March 20, 2008 

MEMORANDUM TO: Luis A. Reyes 

Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Bruce A. Boger /RA/ 

 Associate Director for Operating 

 Reactor Oversight and Licensing

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

SUBJECT: FEBRUARY 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,@ the enclosed report 

gives the status of petitions submitted under 10 CFR 2.206. As of February 29, 2008, there 

were three 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 February 29, 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 February 29, 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: Tanya Mensah, NRR/DPR 

 301-415-3610 
March 20, 2008 

MEMORANDUM TO: Luis A. Reyes 

Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Bruce A. Boger /RA/ 

 Associate Director for Operating 

 Reactor Oversight and Licensing

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

SUBJECT: FEBRUARY 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,@ the enclosed report 

gives the status of petitions submitted under 10 CFR 2.206. As of February 29, 2008, there 

were three open petitions accepted for review under the 2.206 process in the Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation (NRR). Information that has changed since the last monthly report is 

highlighted. 

Enclosure 1 provides a detailed status of the open petitions as of February 29, 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 February 29, 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: Tanya Mensah, NRR/DPR 

 301-415-3610 

DISTRIBUTION: WITS 200700062 

See next page 

ADAMS Accession Number: ML080660156 NRR-106 

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

NAME TMensah DBaxley SRosenberg HNieh BBoger 

DATE 3/13 /08 3/11/08 3/17/08 3/14/08 3/20/08 

OFFICIAL AGENCY RECORD 
DISTRIBUTION FOR FEBRUARY 2008 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS 

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

Date: March 20, 2008 

DISTRIBUTION: WITS 200700062 

PUBLIC 

PSPB Reading File 

RidsEdoMailCenter 

EJulian 

PAnderson 

RidsNrrOd 

RidsNrrAdro 

RidsNrrAdes 

RidsOgcMailCenter 

RidsOpaMail 

RidsOcaMailCenter 

RidsOeMailCenter 

RidsNrrWpcMail 

JDeCicco 

PRathbun 

NGarciaSantos 

GCaputo 

MHoncharik 

RSchaff 

RidsNrrDorlLpl1-1 

DPickett 

JKim 

JBoska 

RidsNrrDpr 

RidsNrrDprPspb 

RidsNrrLADBaxley 

RidsNrrPMTMensah 

RidsRgn1MailCenter 

RidsRgn2MailCenter 

RidsRgn3MailCenter 

RidsRgn4MailCenter 
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 

ENCLOSURE 1
 

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: TBD 

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. The NRC staff asked for comments to 

be submitted within 30 days of the proposed Director’s Decision. 
 

-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: January 30, 2008 (teleconference) 

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. 
 

-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: June 11, 2008 

Final DD Issuance: TBD 

Last Contact with Petitioner: February 12, 2008 

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 
 

-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. 
 

Status of Potential Petitions Under Consideration 

Facility: Indian Point, Units 2 and 3 

Petitioners: Edward Nelson 

Date of Petition: February 24, 2008 

EDO Number: G20080124 

PRB meeting: TBD 

Issues/Actions requested: 

The petitioner requests that: 

1. The NRC use professional discretion and judgement in regards to alleged minor 

safety issues at Indian Point. 

2. Without compromising safety, any enforcement action against Indian Point be based 

on facts, be proportional, and be reasonable. 

Current Status: 

By letter dated February 24, 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: South Texas, Units 3 and 4 (New Reactors) 

Petitioners: John Corder 

Date of Petition: February 19, 2008 

EDO Number: G20080142 

PRB meeting: TBD 

Issues/Actions requested: 

The petitioner requests that: 

1. The NRC provide access to the petitioner to monitor the engineering and construction 

of the proposed South Texas Project, Units 3 and 4. 

Current Status: 

By letter dated February 19, 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. 

ENCLOSURE 2 
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

Commen

Agency=s 

NRR Vermont 

Yankee/ Raymond Shadis - NEC 

08/27/07 09/12/07 

10/03/07 

11/06/07 

71 

02/29/08 

115 

TBD 

Delayed dumeetings wproviding thpetitioner to supplemen

NRR Indian Point 

Units 2 and 3/ Sherwood Martinelli - FUSE 

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

221 

TBD TBD 

Delayed at petitioner. delay in scaffording thfocus their Indian PoinActivities. 

NRR Indian Point 

Units 2 and 3/ Sherwood Martinelli - FUSE 

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

137

TBD TBD 

Delayed at Petitioner. delay in scaffording thfocus their Indian PoinActivities.

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.