September 11, 2006

MEMORANDUM TO: Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director for Operations

FROM: Gary M. Holahan, Associate Director /RA/ 

 for Risk Assessment and New Projects

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT: AUGUST 2006 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS 

UNDER TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS,

SECTION 2.206

The enclosed report gives the status of petitions submitted under Title 10 of the Code of

Federal Regulations, Section 2.206. As of August 31, 2006, there were three open petitions

that were accepted for review under the 2.206 process; two in the Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation (NRR) and one in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. 

Information that has changed since the last monthly report is highlighted.

Enclosure 1 provides a detailed status of the open petitions.

Enclosure 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.

Enclosure 3 shows the age statistics for the open 2.206 petitions as of August 31, 2006.

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

Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). By making these

documents readily accessible to the public, the staff is addressing the performance goal of

ensuring openness in our regulatory process. 

Enclosures: As stated

CONTACT: Jon Hopkins, NRR

 301-415-3027
September 11, 2006

MEMORANDUM TO: Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director for Operations

FROM: Gary M. Holahan, Associate Director /RA/

 for Risk Assessment and New Projects

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT: AUGUST 2006 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS 

UNDER TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS,

SECTION 2.206

The enclosed report gives the status of petitions submitted under Title 10 of the Code of

Federal Regulations, Section 2.206. As of August 31, 2006, there were three open petitions

that were accepted for review under the 2.206 process; two in the Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation (NRR) and one in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. 

Information that has changed since the last monthly report is highlighted.

Enclosure 1 provides a detailed status of the open petitions.

Enclosure 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.

Enclosure 3 shows the age statistics for the open 2.206 petitions as of August 31, 2006.

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

Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). By making these

documents readily accessible to the public, the staff is addressing the performance goal of

ensuring openness in our regulatory process. 

Enclosures: As stated

CONTACT: Jon Hopkins, NRR

 301-415-3027

DISTRIBUTION: See next page

ADAMS Accession Number: Ml062420481

OFFICE TA:ADRA LA:PSPB BC:PSPB (A)D:DPR ADRA

NAME JHopkins

for

DWilliams

DBaxley SRosenberg HNieh GHolahan

DATE 9-7-06 9/1/06 9-7-06 9-8-06 9-11-06

OFFICIAL AGENCY RECORD
DISTRIBUTION FOR AUGUST 2006 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS

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

Date: September 11, 2006

PUBLIC

PSPB Reading File

RidsEdoMailCenter

EJulian

PAnderson

RidsNrrOd

RidsNrrAdra

RidsOgcMailCenter

RidsOcaMailCenter

RidsOeMailCenter

JStrosnider

PGoldberg

CAbrams

GCaputo

RidsNrrDpr

RidsNrrDprPspb

RidsNrrLADBaxley

RidsNrrPMJHopkins

RidsOpaMailCenter

RidsRgn1MailCenter

RidsRgn2MailCenter

RidsRgn3MailCenter

RidsRgn4MailCenter
Status of Open Petitions

Facility Petitioner/EDO No. Page

All operating and decommissioned David Lochbaum and others

power reactors and research and G20060099.........................................................1

test reactors

Palisades Nuclear Power Plant Terry Lodge, Counsel for Petitioners 

G20060369.........................................................3

South Texas Service Employees International Union

G20060525.........................................................4

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

Facilities: All operating and decommissioned power reactors

and all operating and decommissioned research

and test reactors

Petitioners: David Lochbaum and others

Date of Petition: January 25, 2006, as supplemented February 2,

2006

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NRR

EDO Number: G20060099

Proposed DD Issuance: June 28, 2006

Final DD Issuance: September 11, 2006

Last Contact with Petitioner: June 28, 2006

Petition Manager: Jon Hopkins

Case Attorney: Giovonna Longo

Issues/Actions requested:

The petitioner is requesting that the NRC issue a Demand for Information (DFI)

requiring licensees to submit information related to monitoring of radioactively

contaminated water and leakage detection systems.

Background:

The petitioners provided several examples of the release from various nuclear facilities

of water containing radioactive materials. The petitioners contend that the multiple

examples raise the possibility of similar unmonitored releases at other nuclear facilities.

The staff determined that the petition meets the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206. 

By letter dated February 2, 2006, the petitioner supplemented his petition to add three

new petitioners. By letter dated March 1, 2006, the staff informed the petitioner that the

petition had been accepted for review under 10 CFR 2.206.

The staff met with the petitioner on April 5, 2006. The meeting handouts and transcript

are available on the NRC public webpage

(www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/public-meetings.html).

By letter dated April 17, 2006, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company submitted

comments on the petition, specifically providing information on activities at the Haddam

Neck Plant.

By letter dated April 26, 2006, the petitioner submitted a letter which discusses the

merits of the petition versus the NRC undertaking rulemaking to address the issue of

groundwater contamination.

The NRC held a public meeting with the Nuclear Energy Institute on May 9, 2006. The

industry participants announced and described an initiative that would apply to all

operating and decommissioning power reactors. The initiative proposes to address the
-2-

issue of unmonitored releases of radioactive liquid effluents by having each licensee

perform assessments, monitoring, and additional reporting to the NRC and local

authorities. Many of the petitioners participated in the meeting.

On June 28, 2006, the NRC issued a proposed Director’s Decision to the petitioners for

comment. The proposed Director’s Decision states that, because the industry initiative

will provide the petitioners with the requested information, the portion of the Petition

related to power reactors is considered granted in part, even though the NRC will not

use a DFI as the mechanism to obtain the information. The NRC proposes to deny the

portion of the Petition related to research and test reactors (RTR) because existing

regulatory programs ensure that there is minimal risk of a significant release of

contaminated liquid effluents and the NRC does not need additional information from the

RTR licensees. The NRC staff requested that comments be submitted by July 28,

2006.

Current Status:

Comments on the proposed Decision were submitted by letter dated July 20, 2006, from

David Lochbaum on behalf of over 24 organizations and individuals. The staff has

reviewed the comments and prepared responses for the final Director’s Decision.

 The final Director's Decision is on schedule for issuance in September 2006.
-3-

Facility: Palisades Nuclear Power Plant

Petitioners: Terry Lodge, Counsel for Petitioners 

Date of Petition: April 4, 2006

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NMSS

EDO Number: G20060369

Proposed DD Issuance: October 25, 2006

Final DD Issuance: TBD

Last Contact with Petitioner: August 25, 2006

Petition Manager: Randy Hall

Case Attorney: Giovonna Longo

Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC condemn and force a halt to the use of the two concrete pads holding dry

casks storing used nuclear fuel at the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant. The petitioners

state that the pads, on which radioactive waste are stored, do not conform with

longstanding NRC requirements for earthquake stability standards because they were

built on compacted sand and other subsurface materials, dozens of feet above bedrock. 

In particular, the petitioners claim that the pads are in violation of requirements in

10 CFR 72.212(b)(2)(i)(B).

Background:

The staff held a teleconference with the petitioners on April 26, 2006. The petitioners

informed the staff that they would submit a supplement to the petition. The staff delayed

making a decision on whether the petition met the criteria of 10 CFR 2.206 pending

receipt of the supplement. 

On May 4, 2006, the staff sent a letter to the petitioner, acknowledging receipt of the

petition and providing a transcript of the teleconference. As of June 30, 2006, the

petitioner had not provided a supplement to the petition. 

On June 9, 2006, the staff sent a status letter to the petitioner, indicating that the staff

will continue to process the petition in accordance with the 2.206 process.

On June 27, 2006, the staff sent a letter to the petitioner stating that the request to

condemn and stop the use of the two ISFSI concrete pads does not require immediate

action. The letter also stated that the petition was accepted for review under the 2.206

process in part, specifically with respect to slope stability of the concrete pad

constructed in 2003. Those portions of the petition concerning the older concrete pad

constructed in 1992 and soil liquefaction related to the newer pad were not accepted for

review because those issues have already been the subject of NRC staff review and

have been resolved.

Current Status:

On August 25, 2006, the staff attempted to reach the petitioner by phone and sent an

email to provide a current status. The NRC staff review of the licensee’s slope stability

analysis for the newer pad is continuing; the staff still has not identified any safety

issues that would require immediate action. The staff is seeking additional clarifying

information from the licensee to fully resolve the issue raised by the petitioner. When

this information is available, the staff will respond to the petition in a timely manner. 
-4-

Facility: South Texas

Petitioners: Service Employees International Union

Date of Petition: May 16, 2006, as supplemented June 26, 2006

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NRR

EDO Number: G20060525

Proposed DD Issuance: November 24, 2006

Final DD Issuance: TBD

Last Contact with Petitioner: August 7, 2006

Petition Manager: Mohan Thadani

Case Attorney: Giovonna Longo

Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC issue a Demand for Information that would require STPNOC to provide the NRC

with copies of:

(1) any assessments of the safety conscious work environment at STP conducted

since January 1, 2004, and

(2) summaries of any associated action plans and the results of efforts to remediate

problems revealed by these surveys and surveys in 2001 and 2003.

Background:

The NRC staff met with the petitioner on June 27, 2006. The petitioner discussed his

concerns and requested actions, and provided a supplement to his petition. 

The PRB determined that the petition meets the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206. 

An acknowledgment letter was issued on July 28, 2006. 

Current Status:

The staff is reviewing the petition and supplement, and plans to issue a proposed

Decision by November 24, 2006.

The petition manager spoke with the petitioner on August 7, 2006, for the purpose of 

post-Petition Review Board (PRB) feedback, and offered another opportunity to meet

with the PRB. The petitioner has not yet responded to the offer.
Status of Potential Petitions Under Consideration

Facilities: All licensees that possess or use pyrophoric

uranium munitions

Petitioners: James Salsman

Date of Petition: July 12, 2006

EDO Number: G20060666

Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC modify all licensees that allow the possession, transport, storage, or use of

pyrophoric uranium munitions to require the licensee to:

(1) quantify the dates, times, locations, quantities, and types of pyrophoric uranium

munitions use, along with an estimation of the kinds of targets involved;

(2) determine the amount of uranyl oxide gas produced in pyrophoric uranium munitions

combustion in air under typical and observed use conditions;

(3) determine the extent of both reproductive and developmental toxicity from typical

uranium combustion product inhalation in at least five diverse species of mammals; and 

(4) publish their determinations and provide for the independent verification of all such

studies.

Background:

The petitioner submitted a previous petition on this subject on April 3, 2005, which is

incorporated in its entirety in the current petition. The staff responded to the April 2005

petition by a Director’s Decision dated September 23, 2005. The petitioner stated that

additional information has come to light since the last petition. 

Current Status:

The Petition Review Board has held three meetings with the petitioner. The staff is

evaluating the petition and information exchanged during the meeting to determine

whether the petition provides significant new information to meet the criteria for review

under 10 CFR 2.206. 

Enclosure 2
Enclosu

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 not meeting th

Completion Goals

NRR All operating and

decommissioned

power reactors

and test and

research reactors/

David Lochbaum

and others

01/25/06 04/05/06 03/01/06

35

06/28/06

119

09/11/06

NMSS Palisades 04/04/06 04/26/06 06/27/06

84

10/25/06 TBD The staff delayed issuin

acknowledgement letter pen

of a supplement to the p

NRR South Texas 05/16/06 6/27/06 07/28/06

73

11/24/06 TBD The staff delayed issuin

acknowledgement letter due 

a supplement to the pe

1) Goal is to hold a PRB meeting, which the petitioner is invited to participate in, within 2 weeks of receipt of petition2) Goal is to issue acknowledgment letter within 35 days 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.