July 6, 2007

MEMORANDUM TO: Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director for Operations

FROM: Bruce A. Boger, Associate Director /RA by MCase for/ 

 for Operating Reactor Oversight and Licensing 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT: JUNE 2007 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS 

UNDER TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

(10 CFR) SECTION 2.206

In accordance with SECY-93-355, “Review of Regulations and Practice Governing Citizen

Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206,” the enclosed report

gives the status of petitions submitted under 10 CFR 2.206. As of June 30, 2007, there was

one open petition that was accepted for review under the 2.206 process in the Office of Nuclear

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

Enclosure 1 provides a detailed status of the open petitions as of June 30, 2007. 

Enclosure 2 provides the status of incoming letters that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) 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, 2007

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

Agencywide Documents Access and Management System. By making these documents

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

openness in our regulatory process. 

Enclosures: As stated

CONTACT: Tanya M. Mensah, NRR/DPR

 301-415-3610

July 6, 2007
MEMORANDUM TO: Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director for Operations

FROM: Bruce A. Boger, Associate Director /RA by MCase for/ 

 for Operating Reactor Oversight and Licensing

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT: JUNE 2007 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS 

UNDER TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

(10 CFR) SECTION 2.206

In accordance with SECY-93-355, “Review of Regulations and Practice Governing Citizen

Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206,” the enclosed report

gives the status of petitions submitted under 10 CFR 2.206. As of June 30, 2007, there was

one open petition that was accepted for review under the 2.206 process in the Office of Nuclear

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

Enclosure 1 provides a detailed status of the open petitions as of June 30, 2007. 

Enclosure 2 provides the status of incoming letters that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) 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, 2007

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

Agencywide Documents Access and Management System. By making these documents

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

openness in our regulatory process. 

Enclosures: As stated

CONTACT: Tanya M. Mensah, NRR/DPR

 301-415-3610

DISTRIBUTION: See next page

ADAMS Accession Number: ML071700592 NRR-106

OFFICE PM:PSPB LA:PSPB BC:PSPB DD:DPR ADRO

NAME TMensah DBaxley SRosenberg HNieh Bboger/RA by

MCase for/

DATE 7 / 03 / 07 7 / 02 / 07 7 / 05 / 07 7 / 05 / 07 7 / 06 / 07

OFFICIAL AGENCY RECORD
DISTRIBUTION FOR JUNE 2007 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS

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

Date: July 6, 2007 

PUBLIC

PSPB Reading File

RidsEdoMailCenter

EJulian

PAnderson

RidsNrrOd

RidsNrrAdro

RidsOgcMailCenter

RidsOpaMail

RidsOcaMailCenter

RidsOeMailCenter

RidsNrrWpcMail

JDeCicco

PRathbun

GCaputo

HCruz

RGibbs

TWengert

LRegner

RidsNrrDpr

RidsNrrDprPspb

RidsNrrLADBaxley

RidsNrrPMTMensah

RidsRgn1MailCenter

RidsRgn2MailCenter

RidsRgn3MailCenter

RidsRgn4MailCenter
Status of Open Petitions

Facility Petitioner/EDO No. Page

Shearon Harris John Runkle representing Waste Awareness 

and Reduction Network (WARN), Union of 

Concerned Scientists (UCS), et al.

G20060793..................................................................1

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

Facility: Shearon Harris

Petitioners: John Runkle representing WARN, UCS, et al.

Date of Petition: September 20, 2006

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NRR

EDO Number: G20060793

Proposed DD Issuance: April 2, 2007

Final DD Issuance: June 13, 2007

Last Contact with Petitioner: June 14, 2007

Petition Manager: Lisa Regner

Case Attorney: Giovonna Longo

Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC suspend the operating license for Shearon Harris until all fire safety

violations affecting safe shutdown functions are brought into compliance.

Background:

On October 23, 2006, the NRC staff held a public meeting for the petitioners to address

the Petition Review Board (PRB). Due to technical difficulties with the teleconferencing

system, the meeting was cancelled. The NRC staff held a public meeting on

November 13, 2006, for the petitioners to address the PRB. The PRB determined that

the petition met the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206. An acknowledgment letter

was issued on December 4, 2006. 

During the review of this petition, several resolutions were submitted by external

stakeholders in support of the petition. The resolutions were submitted to the NRC in

letters dated October 11, 2006 (G20060852), October 12, 2006 (G20060858), and

October 16, 2006 (G20060861). The resolutions were submitted by the townships of

Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and the Orange County Board of Commissioners respectively. 

Regarding the resolutions concerning fire protection issues, the NRC reached

agreements with the respective townships and the Orange County Board of

Commissioners to include them on distribution for related NRC correspondence with the

petitioners concerning their requests. This agreement is documented in individual

letters dated November 17, 2006, from the NRC staff to the townships of Chapel Hill and

Carrboro. The NRC documented its response to the Orange County Board of

Commissioners in letters dated November 27, 2006, and December 27, 2006. 

In addition, in its letters dated October 16, 2006, and November 27, 2006, the Orange

County Board of Commissioners submitted a resolution concerning emergency

preparedness. In its response dated November 27, 2006, and December 27, 2006, the

NRC staff determined that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective

measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency associated with

the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant. The NRC staff recommended that the Orange

County Board of Commissioners work through the appropriate State and local agencies

to develop proposed changes to the existing plans.
-2-

The NRC staff has completed its review and is proposing to deny the portions of the

petition related to the petitioner’s request for enforcement action, the request to conduct

a public meeting, and the request to deny the licensee’s application for license renewal

at Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant. On April 2, 2007, the NRC staff issued the Proposed

Director’s Decision to the petitioner and to the licensee for comment. The NRC staff

asked for comments to be submitted within 30 days of the proposed Director’s Decision. 

On May 1, 2007, the petitioner and the licensee submitted comments on the Proposed

Director’s Decision to the NRC staff. The 30-day comment period ended on May 3,

2007. 

On May 25, 2007, the petition manager contacted the petitioners by email to notify them

of an NRC public meeting held from May 30, 2007 - June 1, 2007. The purpose of the

public meeting was to discuss topics associated with Progress and Duke Energy’s Pilot

Program to transition to the risk-informed, performance-based fire protection regulation

in 10 CFR 50.48(c), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 805 Rule.

Current Status: 

The NRC staff issued the Final Director’s Decision on June 13, 2007 (Agencywide

Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML071500403). On

June 14, 2007, the petition manager contacted the petitioner by phone and email to

provide notification of the issuance of the Final Director’s Decision. In accordance with

the 10 CFR 2.206 petition process, the Commission has 25 calendar days from the date

of the decision to determine whether or not the Director’s Decision should be reviewed. 

In a letter dated June 27, 2007, the petitioner requested that the Commission review the

Director’s Decision under 10 CFR 2.206.
Status of Potential Petitions Under Consideration

Facility: Indian Point, Units 2 and 3

Petitioner: Mark Leyse

Date of Petition: April 25, 2007

EDO Number: G20070273

PRB meeting: May 24, 2007 (Teleconference)

Issues/Actions requested:

The petitioner requests that the NRC:

• Revoke the operating license of Indian Point (IP), Units 2 and 3.

• Order the licensee of IP, Units 2 and 3, to immediately suspend operation of IP,

Units 2 and 3. 

• Temporarily shutdown IP, Units 2 and 3. In the event of Option 3, the petitioner

requests that the NRC order the licensee to correct the current deficiencies of

the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) design basis and reconfigure the

power production levels of both plants, making IP, Units 2 and 3, compliant with

10 CFR 50.46(b).

• In the event of a license renewal process, conduct reviews for the license

renewal of IP, Units 2 and 3, that encompass conservative ECCS evaluation

calculations, modeling scenarios where one-cycle fuel would have been heavily

crudded and/or oxidized fuel rods would have crud-induced corrosion failures.

Current Status:

On April 25, 2007, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action pursuant to

10 CFR 2.206. On May 24, 2007, the petitioner addressed the PRB by teleconference. 

A transcript of the teleconference (Agencywide Documents Access and Management

System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML071500238) was made publically available to

supplement the petition. The PRB denied the petitioner’s request for immediate action

because the petitioner did not identify an immediate safety concern. In addition, the

PRB determined that the petition did not meet the criteria for acceptance under

10 CFR 2.206 because the petitioner did not provide facts sufficient to constitute a basis

for the requested action. Specifically, the petitioner did not identify any facts to indicate

that IP2 or IP3 is in violation of any NRC requirement, or that operation of IP2 or IP3

presents a safety concern. In a letter dated May 31, 2007, the PRB documented its

decision to the petitioner (ADAMS Accession No. ML071500238). 
-2-

Facility: Davis-Besse

Petitioner: Union of Concerned Scientists (David A. Lochbaum)

Date of Petition: April 30, 2007 and supplement dated May 10, 2007

EDO Number: G20070297

PRB meeting: June 18, 2007 (public PRB meeting)

Issues/Actions requested:

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), the licensee for the Davis-Besse

Nuclear Power Plant (Davis-Besse), recently submitted a report to the NRC about the

hole in the reactor vessel head caused by leakage from cracked control rod drive

mechanism (CRDM) nozzles. Consultants paid by FENOC prepared this report located

under Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession

No. ML070860211. The petitioner requests that the NRC:

1. Immediately Order the Davis-Besse reactor to shut down and remain shut down

until the NRC completes its independent review of the recently submitted report.

2. If the NRC’s independent review determines that the small leak and fast

corrosion rate scenario described in the FENOC-submitted report is valid,

immediately Order all pressurized water reactors in the United States to be shut

down and remain shut down until the NRC approved either:

A. An inspection scope and frequency based on the new scenario that

provides protection against the Davis-Besse head damage or,

B. An installed leak detection capability that would alert control room

operators to small leakage from one or more CRDM nozzles so that

repairs could occur prior to damage progressing to Davis-Besse depths.

3. If the NRC’s independent review determines that FENOC has submitted yet

another inaccurate report to the NRC, revoke the operating license for DavisBesse. 

Current Status:

The PRB considered the petitioner’s request for immediate action (Item #1). On May 3,

2007, the petition manager informed the petitioner, by telephone, that the PRB had

denied the request for immediate action on the basis that the NRC staff had already

performed an assessment of the Exponent Report and that no immediate safety

concern exists at Davis-Besse (ADAMS Accession No. ML071240254). In a letter dated

May 18, 2007, the NRC conveyed this determination to the petitioner (ADAMS

Accession No. ML071300245). The PRB also conveyed in the May 18, 2007, letter that

it had not made initial determinations concerning Items #2 and #3 of the petition

request.

On May 29, 2007, the petitioner was informed by telephone of the PRB’s initial

recommendations regarding Items #2 and #3 of the petition request. The petitioner

requested a public meeting to address the PRB. On June 18, 2007, the petitioner

addressed the PRB. The PRB is reviewing the petition, and the information provided by

the petitioner on June 18, 2007, to determine if Items #2 and #3 of the petition request

meet the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206. 
 

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/age4

Comments if not meeting th

Completion Goals

NRR Shearon Harris 09/20/06 11/13/06 12/04/06

75

04/02/07

119

06/13/07

41

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.