July 18, 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: JUNE 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 June 30, 2006, there was one open petition that was

accepted for review under the 2.206 process in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). 

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

Enclosure 1 provides a detailed status of the open petition.

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 June 30, 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: Donna Williams, NRR

 301-415-1322
July 18, 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: JUNE 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 June 30, 2006, there was one open petition that was

accepted for review under the 2.206 process in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). 

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

Enclosure 1 provides a detailed status of the open petition.

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 June 30, 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: Donna Williams, NRR/DPR

 301-415-1322

DISTRIBUTION: See next page

ADAMS Accession Number: ML061880560

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

NAME DWilliams DBaxley HNieh GHolahan

DATE 7/11/06 7/11/06 7/17/06 7/18/06

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

TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, SECTION 2.206

Date: July 18, 2006

PUBLIC

PSPB Reading File

RidsEdoMailCenter

EJulian

PAnderson

RidsNrrOd

RidsNrrAdra

RidsOgcMailCenter

RidsOcaMailCenter

RidsOeMailCenter

JStrosnider

PGoldberg

CAbrams

RidsNrrAdra

GCaputo

RidsNrrDpr

RidsNrrDprPspb

RidsNrrLADBaxley

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

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: Bill Reckley

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.

Current Status:

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.
-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: June 27, 2006

Petition Manager: Ray Wharton

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. 

Current Status:

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. 

NRC staff review of the slope stability analysis for the newer pad is currently ongoing; however,

a revised scheduled has yet to be established. When this technical issue is resolved, the staff

will respond to the petition in a timely manner.
Status of Potential Petitions Under Consideration

Facility: South Texas Project

Petitioner: Service Employees International Union

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

EDO Number: G20060525

PRB meeting: June 27, 2006

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.

Current Status:

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 NRC staff is evaluating

the information provided during the meeting and the supplemental petition, to determine if it

meets the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206.

Facilities: Vermont Yankee, Indian Point, and an unidentified

plant

Petitioners: Michael Mulligan

Date of Petition: May 31, June 2, and June 12, 2006 

EDO Number: G20060576, G20060552, and G20060571

Issues/Actions requested:

• that the surge protector in the switchgear room at Vermont Yankee be replaced within

6 months or the unit be shutdown;

• that the NRC, NEI, INPO, and State of NY be reorganized within 1 year or both Indian

Point units be shutdown; and 

• that all degradations identified in the normal and emergency service water system of the

unidentified plant be fixed or the plant be shutdown within a year.

Current Status:

The NRC staff is reviewing the petitions to determine if they meet the criteria for review under

10 CFR 2.206. 

Enclosure 2

AGE STATISTICS FOR AGENCY 2.206 PETITIONS
Enclosure 3

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 the Agency’s

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 issuing the

acknowledgement letter pending receipt

of a supplement to the petition. 

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