March 26, 2004

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: JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2004 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 February 29, 2004, there were four open petitions, which

were accepted for review under the 2.206 process: three in the Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, and one in the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards. Two proposed

Director’s Decisions were issued this month.

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 February 29, 2004.

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
March 26, 2004

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: JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2004 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 February 29, 2004, there were four open petitions, which

were accepted for review under the 2.206 process: three in the Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, and one in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. Two proposed

Director’s Decisions were issued this month.

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 February 29, 2004.

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

ADAMS Accession No.: ML040350048

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

NAME DSkay SLittle HBerkow ELeeds PGoldberg BSheron

DATE 3/1/04 3/8/04 3/10/04 3/11/04 3/16/04 3/22/04

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
DISTRIBUTION FOR JANUARY 2004 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS

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

Dated: 

PUBLIC

SCollins, DEDR/EDO

CPaperillo, DEDMRS/EDO

PNorry, DEDM/EDO

WKane, DEDH/EDO

WDean, AO/EDO

TBergman, ODEO instead of JShea

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

EJulian

RLaufer

CHolden

JDyer, NRR

RBorchardt, NRR

JCraig, 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

DSkay, NRR

OCA

OPA

Regional Administrators

PDI-1 Reading 

SLittle
Attachment 1

Status of Open Petitions

Page

Facility Petitioner/EDO No. No.

Indian Point Units 2 and 3 Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General

of the State of Connecticut

G20030216.................................................... 1

Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned

Scientists

G20030508.................................................... 3

Indian Point Units 2 and 3 Riverkeeper

G20030545......................................................5

Sequoyah Fuels Cherokee Nation and State of Oklahoma

G20030704......................................................7
Attachment 1

Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206

Facility: Indian Point Units 2 and 3

Petitioner: Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of the State of

Connecticut

Date of Petition: April 23, 2003, as supplemented on June 3, 2003, and

October 16, 2003

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NRR

EDO Number: G20030216

Proposed DD Issuance: 05/17/04

Final DD Issuance TBD

Last Contact with Petitioner: 2/17/04

Petition Manager: Harold Chernoff

Case Attorney: Jack Goldberg

Issues/Actions requested:

That the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC):

a. 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.

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

security measures which provide protection against terrorist attacks.

c. 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.

d. 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.

e. 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.
-2-

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. During this meeting the PRB

decided that no immediate action was necessary. 

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

The licensee submitted a response to the petitioner’s first supplement (dated June 3,

2003) on October 15, 2003. 

The petitioner filed a second supplement to his petition on October 16, 2003.

Based on the significant additional amount of information contained in the licensee’s

response and the supplement to the petition, the staff requested and was granted an

extension of time to respond to the petition to January 9, 2004. The petition manager

contacted the attorney general’s staff on November 5, 2003, and offered him an

opportunity to discuss the supplement with the PRB. This request was declined.

A letter acknowledging the petitioner's second supplement was issued on December 13,

2003.

Current Status:

The staff held a conference call with the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) on January 29, 2004, to discuss FEMA’s comments on the proposed Director's

Decision. On February 12, 2004, NRR received FEMA's comments and concurrence. 

Substantive changes to the proposed Director's Decision are required to reference the

recent Riverkeeper court decision (which upheld the NRC’s conclusion in the Director’s

Decision related to Riverkeeper’s petition) and to legally strengthen aspects of the

proposed Director’s Decision. Subsequent to these changes, FEMA’s review and

comment will be required. Therefore, the issuance date of the proposed Director’s

Decision has been extended to May 17, 2004. The May 17, 2004, issuance date has

been discussed with the petitioner.

Facility: Davis Besse
-3-

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 5, 2004

Final DD Issuance TBD

Last Contact with Petitioner: February 5, 2004

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 also 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.

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

the petition. 
-4-

By letter dated October 20, 2003, the licensee provided its response to the petition.

By letter dated November 26, 2003, the staff supplemented the October 7, 2003,

acknowledgment letter to address the requests for immediate action.

Current Status:

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

February 5, 2004. The staff has not received any comments to date. The staff plans to

issue the final Director’s Decision by April 22, 2004.
-5-

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: February 19, 2004

Final DD Issuance TBD

Last Contact with Petitioner: January 5, 2004

Petition Manager: Brian Benney

Case Attorney: Antonio Fernandez

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 uon 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 seperately 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 the additional

letters.
-6-

The staff issued a letter to the petitioner on October 22, 2003, acknowledging receipt of

the petition and addressing the need for immediate action. The staff concluded that

there is no need to take immediate action. By letter dated October 29, 2003, the

petitioner responded to the acknowledgment letter. The October 29, 2003, letter

included an additional assertion that the licensee is not complying with 10 CFR 50.46

regarding analysis and reporting of emergency core cooling system performance. 

Current Status:

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

February 19, 2004. The staff has not received any comments to date. Comments are

due by March 19, 2004.
-7-

Facility: Sequoyah Fuels

Petitioner: Kelly Hunter Burch, State of Oklahoma and Julian

Fite, representing Cherokee Nation

Date of Petition: November 19, 2003

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NMSS

EDO Number: G20030704

Proposed DD Issuance: TBD

Final DD Issuance TBD

Last Contact with Petitioner: 03/02/04

Petition Manager: Myron Fliegel

Case Attorney: Antonio Fernandez

Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC deny the request for an amendment to the materials license of Sequoyah

Fuels Corporation. The amendment seeks approval of a proposed ground water

corrective action plan and a proposed ground water monitoring plan.

Background:

This petition was originally submitted as a hearing request to the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Panel in response to a notice of a license amendment request by Sequoyah

Fuels. The petitioners each submitted a hearing request after the published deadline. 

Therefore, the ASLB dismissed the hearing requests and referred them to the Executive

Director for Operations under the provisions of 10 CFR 2.1205(i)(2) for appropriate

disposition under 10 CFR 2.206. Subsequently, the Cherokee Nation appealed the

ASLB’s decision to the Commission. 

Current Status:

The Commission reaffirmed the ASLB decision on January 15, 2004. The Petition

Review Board held a meeting with representatives of the two petitioners and the

licensee on January 28, 2004, and is preparing acknowledgment letters to the

petitioners.
Attachment 2

Status of Potential Petitions Under Consideration

Facility: Radiac Research Corporation

Petitioner: Michael Gerrard, representing Neighbors Against Garbage

Date of Letter: November 4, 2003

Responsible Office: NMSS

PRB meeting: February 20, 2004 

Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC close the Radiac Research Corporation because a threat to the common

defense and security exists at the facility that is not being considered by the local

licensing agency. The petitioner claims that this threat exists because the facility is

located in a major population center; security at the facility is poor; and an adjoining

hazardous waste storage facility is permitted to handle flammable liquids, reactives, and

oxidizers, and has inadequate fire prevention and suppression systems.

Resolution:

The staff held internal PRB meetings to address the question of immediate action and

has concluded that there is no need for immediate action. The petitioner was informed

of this decision. Due to scheduling difficulties, a meeting with the petitioner and

licensee was delayed to February 20, 2004. At this meeting, the petitioner and licensee

indicated that they would submit supplemental information that addresses the

applicability of their petition to the 2.206 criteria. On February 27, 2004, the licensee

submitted a letter requesting that the NRC dismiss the petition as not meeting the

criteria of 2.206. The petitioner also submitted a letter that addressed the question of

whether the petition meets the criteria for a 2.206 petition. After considering the petition

and supplemental letters, the staff accepted the petition for review under 2.206.

On February 19, 2004, a separate letter was submitted to the NRC by Community Board

No. 1 of the City of New York with similar concerns regarding Radiac Research

Corporation. The letter is under review by the staff.

Representative Velacquez, in whose district Radiac is located, wrote a letter to

Chairman Diaz on December 10, 2003, citing concerns similar to those in the petition. 

Chairman Diaz replied by letter dated February 24, 2004, stating that the NRC would

consider his concerns as part of the review of the petition.
-2-

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

ASSIGN

ED

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 Indian Point 04/23/03 05/08/03 (1) 07/03/03

70

(2) 12/15/03

10/31/03

01/09/04

2/26/045/17/04

TBD 2Staff delayed iss

pending submit

petitioner (rece

scheduling conflic

petitioner was n

3Proposed DD issu

to (1) a supple

response from the 

within 2 weeks of 

need for review 

Decision in ligh

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

43

2/05/04

121

4/22/04

NRR Indian Point 09/08/03 9/24/03 10/22/03

37

2/19/04

120

TBD

NMSS Sequoyah Fuels 11/19/03 01/28/041 2/26/04

97

TBD TBD

Commission actio

review 

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