May 13, 2005

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: APRIL 2005 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 April 30, 2005, there were four open petitions that were

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

(NRR). 

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 April 30, 2005.

This report, Director’s Decisions, and other 2.206-related documents are placed in the

Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). 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
May 13, 2005

MEMORANDUM TO: Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director for Operations

FROM: Brian W. Sheron, Associate Director

 for Project Licensing and Technical Analysis /RA/

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT: APRIL 2005 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 April 30, 2005, there were four open petitions that were

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

(NRR). 

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 April 30, 2005.

This report, Director’s Decisions, and other 2.206-related documents are placed in the

Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). 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: ML051250005

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

NAME DSkay SLittle HBerkow JLyons BSheron

DATE 5/10/05 5/9/05 5/10/05 5/11/05 5/12/05

OFFICIAL AGENCY RECORD
DISTRIBUTION FOR APRIL 2005 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS

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

Date: 

PUBLIC

PDI-1 Reading File

EMerschoff, DEDR/EDO

MVirgilio, DEDMRS/EDO

JSilber, DEDIA/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

Jlyons, NRR

CMohrwinkel, NRR

KCyr, OGC

LChandler, OGC

GLongo, 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

All BWRs with Mark I and II containments Nuclear Security Coalition

G20040549.......................................................1

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Paul Blanch and Arnold Gundersen

G20050008.......................................................3

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station New England Coalition

G20040831.......................................................5

Byron Station, Unit 1 Barry Quigley

G20050160........................................................6
Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206

Facility: All Boiling-Water Reactors (BWRs) with Mark I 

and II Containments

Petitioner: Nuclear Security Coalition

Date of Petition: August 10, 2004, as supplemented on March 15

and April 12, 2005

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NRR

EDO Number: G20040549

Proposed DD Issuance: June 10, 2005

Final DD Issuance TBD

Last Contact with Petitioner: March 28, 2005

Petition Manager: Peter Tam

Case Attorney: Giovonna Longo

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 Petition Review Board (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.

Following the meeting on September 23, 2004, 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 petitioners on October 19, 2004.

The staff determined that the response to the specific requests in the petition will be

dependent on the NRC’s response to a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on 

Attachment 1
-2-

fuel pool vulnerabilities. The PRB decided to suspend review of this petition, as of

October 19, 2004, until the NAS report is issued publicly. The petitioner was notified of

this action on November 22, 2004.

On November 29 and December 6, 2004, the petitioners submitted, via e-mail,

supplemental information for their petition. The supplemental information consisted of

media reports of potential terrorist targets.

On December 1, 2004, the NRC staff issued a letter to the petitioners stating that the

NRC staff’s effort to prepare a Director's Decision would proceed in parallel with NRC's

efforts to respond to an NAS public report on the same subject. NRC is required by the

FY 2005 Congressional appropriations language to respond to the NAS report. To do

that, the NAS must first publish such a report. At that time, NAS was expected to issue

a publicly available version of its report by December 31, 2004. However, as stated in a

letter from the NRC to NAS on December 2, 2004, the publication of such a report was

delayed due to differences between the NRC and NAS determination of the releasability

of potential safeguards information in the report.

On February 15, 2005, the Petition Manager notified the petitioner that the public

version of the NAS report was not published on December 31, 2004, as originally

projected, and that the publication date is currently expected to be spring 2005. 

On March 14, 2005, Chairman Diaz signed a report (made publicly available on 

March 17, 2005) to Senator Domenici, communicating information that was previously

not available to the public regarding spent fuel security. 

NAS released an unclassified version of its fuel security study on April 6, 2005. The

issuance of the Chairman’s letter, along with the release of the NAS report, will assist

the staff in determining the information that can be made publicly available in response

to the petition. 

Current Status:

The proposed Director’s Decision has been drafted and is being reviewed by cognizant

staff. The planned issuance date is June 10, 2005.
-3-

Facility: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

Petitioner: Paul Blanch and Arnold Gundersen

Date of Petition: July 29, 2004, as supplemented on December 8,

2004

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NRR

EDO Number: G20050008

Proposed DD Issuance: May 17, 2005

Final DD Issuance TBD

Last Contact with Petitioner: March 15, 2005

Petition Manager: Donna Skay

Case Attorney: Giovonna Longo

Issues/Actions requested:

That the 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 (VY) complies with the General Design Criteria.

Background:

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. 

In addition, on August 30, 2004, the New England Coalition filed a request for hearing

on the VY power uprate. Among the contentions submitted was a contention that the

licensee failed to maintain adequate documentation to determine design basis

conformance. 

On December 8, 2004, the petitioners sent a letter to Chairman Diaz requesting that he

personally intervene in Entergy’s application for an extended power uprate (EPU)

amendment at VY. The letter discusses issues related to the recent VY engineering

inspection and concerns related to VY regulatory compliance. In an e-mail dated

December 9, 2004, Mr. Blanch requested that this letter be considered as a supplement

to his and Mr. Gundersen’s 10 CFR 2.206 petition dated July 29, 2004. The Director,

NRR, responded on December 29, 2004, stating that the December 8 letter would be

treated as a supplement to the 2.206 petition and that answers to questions regarding

the engineering inspection were provided during a public meeting on December 16,

2004. Because this issue is being addressed through the 2.206 process, Chairman

Diaz did not intervene as requested by the petitioners. After a Decision is issued, the

Commission, at its discretion, may determine to review the Decision and direct the staff

to take another action.
-4-

On November 22, 2004, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ruled that the hearing

contention related to this issue from the New England Coalition (supported by declaration from

Mr. Blanch) was not admissible. The PRB held a meeting on December 14, 2004, and

determined that the petition met the criteria of 10 CFR 2.206. The staff contacted the petitioners

on December 16, 2004, and notified them that the petition had been accepted. An

acknowledgment letter was sent to the petitioners on January 17, 2005.

Current Status:

The proposed Director’s Decision has been drafted and is expected to be issued by 

May 17, 2005.
-5-

Facility: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

Petitioner: Raymond Shadis, New England Coalition

Date of Petition: December 7, 2004

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NRR

EDO Number: G20040831

Proposed DD Issuance: May 26, 2005

Final DD Issuance: TBD

Last Contact with Petitioner: March 24, 2005

Petition Manager: Rick Ennis

Case Attorney: Giovonna Longo

Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC order the shutdown of VY and/or take other such action as is within the

NRC’s discretion to restore reasonable assurance of adequate protection until such time

as the licensee has provided a workable emergency warning or alert system and the

NRC has verified its operability.

Background:

The petitioners state that the public warning system is inoperable and the licensee has

established an extremely poor record in the area of emergency response. 

In October 2004, the NRC conducted an inspection of the emergency preparedness

program at VY and issued a preliminary white finding based on the failure to maintain

the alert notification system.

The NRC held a teleconference with the licensee on January 6, 2005. Following this

teleconference, the NRC determined that the petition met the criteria of 10 CFR 2.206

and sent an acknowledgment letter to the petitioner on January 26, 2005. The PRB

determined that, based on a recently completed inspection of the VY emergency

preparedness program, as documented in an inspection report dated November 12,

2004, the proposed immediate action was not necessary. As discussed in the

inspection report, the NRC identified an apparent violation associated with emergency

planning standard 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5) because the licensee’s method of distributing

tone alert radios to members of the public outside of siren coverage was not meeting

the intent of the design basis for the alert and notification system. However, the report

concluded that this preliminary finding “does not present an immediate safety concern

because the licensee has informed the towns to be prepared to do route alerting to

ensure that those residents outside of siren coverage are notified in the event of an

emergency.” 

Current Status: 

The proposed Director’s Decision has been drafted and is expected to be issued by 

May 26, 2005.
-6-

Facility: Byron Station, Unit 1

Petitioners: Barry Quigley

Date of Petition: March 2, 2005

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NRR

EDO Number: G20050160

Proposed DD Issuance: July 22, 2005

Final DD Issuance: TBD

Last Contact with Petitioner: April 14, 2005

Petition Manager: George Dick

Case Attorney: Giovonna Longo

Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC take enforcement action against Exelon Nuclear for failure to

comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI. In particular, the petition

claims that the 1C Reactor Coolant System Cold Leg Loop Stop Isolation Valve

has been broken for at least 6 years and has not been repaired.

Background:

At the time the petition was submitted, Byron Station was in a refueling outage. 

The petition states that a repair to the valve was scheduled for the current

outage but was subsequently cancelled, in part, based on the high dose that

would be incurred by the work. Due to the small time window available to repair

the valve, the petitioner requested immediate action. 

The NRC staff held a teleconference with the petitioner on March 4, 2005. The

petitioner provided additional information that was not contained in the March 2,

2005, letter during the teleconference. The staff determined that additional

information was needed from the licensee. Exelon submitted information on

March 5, 2005, and the staff held teleconferences with the licensee on March 16

and March 18, 2005. On March 21, 2005, the NRC staff met with the licensee in

the Region III offices. The petitioner was present at the meeting. The staff

determined that immediate action was not necessary prior to the unit restarting

from its refueling outage. 

Current Status:

The staff determined that this request will be reviewed under the 2.206 process

and issued an acknowledgement letter to the petitioner on April 5, 2005. The

staff is continuing to review the petition.
Status of Potential Petitions Under Consideration

Facility: All Operating Power Reactors

Petitioners: Legislature of Rockland County, Westchester

County Board, Paul Gunter

Date of Petition: February 10, February 22, February 23, and 

April 22, 2005

EDO Number: GT 20050123, GT20050136, and GT20050125

PRB meeting: April 5, 2005

Issues/Actions requested:

1. Issue Generic Communications to all licensed commercial nuclear power station

operators to ascertain whether operators currently provide emergency power

backup system to significant elements of their required Emergency Notification

Systems (ENS).

2. Modify all operating licenses to require that operators provide and maintain

emergency backup electrical power to notification sirens, etc. 

Background:

The petitioners provided the following basis for their request:

• Nuclear power stations are not required to have emergency power backup for

the ENS to assure the operation of public notification systems in the event of an

accident or an act of sabotage associated with the simultaneous or subsequent

failure of the electrical grid.

• An attack disabling offsite electrical power sources is assumed as part of the

NRC Operational Safeguard Response Evaluations. Such an attack on the grid

would disable the ENS at the reactors.

• NRC Daily Event Reports demonstrate how a variety of electrical grid failure

modes have resulted in significant degradation of ENS.

Current Status:

The NRC staff met with the petitioners on April 5, 2005. On April 22, 2005, the

petitioner submitted additional information regarding designs for emergency notification

systems. The staff is considering the information provided to determine if it meets the

criteria of 10 CFR 2.206.

Attachment 2
-2-

Facility: Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2

Petitioners: Union of Concerned Scientists

Date of Petition: April 12, 2005

EDO Number: GT20050272

PRB meeting: None requested

Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC either impose a civil penalty of at least $55,000 or move the

license renewal application for Beaver Valley to the end of the current queue.

Background: 

The NRC determined that the February 9, 2005, application for license renewal

was not complete and accurate in all respects. The petitioner believes this is a

violation of 10 CFR 50.9 paragraph (a) and the NRC should take appropriate

enforcement action.

Current Status:

The NRC offered the petitioner an opportunity to address the PRB which the

petitioner has declined. The NRC staff is reviewing the petition to determine if it

meets the criteria for review under 2.206. The staff will issue a letter to the

petitioner with its decision regarding how the concern will be reviewed by May

23, 2005.

Facility: All licenses allowing the possession, transport,

storage, or use of pyrophoric uranium munitions.

Petitioners: James Salsman

Date of Petition: April 3, 2005

EDO Number: GT20050242

PRB meeting: May 4, 2005

Issues/Actions requested:

That all licenses allowing the possession, transport, storage, or use of pyrophoric

uranium munitions be modified to impose enforceable conditions on all such

licensees in order to rectify their misconduct and any other corrective action as

deemed proper.

Background: 

The petitioner provided as a basis for his request, negligence on the part of the

licensees. Specifically, the licensees were unaware of the fact that uranium

reacts with nitrogen, and there has been no attempt to detect hexavalent

uranium, including uranium trioxide (UO3), in the combustion products of

depleted uranium ordnance by the Army. Because of this omission, the

petitioner requests that all contemporary uranium ordnance safety studies be

redone in order to determine the extent of uranyl nitrate combustion product

emissions.
AGE STATISTICS FOR AGENCY 2.206 PETITIONS

ASSIGNED

ACTION

OFFICE

FACILITY/

Petitioner

Incoming 

petition

PRB

meeting1

Acknowledgment 

letter/days from

incoming2

Proposed DD

issuance

Date/age3

Date for

final 

DD/age 4

Comments if no

Com

NRR All BWRs with

Mark I and II

containments

8/10/04 9/23/04 10/19/04

70

06/10/05 Due to scheduling 

petitioner and licen

The clock was 

10/19/05 because 

report was no

reference. The clo

when the Cha

NRR Vermont Yankee/

Blanch &

Gundersen

7/29/04 8/26/04 01/17/05

172

05/17/05 TBD The PRB could n

2.206 process u

admissibility of a 

NRR Vermont Yankee/

New England

Coalition

12/07/04 01/06/05 01/26/05

50

05/26/05 TBD Due to schedulin

with the petitione

weeks after the d

the meeting, the st

of the meeting to 

the ackn

NRR Byron Station

Barry Quiqley

3/02/05 3/21/05 4/05/05

34

7/22/05 TBD

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.