August 17, 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: JULY 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 July 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 July 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: Donna Williams, NRR

 301-415-1322
August 17, 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: JULY 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 July 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 July 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: Donna Williams, NRR/DPR

 301-415-1322

DISTRIBUTION: See next page

ADAMS Accession Number: ML062150491

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

NAME JHopkins

for

DWilliams

DBaxley JHopkins for

SRosenberg

HNieh GHolahan

DATE 8-11-06 8/3/06 8-11-06 8/14/06 8/17/06

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

TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, SECTION 2.206

Date: August 17, 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

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 NRC staff is

reviewing the comments and preparing the final Director’s Decision.
-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 NRC 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

NRC 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 NRC staff sent a letter to the petitioners, acknowledging receipt of

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

petitioners had not provided a supplement to the petition. 

Current Status:

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

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

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

condemn and stop the use of the two 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. 

The 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 NRC 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: July 28, 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 the petition. 

Current Status:

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. 
Status of Potential Petitions Under Consideration

Facilities: Vermont Yankee, Indian Point, and an unidentified

plant

Petitioner: 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 determined that the petitions do not meet the criteria for review under

10 CFR 2.206 and issued a letter to the petitioner on July 12, 2006. The letter stated

that the petitions do not meet the criteria of 2.206 for the following reasons: The

component(s) cited as defective at Vermont Yankee in the petition of May 31 and

supplemented on June 22, had operated as designed, and therefore, following a review,

no violations of NRC regulations were cited. The petition requests of June 2 and 7,

addressed deficiencies with the NRC. These issues are not considered under 10 CFR

2.206. The NRC staff has referred these concerns to the Office of the Inspector General

for it's review. Finally, the petition of June 12, does not provide sufficient supportive

factual information. In addition, the system(s) that are referenced in the petition have

been the subject of NRC staff review and evaluation.

Enclosure 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 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 issui

acknowledgement letter pen

of a supplement to the p

NRR South Texas 05/16/06 06/27/06 7/28/06

73

11/24/06 TBD The NRC staff delayed iss

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 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.