March 9, 2007

MEMORANDUM TO: Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director for Operations

FROM: Bruce A. Boger, Associate Director 

 for Operating Reactor Oversight and Licensing /RA/

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT: FEBRUARY 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 February 28, 2007, there

were three open petitions that were accepted for review under the 2.206 process; two 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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
March 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: FEBRUARY 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 February 28, 2007, there

were three open petitions that were accepted for review under the 2.206 process; two 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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: ML070610142

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

NAME TMensah DBaxley SRosenberg HNieh BBoger

DATE 3 / 8 / 07 3 / 8 / 07 3 / 8 / 07 3 /8 / 07 3 / 9 / 07

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

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

Date: March 9, 2007

PUBLIC

PSPB Reading File

RidsEdoMailCenter

EJulian

PAnderson

RidsNrrOd

RidsNrrAdro

RidsOgcMailCenter

RidsOcaMailCenter

RidsOeMailCenter

JStrosnider

JDeCicco

PRathbun

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: 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 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 received the petitioners’ comments on February 2, 2007, and is preparing

the Final 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: February 24, 2007

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. 

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

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

comments on the proposed Director's Decision. The NRC staff granted the requested
-4-

extension and informed the petitioner accordingly. To offset the delay in receiving the

petitioner's comments, the NRC staff requested an extension to support the review of

the petitioner’s comments and completion of the final Director's Decision. The

January 12, 2007, deadline passed. The petitioner did not provide any comments. 

Current Status:

The NRC staff issued the Final Director’s Decision (DD-07-01) on February 24, 2007. 
-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 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.
-6-

Current Status: 

In a letter dated February 8, 2007, the petitioners submitted supplemental information

for the NRC staff to consider in its review. The NRC staff is reviewing information

submitted by the petitioners to support a timely issuance of the Proposed Director’s

Decision by April 3, 2007.
Status of Potential Petitions Under Consideration

Facility: Indian Point

Petitioner: Tom Gurdziel

Date of Petition: January 11, 2007 (Region I email), as supplemented by a letter dated

January 26, 2007 (Green Ticket) 

EDO Number: G20070073

PRB meeting: Not requested by petitioner

Issues/Actions requested within the January 11, 2007, email to Region I: 

The petitioner requests that the NRC:

1. Shutdown Indian Point Units 2 and 3 if a fully tested, operational, new siren

system is not working by January 31, 2007. 

2. A management and inspection team from Region II should independently inspect

Indian Point for spent fuel pool leaks. 

Issues/Actions requested within the January 26, 2007, letter to the Executive Director for

Operations: 

1. The petitioner requests that the NRC reduce the licensed power at each plant at

Indian Point by 10 percent for every month that the specified siren/alarm system

is not fully tested, fixed, retested, and accepted for full operation. 

Background:

On January 11, 2007, Region I received an email from the petitioner. This email was

forwarded to the Agency 2.206 Coordinator to determine if the requests met the criteria

for consideration under 10 CFR 2.206. For the first request within this email, the PRB

identified that the NRC staff had previously determined that there is no hazard to the

public health and safety. The NRC issued an extension to permit the use of the existing

siren system to April 15, 2007. Since the extension was granted, there was no violation

by the licensee. For the second request, the PRB determined that this recommendation

was not requesting that the NRC take an enforcement-related action. However,

because there was a claim that the NRC staff performed inadequate inspections, this

email was forwarded to the Office of Inspector General by the Region I Office. 

On January 24, 2007, the Indian Point Project Manager (PM) contacted the petitioner by

telephone and email. The PM informed the petitioner that the requests within the

January 11, 2007, email did not meet the criteria for acceptance under the 2.206 petition

process. In an email dated January 24, 2007, the petitioner responded and asked that

the PRB consider his information, but said he did not want to address the PRB. The

petitioner also indicated that he would submit a formal 2.206 petition to the NRC in the

future. On January 26, 2007, the petitioner submitted a formal letter to the NRC for

consideration as a 2.206 petition.

ENCLOSURE 2
-2-

Current Status: 

In a letter dated February 20, 2007, the NRC staff informed the petitioner that the letter

did not meet the criteria for consideration under 10 CFR 2.206 because it did not set

forth facts sufficient to constitute a basis for the requested action.
-3-

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)

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 action 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 PRB’s 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 Petition Review Board

by teleconference. The teleconference between the petitioner and the PRB has been 

scheduled for March 13, 2007.
Facility: Indian Point

Petitioner: C. Scott Vaderhoef

Date of Petition: February 15, 2007 (Letter to Sam Collins, Regional Administrator)

EDO Number: N/A

PRB meeting: TBD

Issues/Actions requested:

As a result of the emergency plan declaration (Notice of Unusual Event) on 

February 5, 2007, at Indian Point Unit 3, the petitioner requested that the NRC mandate

a more in-depth inspection and maintenance program for the cooling water intake

systems in Unit 2 and Unit 3. The petitioner requests that:

• The trash rack system in Unit 3 should be visually inspected every six months by 

sending divers into the water to perform these inspections.

• After each monthly backwash of either system, the water level should be closely

monitored to make certain that any material that may have been rinsed from one

unit is not then drawn into the trash rack/bucket system of the other, causing an

obstruction.

• The cleaning of these racks and bucket system should be performed on an

annual basis, instead of every two to four years.

• A contingency plan should be put into place similar to the one developed after

the facility terminated the recent NUE, which instructed the operators to

backwash the system and start shutting down non-critical pumps should the

water flow decrease. 

Background:

In a letter dated February 15, 2007, the petitioner submitted a letter to the Region I

Administrator, Samuel J. Collins. The letter was forwarded to the PRB on 

February 26, 2007, to determine if it met the criteria for acceptance under the 2.206

process. The PRB met to discuss the letter on March 1, 2007. The PRB decided that

although the letter contained a request for enforcement-related action and there was no

other NRC proceeding available to the petitioner, that the petitioner had not presented

supporting facts that were credible and sufficient to warrant further inquiry. The NRC

staff is currently reviewing this event through the inspection program. 

On March 2, 2007, the NRC staff contacted the petitioner to inform him of the PRB

decision and to determine if the petitioner intended to formally submit this information for

consideration under the 2.206 process. The petitioner stated that he did not want to

pursue a 2.206 petition at this time. He stated he will review the NRC inspection results

when they are issued in April 2007. 
 

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

02/24/07

43

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

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 12/06/06 to p

to reschedule the public mee

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.