April 9, 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: MARCH 2007 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, “Review of Regulations and Practice Governing Citizen

Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206,” the enclosed report

gives the status of petitions submitted under 10 CFR 2.206. As of March 31, 2007, there were

two open petitions that were accepted for review under the 2.206 process; one in the Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation 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 March 31, 2007. 

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 March 31, 2007. 

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: Tanya M. Mensah, NRR/DPR

 301-415-3610
April 9, 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: MARCH 2007 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, “Review of Regulations and Practice Governing Citizen

Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206,” the enclosed report

gives the status of petitions submitted under 10 CFR 2.206. As of March 31, 2007, there were

two open petitions that were accepted for review under the 2.206 process; one in the Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation 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 March 31, 2007. 

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 March 31, 2007. 

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: Tanya M. Mensah, NRR/DPR

 301-415-3610

DISTRIBUTION: See next page

ADAMS Accession Number: ML070920081 NRR-106

OFFICE PM:PSPB LA:PSPB BC:PSPB (A)DD:DPR ADRO

NAME TMensah DBaxley SRosenberg JGolder BBoger

DATE 4 / 5 / 07 4 / 5 / 07 4 / 5 / 07 4 / 5 / 07 4 / 9 / 07

OFFICIAL AGENCY RECORD
DISTRIBUTION FOR MARCH 2007 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS

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

Date: April 9, 2007 

PUBLIC

PSPB Reading File

RidsEdoMailCenter

EJulian

PAnderson

RidsNrrOd

RidsNrrAdro

RidsOgcMailCenter

RidsOpaMail

RidsOcaMailCenter

RidsOeMailCenter

RidsNrrWpcMail

JDeCicco

PRathbun

GCaputo

HCruz

RidsNrrDpr

RidsNrrDprPspb

RidsNrrLADBaxley

RidsNrrPMTMensah

RidsRgn1MailCenter

RidsRgn2MailCenter

RidsRgn3MailCenter

RidsRgn4MailCenter
Status of Open Petitions

Facility Petitioner/EDO No. Page

Palisades Nuclear Power Plant Terry Lodge, Counsel for Petitioners 

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

Shearon Harris John Runkle representing Waste Awareness and

Reduction Network (WARN), Union of Concerned

Scientists (UCS), et al.

G20060793.........................................................3

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: March 20, 2007

Last Contact with Petitioner: February 2, 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 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation

(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.

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. The licensee has

indicated to the NRC staff that it does not have any comments on 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. On January 18, 2007, the petitioner

requested another 14-day extension, until February 2, 2007, to provide comments,

which the NRC staff granted. The NRC staff subsequently requested and was granted

an extension until March 20, 2007, for the preparation of the final Director’s Decision.

Current Status:

The NRC staff issued the Final Director’s Decision (DD-07-02) on March 20, 2007. 
-3-

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 2, 2007

Final DD Issuance: June 17, 2007

Last Contact with Petitioner: April 3, 2007

Petition Manager: Lisa Regner

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 Petition Review Board (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

met 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 letters dated November 27, 2006, and December 27, 2006. 

In addition, in its letters dated October 16, 2006, and November 27, 2006, the Orange

County Board of Commissioners submitted a resolution concerning emergency

preparedness. In its response dated November 27, 2006, and December 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.
-4-

Current Status: 

The NRC staff has completed its review and is proposing to deny the portions of the

petition related to the petitioner’s request for enforcement action, the request to conduct

a public meeting, and the request to deny the licensee’s application for license renewal

at Shearon Harris. On April 2, 2007, the NRC staff issued the Proposed Director’s

Decision to the petitioner and to the licensee for comment. The NRC staff asked for

comments to be submitted within 30 days of the proposed Director’s Decision. The 30-

day comment period is currently scheduled to conclude on May 3, 2007.

 
Status of Potential Petitions Under Consideration

Facility: N/A

Petitioner: James Salsman

Date of Petition: December 2, 2006, and email supplement dated December 2, 2006

EDO Number: G20070006

PRB meeting: March 13, 2007 (teleconference with petitioner)

April 4, 2007 (closed meeting)

Issues/Actions requested:

The petitioner requests that all uranium munition licenses be explicitly modified to

require:

• A good faith effort to quantify dates, times, locations, quantities, and types of

pyrophoric uranium munition use, with an estimation of the kinds of targets

involved.

• The licensees to determine the amount of uranyl oxide gas produced in

pyrophoric uranium munitions combustion in air under typical and observed

conditions.

• The licensees to determine the extent of both reproductive and developmental

toxicity from typical uranium combustion product inhalation in at least five diverse

species of mammals using chromosomal aberration analysis of lymphocytes and

gonocytes.

• The licensees to publish their estimates and determinations from the license

modifications specified in the three actions above, provide independent

verification of the studies via anonymous bidding on contracts for replication and

auditing of data, and publication of initial and validating studies in peer-reviewed

medical and scientific journals.

Background:

A petition requesting a similar, but more extensive modification of depleted uranium

munition licenses was submitted on April 5, 2005. A December 30, 2005, Director’s

Decision granted in part, and denied in part, the numerous requests. The second

submission of a petition, submitted July 12, 2006, condensed the requests of the initial

April 5, 2005, submission and requested modification of depleted uranium munition

licenses (almost identical to this December 2, 2006, petition request). It also provided

other journal articles as additional information for consideration. A September 26, 2006,

closure letter to the petitioner provided the Petition Review Board (PRB) determination

and explanation that the petition request did not meet the criteria for acceptance as a

2.206 petition, but met the criteria for rejection as a 2.206 petition. 

This petition request, submitted December 2, 2006, requests the same modifications as

the July 12, 2006, petition request, and has additional journal and website articles as

additional information for the PRB to consider.

Current Status:

The NRC staff made initial contact with the petitioner on January 18, 2007, to discuss

the 2.206 petition process. The petitioner desired to address the PRB by
-2-

teleconference. The teleconference between the petitioner and the PRB was held on

March 13, 2007. The PRB will hold a closed meeting to formulate recommendations on

how to proceed with responding to the petition request.
 

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

03/20/07

112

On 1/4/07 and 1/18/07, the 

requested an extension to 

comments on the proposed 

Decision. The NRC staff a

subsequently requested, 

granted, an extension until 

2007, for the preparation o

Director’s Decision

NRR Shearon Harris 09/20/06 11/13/06 12/04/06

75

04/02/07

119

TBD

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.