August 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: JULY 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 July 31, 2007, there were no

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 July 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 July 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
August 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: JULY 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 July 31, 2007, there were no

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 July 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 July 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: ML072050180 NRR-106

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

NAME TMensah DBaxley SRosenberg HNieh BBoger

DATE 8 /3/ 07 8 /2/ 07 8 /6/ 07 8 /8/ 07 8 /9/ 07

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

TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, SECTION 2.206

Date: August 9, 2007 

PUBLIC

PSPB Reading File

RidsEdoMailCenter

EJulian

PAnderson

RidsNrrOd

RidsNrrAdro

RidsOgcMailCenter

RidsOpaMail

RidsOcaMailCenter

RidsOeMailCenter

RidsNrrWpcMail

JDeCicco

PRathbun

GCaputo

HCruz

RGibbs

TWengert

RidsNrrDpr

RidsNrrDprPspb

RidsNrrLADBaxley

RidsNrrPMTMensah

RidsRgn1MailCenter

RidsRgn2MailCenter

RidsRgn3MailCenter

RidsRgn4MailCenter
Status of Open Petitions

Facility Petitioner/EDO No. Page

No Open Petitions

ENCLOSURE 1
Status of Potential Petitions Under Consideration

Facility: Indian Point, Units 2 and 3

Petitioner: Mark Leyse

Date of Petition: April 25, 2007

EDO Number: G20070273 & G20070508

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,

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 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management

System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML071500238) was made publically available to

supplement the petition. The PRB denied the petitioner’s request for immediate action

because the petitioner did not identify an immediate safety concern. In addition, the

PRB determined that the petition did not meet the criteria for acceptance under

10 CFR 2.206 because the petitioner did not provide facts sufficient to constitute a basis

for the requested action. Specifically, the petitioner did not identify any facts to indicate

that IP2 or IP3 is in violation of any NRC requirement, or that operation of IP2 or IP3

presents a safety concern. In a letter dated May 31, 2007, the PRB documented its

decision to the petitioner (ADAMS Accession No. ML071500238). In a letter dated July

17, 2007, the petitioner requested that the Executive Director for Operations overrule

the PRB’s decision not to accept the petition for review under the 2.206 process. The

NRC is reviewing the petitioner’s letter dated July 17, 2007.
-2-

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: June 18, 2007 (public PRB meeting)

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 (ADAMS) 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

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. On June 18, 2007, the petitioner
-3-

addressed the PRB. The PRB reviewed the petition, and the information provided by

the petitioner on June 18, 2007, to determine if Items #2 and #3 of the petition request

met the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206. 

In a letter to the petitioner dated July 12, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071870457),

the PRB provided its basis for not accepting Item #2 or Item #3 for review in the 10 CFR

2.206 process. To briefly summarize, the PRB decided to reject Item #2 for review in

the 10 CFR 2.206 process because the issue was already the subject of NRC staff

review and evaluation, for which a resolution was achieved. For Item #3, the PRB

asked the petitioner during the June 18, 2007, public meeting for specific examples of

inaccurate statements that were provided to the NRC. The petitioner provided two

examples, which were noted in the July 12, 2007, letter from the NRC. The first

example provided did not meet the criteria in Management Directive (MD) 8.11 for

acceptance in the 2.206 process because it did not provide facts sufficient to constitute

a basis for the requested action. The second example provided met the criteria in

MD 8.11 for rejection because the issue was already the subject of NRC review and

evaluation, for which a resolution has been achieved.
 

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 No Open Petitions

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.