January 29, 2007

MEMORANDUM TO: Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director for Operations

FROM: Bruce A. Boger, Associate Director /RA/ 

 for Operating Reactor Oversight and Licensing

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT: DECEMBER 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 December 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 as of December 31, 2006. 

Enclosure 2 provides the status of incoming letters that the 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 December 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 NRC staff is addressing the performance goal of

ensuring openness in our regulatory process. 

Enclosures: As stated

CONTACT: Tanya M. Mensah, NRR

 301-415-3610
January 29, 2007

MEMORANDUM TO: Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director for Operations

FROM: Bruce A. Boger, Associate Director /RA/

 for Operating Reactor Oversight and Licensing

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT: DECEMBER 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 December 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 as of December 31, 2006. 

Enclosure 2 provides the status of incoming letters that the 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 December 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 NRC staff is addressing the performance goal of

ensuring openness in our regulatory process. 

Enclosures: As stated

CONTACT: Tanya M. Mensah, NRR

 301-415-3610

DISTRIBUTION: See next page

ADAMS Accession Number: ML070100159

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

NAME TMensah DBaxley SRosenberg HNieh BBoger

DATE 1 / 22 / 07 1 /22/ 07 1 /24 / 07 1 / 26 / 07 1 / 29 / 07

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

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

Date: January 29, 2007

PUBLIC

PSPB Reading File

RidsEdoMailCenter

EJulian

PAnderson

RidsNrrOd

RidsNrrAdro

RidsOgcMailCenter

RidsOcaMailCenter

RidsOeMailCenter

JStrosnider

PGoldberg

CAbrams

GCaputo

RidsNrrDpr

RidsNrrDprPspb

RidsNrrLADBaxley

RidsNrrPMTMensah

RidsOpaMailCenter

RidsRgn1MailCenter

RidsRgn2MailCenter

RidsRgn3MailCenter

RidsRgn4MailCenter
Status of Open Petitions

Facility Petitioner/EDO No. Page

Palisades Nuclear Power Plant Terry Lodge, Counsel for Petitioners 

G20060369.........................................................1

South Texas Service Employees International Union

G20060525.........................................................3

Shearon Harris John Runkle representing Waste Awareness and

Reduction Network (WARN), Union of Concerned

Scientists (UCS), et al.

G20060793.........................................................5

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

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: November 28, 2006

Final DD Issuance: February 13, 2007

Last Contact with Petitioner: January 4, 2007

Petition Manager: Randy Hall

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 NRC 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 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. 

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

NRC 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 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.

On August 25, 2006, the NRC staff attempted to reach the petitioner by phone and sent

an email to provide a current status. 
-2-

On October 31, 2006, the NRC staff attempted to reach the petitioner by phone and

sent an email to provide a current status.

On December 1, 2006, the NRC staff attempted to reach the petitioner by phone and

sent an email transmitting the proposed Director’s Decision for comment.

Current Status:

This issue was originally identified as an unresolved item in a previous NRC inspection

report, and was forwarded to the Spent Fuel Project Office (SFPO) staff by Region III in

a Technical Assistance Request (TAR) dated March 10, 2006. On August 29, 2006,

SFPO sent a memorandum back to Region III identifying its remaining questions on the

licensee's analysis, which Region III forwarded to the Palisades licensee. 

The licensee revised its slope stability analysis for the new pad to address the NRC

questions and that revised analysis was provided to NMSS for review on October 24,

2006. The NRC staff has completed its review of the licensee’s revised slope stability

analysis for the newer pad and finds it acceptable; therefore the NRC staff is proposing

to deny the petition. 

The NRC staff issued the proposed Director’s Decision to the petitioner and to the

licensee for comment on November 28, 2006. The NRC asked for comments to be

submitted within 30 days of the proposed Director’s Decision.

On January 4, 2007, the petitioner requested an additional 14 days to provide

comments on the proposed Director’s Decision, citing personal hardship and the need to

consult further with a technical expert. The NRC staff agreed to allow the petitioner until

January 19, 2007 to submit any comments. The NRC staff may need to request an

extension for the preparation of the final Director’s Decision, depending on the nature

and extent of the petitioner’s comments. The licensee has indicated to the NRC staff

that it does not have any comments on the proposed Director’s Decision.
-3-

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 22, 2006

Final DD Issuance: TBD

Last Contact with Petitioner: August 7, 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 his petition. 

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. 

The petition manager spoke with the petitioner on August 7, 2006, for the purpose of 

post-Petition Review Board (PRB) feedback, and offered another opportunity to meet

with the PRB. The petitioner said that he would call back.

The petitioner subsequently called back and indicated that he did not want another

meeting with PRB. However, he reiterated that he would like the NRC to respond to his

concerns about the licensee’s actions regarding the licensee’s findings and action plans

relative to the 2001 and 2003 surveys. 

Current Status:

Region IV staff has completed its inspections addressing the petitioner’s concerns. A

report of the inspections was used to prepare the proposed Director’s Decision. The

Office of Enforcement will address the issues related to enforcement actions requested

by the petitioner. The Proposed Director’s Decision, issued on November 22, 2006,

states that the NRC staff has access to all of the information requested by the petitioner. 

Therefore, issuance of a DFI to the licensee is not warranted. The NRC staff requested

that comments be submitted by December 21, 2006.

On January 5, 2007, the petitioner wrote to the Director of the Division of Operating
-4-

Reactor Licensing, requesting an extension until January 12, 2007, to provide

comments on the proposed Director's Decision. The NRC staff has decided to grant the

requested extension and is preparing a response to the petitioner accordingly. To offset

the delay in receiving the petitioner's comments, the NRC staff has requested an

extension to support the review of the petitioner’s comments and completion of the final

Director's Decision.
-5-

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 3, 2007

Final DD Issuance: June 17, 2007

Last Contact with Petitioner: November 13, 2006

Petition Manager: Chandu Patel

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 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 meets 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 a letter dated November 27, 2006. 

In addition, in its letter dated October 16, 2006, the Orange County Board of

Commissioners submitted a resolution concerning emergency preparedness. In its

response dated November 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.

Current Status: 
-6-

The NRC staff is reviewing information submitted by the petitioners to support a timely

issuance of the Proposed Director’s Decision.
Status of Potential Petitions Under Consideration

Facility: N/A

Petitioner: Fred Donaldson

Date of Petition: December 7, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated December 18, 2006

EDO Number: G20061005 and G20061042

PRB meeting: N/A

Issues/Actions requested:

Requests that the NRC take appropriate enforcement action due to radioactive nuclear

delay mechanisms associated with the Tampa, Florida police department’s satelliteradar. 

Current Status:

The NRC staff evaluated the concerns in the December 7, 2006, letter, as

supplemented by letter dated December 18, 2006, to determine if they met the criteria

for review under 10 CFR 2.206. In a letter from the NRC dated January 16, 2007, the

NRC staff responded to the petitioner that no further action would be taken on the

request for the following reasons:

• The Tampa Police Department does not hold a NRC license.

• Information contained in the December 7, 2006, and December 18, 2006,

submittals does not establish that the Tampa Police Department has caused

hazardous conditions with respect to matters under NRC jurisdiction. 

• The petitioner did not request an action that the NRC can take under its

authority.

Therefore, the information submitted by the petitioner does not meet the criteria for

review under 10 CFR 2.206. 

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/age4

Comments if not meeting th

Completion Goals

NMSS Palisades 04/04/06 04/26/06 06/27/06

84

11/28/06

118

TBD 

NRR South Texas 05/16/06 6/27/06 07/28/06

73

11/22/06

118

TBD

NRR Shearon Harris 09/20/2006 11/13/06 12/4/06

75

04/03/07 TBD On 10/23/06, the NRC sta

public meeting for the peti

address the PRB. Due to 

difficulties with the telecon

system in the headquarters 

Center, the meeting was can

approval from the OED

acknowledgement letter de

extended until 12/6/06 to pro

reschedule the public meet

the PRB to meet subsequ

public meeting.

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.