September 15, 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: AUGUST 2005 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS 

UNDER TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, 

SECTION 2.206

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

Regulations, Section 2.206. As of August 31, 2005, there were seven open petitions that were

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

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

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

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 August 31, 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 Williams, NRR/DLPM

 415-1322
September 15, 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: AUGUST 2005 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS 

UNDER TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, 

SECTION 2.206

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

Regulations, Section 2.206. As of August 31, 2005, there were seven open petitions that were

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

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

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

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 August 31, 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 Williams, NRR/DLPM

 415-1322

DISTRIBUTION: See next page

ADAMS Accession Number: ML052430148

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

NAME DWilliams SLittle HBerkow PGoldberg BSheron

DATE 09/07/05 09/06/05 09/08/05 09/08/05 09/15/05

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

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

Date: September 15, 2005

PUBLIC

PDI-1 Reading File

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

JDyer, NRR

RBorchardt, NRR

BSheron, NRR

CHolden, NRR

KCyr, OGC

LChandler, OGC

GLongo, OGC

JCordes, Jr., OCAA

MJohnson, OE

PLohaus, STP

JStrosnider, NMSS

PGoldberg, NMSS

CAbrams, NMSS

BBoger, NRR

GCaputo, OI

LMarsh, NRR

HBerkow, NRR

DWilliams, 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........................................................7

Beaver Valley Union of Concerned Scientists

GT20050272......................................................8

All Depleted Uranium Munition Licensees James Salsman

G20050242........................................................9

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station New England Coalition

G20050360........................................................11

All Plants that use Hemyc Fire Barrier Nuclear Information and Resource Service

G20050379........................................................12
Attachment 1

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 29, 2005

Final DD Issuance October 31, 2005

Last Contact with Petitioner: June 29, 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.
-2-

The NRC 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 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. 

The petitioner submitted additional information by letter dated April 12, 2005.

The proposed Director’s Decision was issued on June 29, 2005, to the petitioner and the

licensee for their review and comment. 

Current Status:

The proposed Director's Decision was issued on June 29, 2005, and requested

comments by July 29, 2005. Three members of the Coalition submitted a significant

number of comments on July 29. Based on the level of effort to respond, the anticipated

issuance date of the final Decision has been extended to October 31, 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 August 16, 2005

Last Contact with Petitioner: August 16, 2005

Petition Manager: Rick Ennis

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 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.

On May 13, 2005, the NRC issued a request for additional information to Entergy,

asking that they provide information to determine if the VY Updated Final Safety

Analysis Report was being maintained in conformance with 10 CFR 50.71(e).

On May 17, 2005, the proposed Director’s Decision was issued to the petitioners and

the licensee for their review and comment. On June 14, 2005, Entergy responded to

the request for additional information issued on May 13, 2005.

The proposed Decision stated that comments should be submitted by June 16, 2005.

On June 22 and July 7, 2005, the petition manager contacted the petitioners to inquire

whether comments would be submitted. The petitioners confirmed that they received

the proposed Decision but did not indicate whether they intended to provide comments. 

The petition manager again contacted the petitioners on July 22, 2005, and informed

them that the comment period had closed and that he would proceed with issuing the

final Decision. As of July 31, 2005, no comments had been received on the proposed

Director’s Decision and the petitioners had not requested an extension of time to

comment. 

Current Status:

The NRC staff issued the final Director’s Decision on August 16, 2005. The NRC staff

concluded that the designation of Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)

Appendix F as historical information is consistent with the applicable industry guidance,

and would meet the intent of 10 CFR 50.71(e) regarding maintenance of design basis

information, if the relevant information, consistent with the definition of “design bases” in

10 CFR 50.2, is contained in other portions of the UFSAR that are not designated as

historical. The NRC staff also concluded that the NRC licensing review process

provides reasonable assurance that the plant continues to meet the intent of the draft

GDC and adequate protection of public health and safety is assured. Consequently, the

NRC denied the request to issue a Demand for Information to the licensee.
-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 24, 2005

Final DD Issuance: October 24, 2005

Last Contact with Petitioner: July 22, 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 staff 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.” 

The proposed Director’s Decision was issued on May 24, 2005. Comments on the

proposed Director’s Decision were received from the petitioner on June 24, 2005. The

licensee had no comments. The NRC staff is evaluating the petitioner’s comments and

issues identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) during the

emergency planning drill held at VY in May 2005. These will be addressed in the final

Director’s Decision.
-6-

Current Status: 

FEMA identified several deficiencies, related to the issues in the 2.206 petition, during

the emergency planning drill held at VY at the end of May (i.e., following issuance of the

proposed Director's Decision). The final Director's Decision will need to address those

deficiencies, their associated corrective actions, and FEMA's "reasonable assurance"

conclusion regarding offsite emergency planning. FEMA intends to issue their report for

the May exercise by September 9, 2005. The NRC staff has extended its proposed date

to issue the final Decision to October 24, 2005, to evaluate and address the information

from the FEMA report. The petition manager informed the petitioner of this change in

schedule. 
-7-

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: August 3, 2005

Final DD Issuance: October 20, 2005

Last Contact with Petitioner: August 3, 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. 

The staff determined that the request would be reviewed under the 2.206

process and issued an acknowledgment letter to the petitioner on April 5, 2005. 

On May 5, 2005, the NRC issued a request for additional information to the

licensee. The licensee responded by letter dated May 27, 2005.

Current Status:

The staff issued the proposed Director’s Decision to the licensee and the

petitioner on August 3, 2005, for comment. Comments are due by September 5,

2005.
-8-

Facility: Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2

Petitioner: Union of Concerned Scientists

Date of Petition: April 12, 2005

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NRR

EDO Number: G20050272

Proposed DD Issuance: September 19, 2005

Final DD Issuance: TBD

Last Contact with Petitioner: August 30, 2005

Petition Manager: Tim Colburn

Case Attorney: Giovonna Longo

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.

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

petitioner declined. 

The NRC issued a letter to the petitioner on May 20, 2005, informing them that

the petition has been accepted for review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process.

Current Status:

The staff is continuing to review the petition and plans to issue a proposed

Director’s Decision by September 19, 2005.
-9-

Facility: All Depleted Uranium Munition Licensees 

Petitioners: James Salsman

Date of Petition: April 3, 2005

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NMSS

EDO Number: G20050242

Proposed DD Issuance: September 23, 2005

Final DD Issuance: TBD

Last Contact with Petitioner: September 8, 2005

Petition Manager: Joe DeCicco

Case Attorney: Giovanna Longo

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.

The petition requests immediate action to correct the alleged misconduct on the part of

uranium munitions licensees, for the protection of the health and safety of the public and

the environment. This petition alleges gross negligence and other serious misconduct

including fraud, willful wrongdoing, and a serious breach of the public trust, on the part

of uranium munitions licensees and their officers, employees, contractors, and agents. 

This petition requests specific and identical modifications to all NRC licenses for the

use, storage, transportation, or possession of pyrophoric uranium munitions, intended to

correct uranium munitions licensees' misconduct. In particular, the petition requests:

# That all the provisions modifying said licenses be constructed with strict

enforcement provisions, imposing substantial fines to fullest extent allowed by

law, and immediate license suspensions or revocations if the uranium munitions

licensees do not conform to the requirements of the corrective modifications to

their licenses within short lengths of time; 

# Immediate and sustained remediation and mitigation of conditions resulting from

warfare and peacetime activities; 

# The suspension of uranium munitions licenses, as modified, until licensees

become compliant with the provisions of the modified licenses; and

# Any other corrective action as the Commission may deem 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.
-10-

The petitioner submitted an original petition dated April 3, 2005, via email. The last

supplement to the petition was submitted May 4, 2005, immediately after discussing the

petition with the Petition Review Board in a public meeting via teleconference. 

The NRC issued a letter to the petitioner on May 26, 2005, informing him that his 

concerns will be addressed through the 2.206 process. The letter also informs the

petitioner that the NRC did not see a need to take the immediate action requested in the

petition.

The Notification of Receipt of a 2.206 Petition was published in the Federal Register on

June 6, 2006 (70 FR 32661). The NRC notified the licensees, via a letter, of the receipt

of the 2.206 petition on June 10, 2005, inviting the licensees to respond to the safety

concerns, expressed by the petitioner, within their organization's area of responsibility.

Current Status: 

The staff has received responses to the June 10, 2005, letter from three licensees which

address issues in the petition. The staff is reviewing these responses to develop a

Director's Decision.
-11-

Facility: Vermont Yankee

Petitioner: Ray Shadis, representing New England Coalition

Date of Petition: May 3, 2005

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NRR

EDO Number: G20050360

Proposed DD Issuance: October 13, 2005

Final DD Issuance: TBD

Last Contact with Petitioner: August 30, 2005

Petition Manager: Stew Bailey

Case Attorney: Giovonna Longo

Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC:

• Require Entergy to conduct a review at Vermont Yankee (VY) to determine the

type, amount, application, and placement of Hemyc fire barrier material; and an

assessment of the safety significance of each application;

• Require Entergy to promptly provide justification for operation in nonconformance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R;

• Upon a finding that VY is operating in an unanalyzed condition, order a power

reduction until such time as it can be demonstrated that VY is operating in

conformance with Appendix R and all other applicable regulations.

Background:

The Petition Review Board held a teleconference with the petitioner on May 17, 2005. 

In this teleconference, the petitioner stated that he wished to expand the scope of his

request to include all fire protection systems at VY, not only Hemyc.

The NRC issued a letter to the petitioner on June 15, 2005, informing him that the

petition has been accepted for review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process. In its letter, the

staff stated that the petitioner had not provided sufficient basis for the staff to expand

the scope of the petition beyond that documented in the May 3, 2005, letter. In addition,

the staff denied the request for immediate action, stating that continued plant operation,

while corrective actions are being implemented, will not pose an undue risk to public

health and safety.

Current Status:

On August 17, 2005, the licensee submitted a letter describing their plans with regard to

removal of Hemyc material at VY. The NRC staff is evaluating the licensee’s plans and

experts to issue a proposed Decision by October 13, 2005.
-12-

Facilities: Shearon Harris; H.B. Robinson, Unit 2; McGuire,

Units 1 and 2; Catawba, Units 1 and 2; Ginna;

FitzPatrick; Indian Point, Units 2 and 3; Vermont

Yankee; Waterford; and Arkansas Nuclear One,

Units 1 and 2

Petitioners: Nuclear Information and Resource Service and

others

Date of Petition: May 12, 2005

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NRR

EDO Number: G20050379

Proposed DD Issuance: October 25, 2005

Final DD Issuance: TBD

Last Contact with Petitioner: August 15, 2005

Petition Manager: Chandu Patel

Case Attorney: Giovonna Longo

Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC:

• Issue a generic communication to the named reactor sites to determine the

extent of condition of inoperable fire barriers;

• The generic communication should require that the named sites provide

justification for operation in non-compliance with all applicable fire protection

regulations; and 

• With the determination that any of the named sites are operating in an

unanalyzed condition or that assurance of public health and safety is degraded,

NRC will order a suspension of the license or a power reduction of the affected

reactors until it can be demonstrated that the licensees are operating in

conformance with all applicable fire protection regulations.

Background:

The Petition Review Board held a meeting with the petitioners on June 1, 2005, in which

the petitioners provided additional information to support their requests. 

The NRC issued a letter to the petitioner on June 27, 2005, informing them that the

petition has been accepted for review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process. In its letter, the

staff denied the request for immediate action, stating that continued plant operation,

while corrective actions are being implemented, will not pose an undue risk to public

health and safety.

Current Status:

The NRC has issued for public comment a draft Generic Letter (GL) regarding the

Hemyc fire barriers. The staff is evaluating whether the draft GL addresses all of the

petitioners’ concerns. Issuance of a proposed Director’s Decision is planned by 

October 25, 2005. 
Status of Potential Petitions Under Consideration

Facility: BWRs with Mark I containments

PWRs with ice-condenser containments

Special Circumstance reactors

Nuclear Fuel Services

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant

Petitioners: Pamela Blockey-O-Brien

Date of Petition: June 22, 2005

EDO Number: G20050462

PRB meeting: July 28, 2005, and September 1, 2005

Issues/Actions requested:

The petitioner is requesting that the NRC order the shutdown of the named facilities,

cleanup of the surrounding area, removal of spent fuel from the sites, and worker

compensation.

Current Status:

The Petition Review Board held a teleconference with the petitioner on July 28, 2005. 

Prior to the teleconference, the petition manager had provided a list of specific

information that the Board needed to determine if the petition meets the criteria of 

10 CFR 2.206. 

Following the teleconference, the petitioner submitted a supplement to the petition on

August 2, 2005. This supplement consisted of the references used in the development

of the petition. The NRC staff has reviewed the information in the original submittal, the

transcript of the July 28 teleconference, and the supplement and has determined that

the petition does not meet the criteria for it to be reviewed under 10 CFR 2.206. 

Specifically, the Petition either raises issues which have already been the subject of

NRC staff review or evaluation and which have been resolved, or constitute a challenge

to NRC regulations, or raise concerns not within the jurisdiction of NRC, or requests

actions not within the NRC's authority. In addition, the facts that constitute the basis for

many issues raised by the Petition are not sufficient to warrant further inquiry.

The petition manager contacted the petitioner on August 24 and informed her of the

NRC staff’s decision. The petitioner requested another teleconference with the Board to

provide additional supporting information. This teleconference is scheduled for

September 1, 2005.

Attachment 2
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 n

Co

NRR All BWRs with

Mark I and II

containments

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

70

06/29/05

107

10/31/05 The clock was 

10/19/05 becaus

report was n

reference. The c

when the Ch

NRR Vermont Yankee/

Blanch &

Gundersen

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

172

05/17/05

120

08/16/05

60

The PRB could 

2.206 process 

admissibility of 

NRR Vermont Yankee/

New England

Coalition

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

50

05/24/05

118

10/24/05 The date of th

address issues t

drill report (exp

NRR Byron Station

Barry Quiqley

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

34

8/03/05

120

10/20/05

NRR Beaver Valley

Union of

Concerned

Scientists

4/12/05 N/A 5/20/05

38

9/19/05 TBD

NMSS All Depleted

Uranium Munition

Licensees 

James Salsman

4/03/05 5/04/05 5/26/05

52

9/23/2005 TBD

NRR Vermont Yankee 5/03/05 5/17/05 6/15/05

43

10/13/05 TBD

NRR All plants

that use Hemyc

fire barrier

5/12/05 6/01/05 6/27/05 10/25/05 TBD

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