakeholder concerns and

addresses structural vulnerabilities of all Mark I and II BWRs within a 12-month period;

(4) Issue orders to the licensees for all Mark I and II BWRs compelling incorporation of

a comprehensive set of protective measures, including structural protections; and

(5) Make future operation of each Mark I and II BWR contingent on addressing its

structural vulnerability with participation and oversight by a panel of local stakeholders.

Background:

The petitioners requested a teleconference to address the PRB. Due to difficulties in

coordinating the availability of the petitioners, the teleconference was not scheduled until

September 23, 2004. The teleconference was subsequently changed to a public

meeting to accommodate petitioners who requested to be present.

Current Status: 

The staff is preparing a letter to the petitioners regarding its decision on the acceptability

of the petition into the 2.206 process.
Facility: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

Petitioner: Paul Blanch and Arnold Gundersen

Date of letter: July 29, 2004 (G20040511)

Responsible Office: NRR

PRB meeting: July 29, 2004, and August 26, 2004

Issues/Actions requested:

That the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issue a Demand for Information

requiring Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

to provide the NRC with information that describes how Vermont Yankee complies with

the General Design Criteria.

Status:

By letter dated August 20, 2004, the NRC staff notified the petitioners that this request

would not be treated under 2.206 because it involves a licensing action which is

currently open for members of the public to request a hearing. Per the NRC’s

procedures, a request will not be treated under 2.206 if it can be resolved through the

hearing process. Subsequent to be being notified of this decision, the petitioners

requested an opportunity to address the Petition Review Board. This teleconference

was held on August 26, 2004. The staff is reviewing the information provided in the

teleconference and will respond to the petitioners with a followup letter. 

Attachment 2
AGE STATISTICS FOR AGENCY 2.206 PETITIONS

ASSIGNED

ACTION

OFFICE

FACILITY Incoming 

petition

PRBmeeting1

Acknowledgment 

letter / 

days fromincoming2

Proposed DDissuanceDate/ age3

Date for

final DD/

age 4

Comments if no

Com

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

49

9/15/04

64

Due to scheduling 

petitioner and lice

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

36

9/27/04

12/27/04

TBD The clock was resta

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

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

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.