October 21, 2003

MEMORANDUM TO: William D. Travers

Executive Director for Operations

FROM: Brian W. Sheron, Associate Director /RA/

 for Project Licensing and Technical Analysis

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT: SEPTEMBER 2003 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS

UNDER TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS,

SECTION 2.206

The attached reports give the status of petitions submitted under Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, Section 2.206. As of September 30, 2003, there were three open petitions, which

were accepted for review under the 2.206 process in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

One final Director’s Decision was issued during the month of September.

Attachment 1 provides a detailed status of the open petitions.

Attachment 2 provides the status of incoming letters that the staff has been 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 September 30, 2003.

Attachment 4 shows the age trend of closed petitions for the last 3 years. 

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

Agencywide Documents Access and Management System. In making these readily accessible

to the public, the staff has identified another vehicle to address one of our performance goals,

i.e., to enhance public confidence.

Attachments: As stated

CONTACT: Donna Skay, NRR

415-1322
October 21, 2003

MEMORANDUM TO: William D. Travers

Executive Director for Operations

FROM: Brian W. Sheron, Associate Director /RA/

 for Project Licensing and Technical Analysis

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT: SEPTEMBER 2003 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS

UNDER TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS,

SECTION 2.206

The attached reports give the status of petitions submitted under Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, Section 2.206. As of September 30, 2003, there were three open petitions, which

were accepted for review under the 2.206 process in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

One final Director’s Decision was issued during the month of September.

Attachment 1 provides a detailed status of the open petitions.

Attachment 2 provides the status of incoming letters that the staff has been 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 September 30, 2003.

Attachment 4 shows the age trend of closed petitions for the last 3 years. 

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

Agencywide Documents Access and Management System. In making these readily accessible

to the public, the staff has identified another vehicle to address one of our performance goals,

i.e., to enhance public confidence.

Attachments: As stated

CONTACT: Donna Skay, NRR

415-1322

DISTRIBUTION: See next page

Accession No.: ML032730487 *See previous concurrence

OFFICE PM:PDI-1 LA:PDI-1 D:PDII DD:DLPM ADPT:NRR

NAME DSkay SLittle* HBerkow* ELeeds BSheron

DATE 10/14/03 10/06/03 10/07/03 10/17/03 10/17/03

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
DISTRIBUTION FOR JULY 2003 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS UNDER

TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, SECTION 2.206

Dated: October 21, 2003

PUBLIC

SCollins, DEDR/OEDO

CPaperillo, DEDMRS/OEDO

PNorry, DEDM/OEDO

Wkane, DEDH/OEDO

WDean, AO/OEDO

JShea, ODEO

PAnderson, OEDO (Email after this document has been put into ADAMS)

EJulian

RLaufer

CHolden

RBorchardt, NRR

BSheron, NRR

CMohrwinkel, NRR

KCyr, OGC

LChandler, OGC

JGoldberg, OGC

JCordes, Jr., OCAA

FCongel, OE

PLohaus, STP

MVirgilio, NMSS

PGoldberg, NMSS

CAbrams, NMSS

BBoger, NRR

GCaputo, OI

LMarsh, NRR

HBerkow, NRR

WRuland, NRR

MFields, NRR

BBenney, NRR

DSkay, NRR

OCA

OPA

Regional Administrators

PDI-1 Reading 

SLittle
Attachment 1

Status of Open Petitions

Page

Facility Petitioner/EDO No. No.

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Congressman Dennis Kucinich

G20030048.................................................... 1

Indian Point Units 2 and 3 Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General

of the State of Connecticut

G20030216.................................................... 3

Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned

Scientists

G20030298.................................................... 5

Indian Point Units 2 and 3 Riverkeeper

G20030545.......................................................7
Attachment 1

Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206

Facility: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station

Petitioner: Congressman Dennis Kucinich

Date of Petition: February 3, 2003 

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NRR

EDO Number: G20030048

Proposed DD Issuance: 06/05/03

Final DD Issuance:

Last Contact with Petitioner: 09/12/03

Petition Manager: Dan Collins (NRR)

Case Attorney: Jack Goldberg

Issues/Actions requested:

That the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) immediately revoke FirstEnergy

Nuclear Operating Company’s (FirstEnergy) license to operate the Davis-Besse Nuclear

Power Station (DBNPS) for the reasons given in the background. 

Background:

In response to the licensee's identification of extensive corrosion to the pressure

boundary material of the RPV head on March 5, 2002, the NRC dispatched an

Augmented Inspection Team (AIT), issued a Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) , and 

enhanced monitoring of corrective actions as described in NRC Inspection Manual

Chapter 0350, “Oversight of Operating Reactor Facilities in a Shutdown Condition with

Performance Problems.”

Using information from various publicly available documents (such as NRC inspection

reports, newspaper articles, and reports published by the Union of Concerned

Scientists) to support his case, the Petitioner offers the following five basic arguments,

in various forms, on why the Davis-Besse operating license must be revoked:

1. NRC regulations and guidelines require revocation of the Davis-Besse license.

2. Revocation of the Davis-Besse license is necessary to hold FirstEnergy

accountable for its violations of NRC regulations and its own operating license.

3. If the NRC doesn’t revoke the Davis-Besse license, NRC isn’t appropriately

using the authority granted it by Congress.

4. Revocation of the Davis-Besse license is necessary in order to ensure that

FirstEnergy is complying with all NRC regulations and guidelines.
-2-

5. Revocation of the Davis-Besse license is required in order for there to be

consistency in the manner that the NRC enforces its regulations.

The staff issued an acknowledgment letter on February 10, 2003, to inform the

Congressman that the petition meets the acceptance criteria for review under 2.206. 

The acknowledgment letter also informed the Petitioner that, pending completion of the

NRC’s investigative process, the NRC does not have sufficient basis to immediately

revoke the Davis-Besse operating license. Thus, the Petitioner’s request for immediate

revocation of the license was denied. 

The petitioner informed the staff on March 12, 2003, that a supplement would be issued

in lieu of a presentation to the PRB. The petitioner submitted a supplement to the

original petition on March 27, 2003, to address the following additional concerns:

a. boric acid dust may have corroded electrical systems & cable trays

b. as-built design may not conform to design or licensing bases

c. training of personnel may not meet licensing basis

d. DBNPS does not have ability to detect I gpm leakage within 1 hour

e. procedures instituted by NRC may not uncover or address other systems

that may be degraded i,e., RCP seal gasket leakage 

f. The O350 Panel will end and the plant will return to normal monitoring

under the ROP before Lessons Learned Task Force recommendations

regarding the ROP are implemented

g. The OI investigation must be completed before NRC allows DBNPS to

restart

A closed PRB meeting was held on April 2, 2003, to discuss the additional information

provided by the petitioner’s March 27, 2003, supplement. The staff decided that no

immediate action was warranted, that the supplement should be consolidated with the

existing petition, that no new allegations were presented by the petitioner, and that an

acknowledgment letter was not necessary. 

On April 11, 2003, the staff received the licensee’s response to the petitioner’s

supplement dated March 27, 2003. The information provided supported the staff’s early

conclusion that the supplement should be consolidated with the existing petition, and

that no new allegations were presented by the petitioner. The proposed DD was issued

on June 6, 2003. The staff received comments on the proposed Director’s Decision

from the licensee, the petitioner, and two members of the public.

Current Status:

The staff issued a final Director’s Decision on September 12, 2003.
-3-

Facility: Indian Point Units 2 and 3

Petitioner: Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of the State

of Connecticut

Date of Petition: April 23, 2003 

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NRR

EDO Number: G20030216

Proposed DD Issuance: 10/31/03

Final DD Issuance TBD

Last Contact with Petitioner: 08/29/03

Petition Manager: Harold Chernoff

Case Attorney: Jack Goldberg

Issues/Actions requested:

That the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC):

1. Order the licensee to conduct full review of vulnerabilities, security measures, and

evacuation plans and to suspend operations, revoke the operating license, or adopt

other measures resulting in temporary shutdown of Indian Point Units 2 and 3.

2. Require the licensee to provide sufficient information to document the existing

security measures which provide protection against terrorist attacks.

3. Modify the licensee’s operating license to mandate specifically a defense and

security system sufficient to protect the entire facility, including electric equipment,

containment, spent fuel storage, and the control room from a land or water based

terrorist attack.

4. Order the revision of the licensee’s Emergency Response Plan and the Radiological

Emergency Response Plans of the State of New York and nearby counties to

account and prepare for terrorist attacks. These revisions must contemplate not

only the full range of realistic effects of a terrorist attack on the Indian Point facility,

but also a comprehensive response to multiple attacks on the region’s infrastructure

that could affect execution of the evacuation plans.

5. If, after taking the above actions, the NRC cannot adequately ensure the security of

the Indian Point facility against terrorist threats, or cannot ensure the safety of New

York and Connecticut citizens from terrorist attacks, that it take prompt action to

permanently retire the facility.

Background:

A closed PRB meeting was held on May 8, 2003, to discuss whether the petition

satisfies the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206.
-4-

During this meeting the PRB decided that no immediate action was necessary. The

PRB also recommended that security issues regarding potential terrorist attacks be

handled separately from the issues associated with the emergency response plan by

addressing the security issues in a partial Director’s Decision.

By letter dated June 3, 2003, the petitioner filed a supplement to his original 2.206

Petition. The supplement provided additional information in support of the petition in

three major areas: (1) shadow evacuation effects, (2) family separation, and (3) recent

design-basis threat changes.

On June 19, 2003, the PRB held a conference call with the petitioner’s representative

(Assistant Attorney General, Robert Snook) to afford the petitioner the opportunity to

provide additional information or clarification with regards to the original petition and the

recently submitted supplement.

Following the conference call, the PRB determined that the petition satisfied the criteria

for review under 10 CFR 2.206. An acknowledgment letter was sent to the petitioner on

July 3, 2003, stating that the petition has met the criteria for evaluation under 10 CFR

2.206

Current Status:

The NRC staff has received a copy of a letter from FEMA to Mr. Blumenthal addressing

his concerns which are similar to those that Mr. Blumenthal provided to the NRC. The

staff will coordinate with FEMA in the development of its conclusions. 

The petitioner’s staff has told the NRC that he will be providing additional information to

the NRC.
-5-

Facility: Davis Besse

Petitioner: David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists

James Riccio, Greenpeace

Paul Gunter, Nuclear Information & Resource

Service

Date of Letter: August 25, 2003

EDO Number: G20030508

Proposed DD Issuance: February 3, 2004

Final DD Issuance: TBD

Last Contact with Petitioner: September 17, 2003

Petition Manager: Mel Fields

Case Attorney: Antonio Fernandez

Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC:

(1) take enforcement action against FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company for failure

to live up to its commitments made in response to the NRC’s October 1996 10 CFR

50.54(f) letter. Since the 50.54(f) letter was issued in direct response to the problems at

Millstone that netted its owner a record $2.1 million fine from the NRC, failure to heed

the Millstone warning should carry at least an equivalent sanction.

(2) take enforcement action against First Energy for the numerous design basis

violations dating back to the date of licensing with penalties for each day that the

licensee was out of compliance with NRC regulations.

(3) suspend the license and prohibit restart of the Davis-Besse reactor unless and until

FirstEnergy has adequately addressed all 1,000 design basis deficiencies identified in

1997,

(4) suspend the license and prohibit restart of the Davis-Besse reactor unless and until

FirstEnergy has updated its Probablisitic Risk Assessment to reflect the flaws in its

design and licensing basis, and 

(5) suspend the license and prohibit restart of the Davis-Besse reactor with any systems

in a “degraded but operable” condition.

Background:

A public meeting was held between the petitioners and the Petition Review Board on

September 17, 2003. The transcript from the meeting will be treated as a supplement to

the petition. Following the conference call, the PRB determined that the petition

satisfied the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206.
-6-

Current Status:

The staff issued a letter to the petitioner on October 7, 2003, acknowledging receipt of

the petition. The staff will supplement the acknowledgment letter to address the

requests for immediate action prior to the NRC granting approval for restart. The

petition is under review by the staff.
-7-

Facility: Indian Point Units 2 and 3

Petitioner: Alex Matthiessen, Riverkeeper

David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists

Date of Petition: September 8, 2003, as supplemented on

September 22, 2003

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NRR

EDO Number: G20030545

Proposed DD Issuance: TBD

Final DD Issuance: TBD

Last Contact with Petitioner: September 24, 2003

Petition Manager: Brian Benney

Case Attorney: Jack Goldberg

Issues/Actions requested:

That the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC):

1. Issue an Order requiring Entergy to immediately shut down Indian Point Units 2

and 3 and maintain the reactors shut down until such time that the containment

sumps are modified to resolve the Generic Safety Issue 191 problem; or 

2. Issue an Order requiring Entergy to prevent restart of Indian Point Units 2 and 3

from their next scheduled refueling outages until such time that the containment

sumps are modified to resolve the GSI-191 problem; and

Require Entergy to (a) maintain all equipment needed for monitoring leak-beforebreak of reactor coolant pressure boundary components within containment fully

functional and immediately shutdown the affected reactor on any functional

impairment to monitoring equipment, and (b) refrain from any activity under 10

CFR 50.59, 10 CFR 50.90, Section VII.C, or GL 91-18, Revision 1 that increases

or could increase the probability that a loss-of-coolant accident occurs.

Background:

A public PRB meeting was held with the petitioners on September 24, 2003. The

petitioners presented the staff with a supplement to their petition dated September 22,

2003. The transcript from the meeting will also be treated as a supplement to the

petition. The licensee stated that it would be submitting a response to the petition. 

Following the conference call, the PRB determined that the petition satisfied the criteria

for review under 10 CFR 2.206.

Several letters have been received by the NRC separately in support of the Riverkeeper

petition. The NRC staff will inform the authors of those letters of the status of its review

of the Riverkeeper petition but will not open separate 2.206 reviews for these letters.
-8-

Current Status:

The staff is reviewing the petition and supplement to evaluate the need for any

immediate actions. Following this evaluation, the staff will issue a letter to the

petitioners acknowledging receipt of the petition and addressing the need for immediate

action.
Attachment 2

Status of Potential Petitions Under Consideration

Facility: Maine Yankee

Petitioner: Randall Speck, Special Counsel for the State of Maine

Date of Letter: November 15, 2002

Responsible Office: NMSS

PRB meeting: To be scheduled 

Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC conduct a hearing on the efficacy of indefinite, long-term spent fuel

storage at Maine Yankee.

Resolution:

The petitioner has also requested a hearing, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, regarding the

October 16, 2002, safeguards order and interim compensatory measures. On

December 10, 2002, the staff sent a letter to the petitioner stating that a decision on the

acceptability of the 2.206 petition will be held in abeyance until the staff makes a

determination on the hearing request. This letter remains as a potential 2.206 petition

but the staff cannot consider whether it will be treated as a 2.206 petition until the

Licensing Board settles the issues before it.
Attachment 3

AGE STATISTICS FOR AGENCY 2.206 PETITIONS

ASSIGNED

ACTION

OFFICE

FACILITY Incoming 

petition

PRBmeeting1

Acknowledgment 

letter / 

days from

incoming2

Proposed DDissuanceDate/ age3

Scheduled

date for

final DD/

age 4

Comments if no

Com

NRR Davis Besse 02/03/03 02/05/03 02/10/02

7

06/06/03

116

09/12/03

67

Issuance of the Fin

need to address su

on th

NRR Indian Point 04/23/03 05/08/03 07/03/03

70

10/31/03

scheduled

TBD Staff delayed iss

pending submit

petitioner (rece

scheduling conflic

petitioner was n

NRR Davis Besse 08/25/03 9/17/03 10/07/03

43

02/03/04 TBD

NRR Indian Point 09/08/03 9/24/03 10/16/03

scheduled

TBD TBD

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

often a delay of up two weeks from the date that the letter is issued until it is received by the reviewing o

2) Goal is to issue acknowledgment letter within 5 weeks 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.
Attachment 4