May 16, 2008 

MEMORANDUM TO: R. W. Borchardt 

Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Bruce A. Boger /RA/ 

 Associate Director for Operating 

 Reactor Oversight and Licensing

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

SUBJECT: APRIL 2008 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, AReview of Regulations and Practice Governing Citizen 

Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206,@ dated February 3, 

1994, the enclosed report gives the status of petitions submitted under 10 CFR 2.206. As of 

April 30, 2008, there were two open petitions 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 April 30, 2008. 

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 April 30, 2008. 

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: Michelle C. Honcharik, DPR/NRR 

 301-415-1774 
May 16, 2008 

MEMORANDUM TO: R. W. Borchardt 

Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Bruce A. Boger /RA/ 

 Associate Director for Operating 

 Reactor Oversight and Licensing

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

SUBJECT: APRIL 2008 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, AReview of Regulations and Practice Governing Citizen 

Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206,@ dated February 3, 

1994, the enclosed report gives the status of petitions submitted under 10 CFR 2.206. As of 

April 30, 2008, there were two open petitions 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 April 30, 2008. 

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 April 30, 2008. 

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: Michelle C. Honcharik, DPR/NRR 

 301-415-1774 

DISTRIBUTION: WITS 200700062 

See next page 

ADAMS Accession Number: ML081270286 NRR-106 

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

NAME MHoncharik DBaxley SRosenberg HNieh BBoger 

DATE 5/12/08 5/12/08 5/12/08 5/14/08 5/16/08 

OFFICIAL AGENCY RECORD 
Memo to R. W. Borchardt from Bruce A. Boger, dated May 16, 2008

SUBJECT: APRIL 2008 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS UNDER 

 TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (10 CFR) SECTION 

 2.206 

DISTRIBUTION: WITS 200700062 

PUBLIC 

PSPB Reading File 

RidsEdoMailCenter 

EJulian 

MWyatt 

RidsNrrOd 

RidsNrrAdro 

RidsNrrAdes 

RidsOgcMailCenter 

RidsOpaMail 

RidsOcaMailCenter 

RidsOeMailCenter 

RidsNrrWpcMail 

JDeCicco 

PRathbun 

NGarciaSantos 

GCaputo 

RSchaff 

RidsNrrDorlLpl1-1 

RidsNrrDorlLpl2-1 

DPickett 

JKim 

JBoska 

JStang 

RidsNrrDpr 

RidsNrrDprPspb 

RidsNrrLADBaxley 

RidsRgn1MailCenter 

RidsRgn2MailCenter 

RidsRgn3MailCenter 

RidsRgn4MailCenter 

RidsNrrPMMHoncharik 
ENCLOSURE 1 

Status of Open Petitions 

Facility Petitioner/EDO No. Page

Vermont Yankee Raymond Shadis representing ............................1-2 

 New England Coalition (NEC) 

 G20070597 

Indian Point Sherwood Martinelli/...........................................3-4 

Units 2 and 3 Friends United for Sustainable Energy (FUSE) 

 G20070540 

Indian Point Sherwood Martinelli/...........................................5-6 

Units 2 and 3 Friends United for Sustainable Energy (FUSE) 

 G20070700 
Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206 

Facility: Vermont Yankee 

Petitioners: Raymond Shadis representing NEC 

Date of Petition: August 27, 2007 

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NRR 

EDO Number: G20070597 

Proposed DD Issuance: February 29, 2008 

Final DD Issuance: April 28, 2008

Last Contact with Petitioner: October 3, 2007 (teleconference) 

Petition Manager: James Kim 

Case Attorney: Giovonna Longo 

Issues/Actions requested: 

The petitioner asks that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) act immediately to 

restore reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public heath and safety that is 

now degraded by the failure of the licensee and its employees to report adverse 

conditions leading to a reduction in plant safety margins. 

The petitioner requests: 

1. NRC completion of a Diagnostic Evaluation Team examination or Independent 

Safety Assessment of Vermont Yankee to determine the extent of condition of 

non-conformances, reportable items, hazards to safety and the root causes 

thereof. 

2. NRC completion of a safety culture assessment to determine why worker safety 

concerns were not previously reported and the why assessments of safety culture 

under the Reactor Oversight Process failed to capture the fact or reasons that 

safety concerns have gone unreported. 

3. Derate Vermont Yankee to 50% of licensed thermal power with a mandatory hold 

at 50% until a thorough and detailed structural and performance analysis of the 

cooling towers, including the alternate cooling system, has been completed by the 

licensee; reviewed and approved by NRC; and until the above steps have been 

completed. 

4. NRC investigation and determination of whether or not similar nonconforming 

conditions and causes exist at other Entergy-run nuclear power plants. 

If prompt action can not be taken through the 10 CFR 2.206 process, NEC recommends 

the NRC exercise its statutory discretion to halt power operation until it can be 

determined to what extent Vermont Yankee is being operated in an unanalyzed condition 

and until it can be determined that reduction in margins of public health and safety have 

been restored and do so prior to screening NEC=s letter for acceptance into the 2.206 

process. 
-2- 

Background: 

On August 27, 2007, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action pursuant to 

10 CFR 2.206. On September 6, 2007, the petitioner was notified by telephone call that the 

requested immediate action to derate or shutdown the Vermont Yankee Power Plant was denied 

since the petition did not identify safety hazards sufficient to either derate or shutdown the plant. 

 On September 12, 2007, the NRC staff held a teleconference with the petitioner, providing the 

opportunity to address the Petition Review Board (PRB). The PRB made an initial 

recommendation that the petition met the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206, and notified 

the petitioner by telephone of its decision to accept the petition only with respect to the review of 

technical concerns with the cooling towers on September 26, 2007. The petitioner requested a 

second opportunity to address the PRB by teleconference. This teleconference was held on 

October 3, 2007. In an email dated October 3, 2007, the petitioner forwarded additional press 

articles to supplement the original petition request. 

Current Status: 

The PRB met on October 17, 2007, in an internal meeting to consider the additional information 

provided by the petitioner during the October 3, 2007, teleconference. In the meeting, it was 

determined that the information provided in the petition was credible and sufficient to warrant 

review under 10 CFR 2.206, with respect to the cooling tower collapse. The final PRB 

recommendation was provided in an acknowledgement letter to the petitioner on November 6, 

2007 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession 

No. ML072920190). On February 29, 2008, the Proposed Director’s Decision was issued to the 

petitioner and to the licensee for comment. No comments were received during the 30-day 

comment period. 

The NRC issued a final Director’s Decision on April 28, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML081050456). The NRC’s documentation of this review included a non-cited violation in 

connection with the licensee’s inadequate cooling tower inspection program. The NRC 

inspectors considered the investigations associated with the root cause analyses (RCAs) to be 

detailed and thorough, and found the licensee’s completed and planned corrective actions for 

future inspections to be acceptable. Based on this inspection, the NRC staff found that the 

petitioner’s concerns have been adequately addressed by the licensee’s RCAs and corrective 

actions.
-3- 

Facility: Indian Point, Units 2 and 3 

Petitioners: Friends United for Sustainable Energy 

 (FUSE – Sherwood Martinelli) 

Date of Petition: June 25, 2007 

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NRR 

EDO Number: G20070540 

Proposed DD Issuance: May 30, 2008 

Final DD Issuance: TBD 

Last Contact with Petitioner: February 1, 2008 (Acknowledgement Letter)

Petition Manager: Douglas Pickett 

Case Attorney: Giovonna Longo 

Issues/Actions requested: 

The petitioners state that current NRC regulations are prejudiced and biased, usurp 

Stakeholder rights and presume that license renewal is a foregone conclusion, so long 

as the licensee spends enough money, and follows guidelines essentially drafted by the 

powerful nuclear industry lobby, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 

1. The petitioners request that the NRC issue an order enjoining the NRC from 

considering any new license applications until the NRC regulations are revised to 

protect the Constitutional First Amendment Rights, as well as the Equal 

Protection and Due Process Rights of Stakeholders. 

2. Based upon the safety and security concerns identified on pages 4-14 of the 

petition (allegations), the petitioner requests that all licenses for IP be suspended 

until the site is in full compliance with all local, state and federal laws, statutes, 

rules and regulations. 

3. Request for rulemaking (Part 54). 

Background: 

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

10 CFR 2.206. On August 15, 2007, the petition manager contacted the petitioner to 

acknowledge receipt of the 2.206 petition. The petitioner requested that the allegations 

contained within the June 25, 2007, letter be handled in accordance with the 2.206 process. 

The PRB met internally on August 20, 2007, and August 27, 2007, to discuss the petitioner=s 

requests for immediate action (Items #1 and #2). On September 5, 2007, the petition manager 

informed the petitioner of the PRB=s decision to deny the requests for immediate action. A 

teleconference was scheduled for the petitioner to address the PRB on September 6, 2007. On 

September 5, 2007, the petitioner requested that the PRB delay the teleconference until October 

2007, so that FUSE could focus its resources on responding to the Opportunity for Hearing for 

the Indian Point License Renewal. Due to multiple failed attempts to contact the petitioner by 

telephone, the petition manager contacted the petitioner by email on September 26, 2007, to 

inform the petitioner of the current status of the petition and to coordinate a date for a PRB 

meeting. The PRB met internally on October 30, 2007, to make an initial recommendation. 

Formatted: Not Shadow
-4- 

Current Status: 

The petition manager contacted the petitioner on November 2, 2007, to inform the petitioner of 

the PRB’s initial recommendation to accept the petition with respect to the concerns regarding 

the Indian Point sirens and groundwater, but deny the request for immediate shutdown. The 

petitioner requested an opportunity to address the PRB. On November 7, 2007, the NRC 

received notice that Sherwood Martinelli would be replacing Susan Shapiro as the FUSE point of 

contact for this petition. On December 21, 2007, the NRC staff held a teleconference with the 

petitioner, providing the opportunity to address the PRB. The PRB met internally on January 15, 

2008, to review the teleconference transcript. The final PRB recommendation was provided in 

an acknowledgement letter to the petitioner on February 1, 2008 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML080080297). As noted in the acknowledgement letter, the PRB’s final recommendation 

is to accept for review pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206, FUSE’s concerns regarding the underground 

leakage of contaminated water at the Indian Point facility and the failure to implement the new 

emergency notification siren system in a timely manner. The PRB has taken the further step of 

consolidating the concern regarding the failure to implement the siren system in a timely manner 

with a similar issue raised in the FUSE petition of September 28, 2007. This step is being taken 

due to the similarity of the issues, because both petitions were submitted at approximately the 

same time, and because the principal external stakeholder for both petitions is the same. 

Therefore, the underground leakage of contaminated water will be addressed through the FUSE 

petition of June 25, 2007, and the failure to implement the new emergency notification siren 

system in a timely matter will be addressed through the FUSE petition of September 28, 2007. 

The Proposed Director’s Decision will be issued by May 30, 2008. 
-5- 

Facility: Indian Point, Units 2 and 3 

Petitioners: Friends United for Sustainable Energy (FUSESherwood Martinelli) 

Date of Petition: September 28, 2007 

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NRR 

EDO Number: G20070700 

Proposed DD Issuance: September 8, 2008

Final DD Issuance: TBD 

Last Contact with Petitioner: February 12, 2008 (Acknowledgement Letter)

Petition Manager: Douglas Pickett 

Case Attorney: Giovonna Longo 

 

Issues/Actions requested: 

The petitioner states Entergy has not taken adequate action to ensure the IP2 and 3 

emergency sirens are fully operational. 

1. The petitioner requests that the NRC issue an order to place IP2 and 3 in cold 

shutdown until their emergency sirens are fully approved by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the NRC, and the system is 

operating within 96 percent. 

2. The petitioner requests the NRC fine Entergy $130,000 per day from 

September 28, 2007, forward until they have complied with the NRC's order. 

Background: 

By letter dated September 28, 2007, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action 

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206. The PRB met internally on October 30, 2007, to determine if the 

petition met the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206. The petition manager contacted the 

petitioner on November 1, 2007, to inform the petitioner of the PRB’s initial recommendation to 

accept the petition with respect to the concerns regarding the Indian Point sirens, but deny the 

request for immediate shutdown. The petitioner requested an opportunity to address the PRB. 

On December 21, 2007, the NRC staff held a teleconference with the petitioner, providing the 

opportunity to address the PRB. The PRB met internally on January 15, 2008, to review the 

teleconference transcript. On January 24, 2008, the petitioner filed an addendum to his petition 

citing new concerns regarding corrosion that has recently been discovered on some of the new 

sirens. In addition, the petitioner requested the imposition of daily fines of no less than $500,000 

until such time as the new siren system has been approved and he reiterated his previous 

request for the immediate shutdown of the Indian Point facilities. To accommodate the submittal 

of the addendum and allow sufficient time to modify the acknowledgement letter for this petition, 

the expected issuance date of the acknowledgement letter has been modified. As noted in the 

acknowledgement letter for the FUSE petition of June 25, 2007, the PRB has consolidated the 

siren concerns of the June 25, 2007, FUSE petition with the similar concerns of the 

September 28, 2007, FUSE petition. This step is being taken due to the similarity of the issues, 

because both petitions were submitted at approximately the same time, and because the 

principal external stakeholder for both petitions is the same. Therefore, the failure to implement 

Formatted: Not Shadow
-6- 

the new emergency notification siren system in a timely matter will be addressed through the 

FUSE petition of September 28, 2007. 

Current Status: 

On February 12, 2008, the NRC staff issued an acknowledgement letter accepting the petition 

with respect to the siren concerns identified by the petitioner. The licensee currently plans to 

have the new siren system operational in mid-August 2008. The proposed Director’s Decision 

will reference the successful implementation of the new system. A proposed Director’s Decision 

is scheduled for issuance by September 8, 2008. 
ENCLOSURE 2 

Status of Potential Petitions Under Consideration 

Facility: Indian Point, Units 2 and 3 

Petitioners: Mark Edward Leyse 

Date of Petition: March 7, 2008 

EDO Number: G20080162 

PRB meeting: TBD 

Issues/Actions requested: 

The petitioner requests that the NRC: 

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

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

and 3. 

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

requests that the NRC order the licensee to conduct conservative ECCS 

evaluation calculations for IP 2 & 3 that are compliant with 10 CFR 50.46(a)(1)(i). 

Current Status: 

By letter dated March 7, 2008, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action pursuant 

to 10 CFR 2.206. The NRC staff is reviewing the petition to determine if it meets the criteria for 

review under 10 CFR 2.206. 

Facility: Indian Point, Units 2 and 3 

Petitioners: Thomas Gurdziel 

Date of Petition: March 10, 2008 

EDO Number: G20080180 

PRB meeting: TBD 

Issues/Actions requested: 

The petitioner requests that: 

 1. Since enforcement efforts have been totally ineffective, requesting the immediate 

amendment of the power level at IP Units 2 & 3 from 100% to 0%. 

 2. Impose sanctions on the Entergy/Indian Point management and ownership 

organizations, starting with Mr. M. Balduzzi. 

3. Place a letter of reprimand in the personnel files for all NRC Enforcement 

employees who have not documented the performance of the SFP (leaking 

contaminated water into the ground) as unacceptable - or take other action as the 

NRC feels appropriate. 
-2- 

Current Status: 

By letter dated March 10, 2008, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action pursuant 

to 10 CFR 2.206. The NRC petition review board made an initial evaluation that the petition did 

not meet the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206. In accordance with MD 8.11, Section II.A.2, 

a letter dated April 14, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML080920228) was sent to the petitioner 

stating that the criteria were not met. This petition is closed.

Facility: McGuire, Units 1 and 2 

Petitioners: William E. Smith 

Date of Petition: March 24 and April 5, 2008 

EDO Number: G20080204 

PRB meeting(s): March 26 and April 9, 2008

Issues/Actions requested: 

The petitioner requests that NRC not allow the startup of the units due to a potential 

meltdown of the reactor resulting from a sudden and massive number of tube ruptures in 

the u-bend section of any of the "A" feed water heaters on both units. 

Current Status: 

By letter dated March 24, 2008, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action pursuant 

to 10 CFR 2.206. The NRC petition review board (PRB) made an initial evaluation that the 

petition did not meet the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206. The petitioner was given the 

opportunity to provide the PRB with additional information. A public meeting was held on April 7, 

2008, at which time the petitioner addressed the PRB. In addition, the petitioner provided 

supplemental information in a letter dated April 5, 2008. The NRC staff is reviewing the petition, 

the meeting transcript, and the supplemental information in order to determine if it meets 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 

Director’s 

Decision 

(DD) 

issuance 

Date/age3

Date for 

final 

DD/age4

Comments 

Agency=s C

NRR Vermont 

Yankee/ 

Raymond 

Shadis - NEC 

08/27/07 09/12/07 

10/03/07 

11/06/07 

71 

02/29/08 

115 

04/18/08 

164

NRR Indian Point 

Units 2 and 3/ 

Sherwood 

Martinelli - 

FUSE 

06/25/07 12/21/07 02/01/08 

221 

TBD TBD Delayed at th

petitioner. FU

delay in sche

affording them

focus their re

Point License

Activities. 

NRR Indian Point 

Units 2 and 3/ 

Sherwood 

Martinelli - 

FUSE 

09/28/07 12/21/07 02/12/08 

137 

TBD TBD Delayed at th

Petitioner. FU

delay in sche

affording them

focus their re

Point License

Activities. 

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

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.