June 6, 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: MAY 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 May 31, 2007, there was one

open petition that was 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 May 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 May 31, 2007. 

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/DPR

 301-415-3610
June 6, 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: MAY 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 May 31, 2007, there was one

open petition that was 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 May 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 May 31, 2007. 

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/DPR

 301-415-3610

DISTRIBUTION: See next page

ADAMS Accession Number: ML071510617 NRR-106

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

NAME TMensah CHawes

for

DBaxley

SRosenberg HNieh BBoger

DATE 6 / 01 / 07 6 /04 / 07 6 /05 / 07 6 /06 / 07 6 /06 / 07

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

TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, SECTION 2.206

Date: June 6, 2007 

PUBLIC

PSPB Reading File

RidsEdoMailCenter

EJulian

PAnderson

RidsNrrOd

RidsNrrAdro

RidsOgcMailCenter

RidsOpaMail

RidsOcaMailCenter

RidsOeMailCenter

RidsNrrWpcMail

JDeCicco

PRathbun

GCaputo

HCruz

RGibbs

TWengert

KKalyanam

THiltz

RidsNrrDpr

RidsNrrDprPspb

RidsNrrLADBaxley

RidsNrrPMTMensah

RidsRgn1MailCenter

RidsRgn2MailCenter

RidsRgn3MailCenter

RidsRgn4MailCenter
Status of Open Petitions

Facility Petitioner/EDO No. Page

Shearon Harris John Runkle representing Waste Awareness 

and Reduction Network (WARN), Union of 

Concerned Scientists (UCS), et al.

G20060793..................................................................1

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

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 15, 2007

Last Contact with Petitioner: May 25, 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.
-2-

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. On

May 1, 2007, the petitioner and the licensee submitted comments on the Proposed

Director’s Decision to the NRC staff. The 30-day comment period ended on May 3,

2007. 

Current Status: 

The NRC staff is currently reviewing the petitioner’s comments and is on schedule to

issue the Final Director’s Decision by June 15, 2007. 

On May 25, 2007, the petition manager contacted the petitioners by email to notify them

of an NRC public meeting held from May 30, 2007 - June 1, 2007. The purpose of the

public meeting was to discuss topics associated with Progress and Duke Energy’s Pilot

Program to transition to the risk-informed, performance-based fire protection regulation

in 10 CFR 50.48(c), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 805 Rule.
ENCLOSURE 2

Status of Potential Petitions Under Consideration

Facility: N/A

Petitioner: James Salsman

Date of Petition: December 3, 2006, and email supplement dated December 3, 2006

EDO Number: G20070006

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

April 4, 2007 (closed meeting)

April 18, 2007 (teleconference with petitioner)

April 18, 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.

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

teleconference. On March 13, 2007, the PRB held a teleconference with the petitioner. 

On April 4, 2007, the PRB held a closed meeting to formulate preliminary

recommendations in response to the petitioner’s request. The petitioner was informed

of the PRB recommendations on April 12, 2007. On April 18, 2007, another

teleconference was held with the petitioner, for the petitioner to comment on the PRB

recommendations. After considering the December 3, 2006, petition request, the

information provided in several emails, and information provided in two teleconferences,

the PRB determined that the December 3, 2006, request did not meet the criteria for

review under 10 CFR 2.206, because the matters raised in the request have already

been the subject of NRC review and evaluation for which a resolution has been

achieved. This determination was conveyed to the petitioner via letter dated 

May 4, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071170288).
-2-

Facility: Indian Point, Units 2 and 3

Petitioner: Tom Gurdziel

Date of Petition: April 14, 2007

EDO Number: G20070250

PRB meeting: TBD

Issues/Actions requested:

The petitioner requests that:

• Effective noon of April 16, 2007, the NRC should set the maximum power of

each licensed reactor of each Entergy/Indian Point reactor to zero until Entergy

can demonstrate that the “fully tested, operational, new siren system is working.”

• The NRC take action to enforce its Confirmatory Order to Indian Point to install

backup power to the Indian Point siren system by April 13, 2007. 

Current Status:

On April 14, 2007, the petitioner submitted an email to the NRC requesting the actions

listed above under “Issues/Actions requested.” The PRB considered the petitioner’s

request and made a final determination that the petition not be accepted for review

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206. 

The petitioner’s request for the NRC to take action to support its Confirmatory Order

program because the April 15, 2007, deadline was not met was rejected for review on

the basis that the request was evaluated by the NRC staff and was resolved by the

NRC’s enforcement action (EA 07-092) of April 23, 2007. 

The request to shut down Indian Point Units 2 and 3 was not accepted for review under

the 2.206 process because the petitioner did not provide sufficient facts to constitute a

basis for the requested action. This determination was conveyed to the petitioner via

letter dated May 10, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071290044).

Facility: Indian Point, Units 2 and 3

Petitioner: Mark Leyse

Date of Petition: April 25, 2007

EDO Number: G20070273

PRB meeting: May 24, 2007 (Teleconference)

Issues/Actions requested:

The petitioner requests that the NRC:

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

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

Units 2 and 3. 

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

requests that the NRC order the licensee to correct the current deficiencies of

the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) design basis and reconfigure the

power production levels of both plants, making IP, Units 2 and 3, compliant with

10 CFR 50.46(b).

• In the event of a license renewal process, conduct reviews for the license

renewal of IP, Units 2 and 3, that encompass conservative ECCS evaluation

calculations, modeling scenarios where one-cycle fuel would have been heavily

crudded and/or oxidized fuel rods would have crud-induced corrosion failures.

Current Status:

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

10 CFR 2.206. On May 24, 2007, the petitioner addressed the PRB by teleconference. 

A transcript of the teleconference will be made publically available in ADAMS to

supplement the petition. The NRC staff is reviewing the petition, and the transcript from

the teleconference, to determine if it meets the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206. 

Facility: Davis-Besse

Petitioner: Union of Concerned Scientists (David A. Lochbaum)

Date of Petition: April 30, 2007 and supplement dated May 10, 2007

EDO Number: G20070297

PRB meeting: TBD (with petitioner)

Issues/Actions requested:

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), the licensee for the Davis-Besse

Nuclear Power Plant (Davis-Besse), recently submitted a report to the NRC about the

hole in the reactor vessel head caused by leakage from cracked control rod drive

mechanism (CRDM) nozzles. Consultants paid by FENOC prepared this report located

under Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession

No. ML070860211. The petitioner requests that the NRC:

1. Immediately Order the Davis-Besse reactor to shut down and remain shut down

until the NRC completes its independent review of the recently submitted report.

2. If the NRC’s independent review determines that the small leak and fast

corrosion rate scenario described in the FENOC-submitted report is valid,

immediately Order all pressurized water reactors in the United States to be shut

down and remain shut down until the NRC approved either:

A. An inspection scope and frequency based on the new scenario that

provides protection against the Davis-Besse head damage or,

B. An installed leak detection capability that would alert control room

operators to small leakage from one or more CRDM nozzles so that

repairs could occur prior to damage progressing to Davis-Besse depths.

3. If the NRC’s independent review determines that FENOC has submitted yet
-4-

another inaccurate report to the NRC, revoke the operating license for DavisBesse. 

Current Status:

The PRB considered the petitioner’s request for immediate action (Item #1). On May 3,

2007, the petition manager informed the petitioner, by telephone, that the PRB had

denied the request for immediate action on the basis that the NRC staff had already

performed an assessment of the Exponent Report and that no immediate safety

concern exists at Davis-Besse (ADAMS Accession No. ML071240254). In a letter dated

May 18, 2007, the NRC conveyed this determination to the petitioner (ADAMS

Accession No. ML071300245). The PRB also conveyed in the May 18, 2007, letter that

it had not made initial determinations concerning Items #2 and #3 of the petition

request.

On May 29, 2007, the petitioner was informed by telephone of the PRB’s initial

recommendations regarding Items #2 and #3 of the petition request. The petitioner

requested a public meeting to address the PRB. The public meeting will be noticed on

the NRC public website as soon as an agreed-upon date with the petitioner is

determined.

Facility: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3

Petitioner: Name Not Provided (see current status below for explanation)

Date of Petition: April 24, 2007

EDO Number: G20070362

PRB meeting: N/A

Issues/Actions requested:

The petitioner requests that:

1. SONGS Unit 2 should be shutdown immediately and remain shutdown until it

meets the MRP-139 guidance. 

2. SONGS Unit 3 should be shutdown immediately based on “unexpected defects”

being identified within the initial weld overlay on the pressurizer surge line.

Current Status:

On April 24, 2007, a member of the public submitted a letter to NRC Office of

Investigations, which was forwarded to the Senior Allegations Coordinator in the Office

of Enforcement. The individual’s name is not stated in this report, since they submitted

their letter as an allegation to the NRC. Since the letter was specific to the San Onofre

Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), it was forwarded to the Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation Allegations Coordinator for consideration as an allegation. The Allegations

Coordinator determined that the concerns in the letter did not meet the criteria for review

under the NRC’s allegation process. However, because the letter requested

enforcement action, it was forwarded to the 2.206 PRB for consideration.
-5-

In accordance with Management Directive 8.11, the petition manager contacted the

petitioner by phone and by email to determine if the petitioner agreed with the NRC’s

consideration of the letter under the 2.206 process. The petitioner did not agree to the

treatment of their concerns under the 2.206 process. Therefore, in accordance with

Management Directive 8.11, the PRB determined that the letter did not meet the criteria

as a 2.206. The PRB also decided that the NRC’s response to the petitioner should be

handled as general correspondence since it did not meet the criteria to be treated as an

allegation. 
 

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

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

75

04/02/07

119

6/15/07

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.