July 16, 2008 

MEMORANDUM TO: R. W. Borchardt 

Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Bruce A. Boger /RA/ 

 Associate Director for Operating 

 Reactor Oversight and Licensing

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

SUBJECT: JUNE 2008 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS 

UNDER TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

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 [10 CFR 2.206],@

dated February 3, 1994, the enclosed report gives the status of petitions submitted under 

10 CFR 2.206. As of June 30, 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 June 30, 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 June 30, 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: Michelle C. Honcharik, DPR/NRR 

 301-415-1774 
July 16, 2008 

MEMORANDUM TO: R. W. Borchardt 

Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Bruce A. Boger /RA/

 Associate Director for Operating 

 Reactor Oversight and Licensing

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

SUBJECT: JUNE 2008 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS 

UNDER TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

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 [10 CFR 2.206],@

dated February 3, 1994, the enclosed report gives the status of petitions submitted under 

10 CFR 2.206. As of June 30, 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 June 30, 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 June 30, 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: Michelle C. Honcharik, DPR/NRR 

 301-415-1774 

DISTRIBUTION: WITS 200700062/EDATS: SECY-2008-0402

See next page 

ADAMS Accession Number: ML081890565 NRR-106 

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

NAME MHoncharik DBaxley SRosenberg MMaxin BBoger 

DATE 07/11/08 07/11/08 07/11/08 07/11/08 07/16 /08 

OFFICIAL AGENCY RECORD 
Memo to R. W. Borchardt from Bruce A. Boger, dated: July 16, 2008

SUBJECT: JUNE 2008 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS UNDER 

TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS SECTION 2.206 

DISTRIBUTION: WITS 200700062/EDATS: SECY-2008-0402

PUBLIC 

PSPB Reading File 

RidsEdoMailCenter 

EJulian 

MWyatt 

RidsNrrOd 

RidsNrrAdro 

RidsNrrAdes 

RidsOgcMailCenter 

RidsOpaMail 

RidsOcaMailCenter 

RidsOeMailCenter 

RidsNrrMailCenter 

JDeCicco 

PRathbun 

NGarciaSantos 

GCaputo 

DWilliams (NRO) 

RidsNrrDorlLpl1-1 

RidsNrrDorlLpl2-1 

DPickett 

JBoska 

JStang 

BMozafari 

TOrf 

TBoyce (NRR) 

KKalyanam 

THiltz 

RidsNrrDpr 

RidsNrrDprPspb 

RidsNrrLADBaxley 

RidsRgn1MailCenter 

RidsRgn2MailCenter 

RidsRgn3MailCenter 

RidsRgn4MailCenter 

RidsNrrPMMHoncharik 
STATUS OF OPEN PETITIONS

ENCLOSURE 1 

Facility Petitioner/EDO No. Page

Indian Point Sherwood Martinelli/...........................................1-2 

Units 2 and 3 Friends United for Sustainable Energy (FUSE) 

 G20070540 

Indian Point Sherwood Martinelli/...........................................3-4 

Units 2 and 3 Friends United for Sustainable Energy (FUSE) 

 G20070700 

Indian Point Sherwood Martinelli..............................................5 

Units 2 and 3 G20080233 
REPORT ON STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS UNDER 10 CFR 2.206

Facility: Indian Point (IP), 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: August 13, 2008 

Last Contact with Petitioner: May 30, 2008 (Proposed Director’s Decision) 

Petition Manager: Douglas Pickett 

Case Attorney: Giovonna Longo 

Issues/Actions requested: 

The petitioners state that current U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (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 Petition Review Board (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 
-2- 

initial recommendation. 

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 IP 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 IP 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 was issued to the petitioner on May 30, 2008 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML081270029). Referencing NRC Region 1 Inspection Reports 

No. 05000003/2007010 and 05000247/2007010 issued on May 13, 2008 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML081340425), the Proposed Director’s Decision states that the NRC reviewed Entergy’s 

efforts to determine the cause and source of the groundwater contamination condition, assessed 

the radiological impact on public health and safety and the environment, effected appropriate 

mitigation and remediation, and implemented long-term monitoring to ensure continuing 

assessment of the condition. The NRC found Entergy’s response to be reasonable and 

technically sound. Also, the NRC staff determined that Entergy has conformed to all regulatory 

requirements. Therefore, the Proposed Director’s Decision denies the petitioner’s request. The 

petitioner was requested to provide comments by June 30, 2008, but did not provide any 

comments.

The Final Director’s Decision is due by August 13, 2008. 
-3- 

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: September 8, 2008 

Final DD Issuance: TBD 

Last Contact with Petitioner: February 12, 2008 (Acknowledgement Letter) 

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 
-4- 

principal external stakeholder for both petitions is the same. Therefore, 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. 

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. The licensee currently plans to 

have the new siren system operational in mid-August 2008. The proposed Director’s Decision 

will reference the successful implementation of the new system. A proposed Director’s Decision 

is scheduled for issuance by September 8, 2008. 
-5- 

Facility: Indian Point, Units 2 and 3 

Petitioner: Sherwood Martinelli 

Date of Petition: March 30, 2008 

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NRR 

EDO Number: G20080233 

Proposed DD Issuance: TBD 

Final DD Issuance: TBD 

Last Contact with Petitioner: June 5, 2008 

Petition Manager: John Boska 

Case Attorney: Giovonna Longo 

Issues/Actions requested: 

The petitioner requests that the NRC: 

1. Suspend the operating license of IP, Units 2 and 3. 

2. Halt the license renewal process for IP, Units 2 and 3. 

Background: 

By letter dated March 30, 2008, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action pursuant 

to 10 CFR 2.206. On April 16, 2008, the PRB recommended that the petition be combined with 

Mr. Martinelli’s two previous petitions (G20070540 and G20070700). On April 17, 2008, the 

petitioner disagreed with the PRB’s recommendation, and accepted the offer to meet with the 

PRB. On May 14, 2008, the petitioner requested that the meeting with the PRB be delayed until 

after August 1, 2008. On June 4, 2008, the OEDO agreed to extend the due date to 

September 26, 2008. On June 5, 2008, the petitioner was informed that the PRB would wait 

until after August 1st to meet with him. 

Current Status: 

The PRB will wait until after August 1, 2008, to meet with the petitioner. 
STATUS OF POTENTIAL PETITIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION 

ENCLOSURE 2 

Facility: McGuire, Units 1 and 2 

Petitioners: William E. Smith 

Date of Petition: March 24 and April 5, 2008 

EDO Number: G20080204 

Petition Manager: John Stang 

Case Attorney: Giovonna Longo 

Last Contact with Petitioner: June 18, 2008 (closure letter)

Last PRB meeting: May 28, 2008 

Issues/Actions requested: 

The petitioner requests that U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) not allow the 

startup of the units due to a potential meltdown of the reactor resulting from a sudden 

and massive number of tube ruptures in the u-bend section of any of the "A" feed water 

heaters on both units. 

Current Status: 

By letter dated March 24, 2008, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action pursuant 

to 10 CFR 2.206. The NRC petition review board (PRB) made an initial evaluation that the 

petition did not meet the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206. The petitioner was given the 

opportunity to provide the PRB with additional information. A public meeting was held on 

April 7, 2008, at which time the petitioner addressed the PRB. In addition, the petitioner 

provided supplemental information in a letter dated April 5, 2008. The NRC staff reviewed the 

petition, the meeting transcript, and the supplemental information in order to determine if it 

meets the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206. A PRB meeting was held on May 28, 2008, to 

further consider all the information. The PRB again recommended that the petition request not 

be accepted for review pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206, because it did not provide facts sufficient to 

constitute a basis for the requested action, and because it raised issues that have already been 

the subject of NRC staff review and evaluation which were resolved. The closure letter to the 

petitioner was issued on June 18, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML0816302620).
-2- 

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

Petitioners: Thomas Gurdziel 

Date of Petition: May 13, 2008 

EDO Number: G20080358 

Petition Manager: Kaly Kalyanam 

Case Attorney: Giovonna Longo 

Last Contact with Petitioner: June 27, 2008 (call to petitioner indicating the PRB final decision) 

Last PRB Meeting: June 11, 2008

Issues/Actions requested: 

The petitioner states that the January 11, 2008, Confirmatory Order issued to the licensee 

describes only one deficiency, namely, fire watch inattentiveness at SONGS over a five-year 

period, and not the other violations described in the NRC News release dated January 14, 2008, 

and also the Order does not list any fine or serious enforcement. The petitioner requests a 

"stronger" enforcement action (such as disciplinary action, including a serious fine) be imposed 

on the licensee for SONGS. 

Current Status: 

By letter dated May 13, 2008, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action pursuant to 

10 CFR 2.206. The PRB met on June 11, 2008, and determined that the submittal did not meet 

the criteria for consideration under 10 CFR 2.206, which was explained to the petitioner. 

During a telephone call on June 13, 2008, with the petition manager, the petitioner indicated 

dissatisfaction with the PRB’s initial decision that the letter did not meet the 10 CFR 2.206 

criteria and further expressed general dissatisfaction with the manner in which the concerns and 

issues raised at SONGS were handled by the NRC staff. The concerns were referred to the 

NRC Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The OIG reviewed the petitioner’s May 13, 2008, 

letter and the actions taken by the NRC staff to address the concerns and the issues identified at 

SONGS. The OIG review found no indication of NRC staff misconduct to warrant the initiation of 

an OIG investigation. 

On June 19, 2008, in a telephone conversation between the petitioner and Mr. Michael Vasquez 

of NRC’s Region IV staff, the petitioner discussed his concerns about how the NRC handled the 

role of the licensee supervision in contributing to these violations. During this telephone call, 

aspects of the Confirmatory Order addressing supervision of nuclear plant workers 

(e.g., Sections III.2.c, III.2.f, III.2.g, and III.2.k) were discussed with the petitioner. In a 

subsequent voicemail to the petition manager, the petitioner indicated satisfaction with the NRC 

action concerning supervision of nuclear plant workers. 

The closure letter to the petitioner was issued on June 16, 2008 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML081770625).
-3- 

Facility: Turkey Point (TP) 

Petitioners: Thomas Saporito 

Date of Petition: April 27, 2008 

EDO Number: G20080317

Petition Manager: Tracy Orf 

Case Attorney: Giovonna Longo 

Last Contact with Petitioner: May 30, 2008 

Last PRB Meeting: June 17, 2008

Issues/Actions requested: 

The petitioner asks that: 

1. The NRC take actions to immediately suspend the Licensee’s operating licenses DPR-31 

and DPR-41 until such time as the Licensee can demonstratively demonstrate to the 

NRC and to the general public that the it is in full compliance with 10 CFR 73.55(f)(1); 

2. The NRC issue a Notice of Violation with a $500,000 Civil Penalty to Wackenhut Nuclear 

Security for its part in violating 10 CFR 73.55(f)(1); 

3. The NRC increase the amount of the Civil Penalty Imposed on the Licensee from 

$130,000 to $1,000,000. 

4. The Licensee not be allowed to participate in the NRC Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(“ADR”) (NUREG/BR-0317) program. 

5. The WNS not be allowed to participate in the NRC Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(“ADR”) (NUREG/BR-0317) program. 

6. The NRC Order the Licensee to post this 2.206 Petition at TP and at the Licensee’s 

St. Lucie Nuclear Stations. 

7. The NRC hold a public hearing granting Petition Leave to Intervene in such hearing 

regarding the substance of this 2.206 petition. 

Current Status: 

By letter dated April 27, 2008, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action pursuant to 

10 CFR 2.206. The NRC petition review board (PRB) made an initial evaluation that the petition 

did not meet the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206. The petitioner was given the 

opportunity to provide the PRB with additional information. A telephone conference call was 

held on May 30, 2008, at which time the petitioner addressed the PRB. The NRC staff reviewed 

the petition and the telephone transcript and determined that the submittal does not meet the 

criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206, because either the concerns raised have already been 

the subject of NRC review and evaluation for which resolution was achieved or the requests 

were not for enforcement-type actions. The closure letter to the petitioner is in concurrence.
AGE STATISTICS FOR AGENCY 2.206 PETITIONS 

Assigned 

Action 

Office 

Facility/ 

Petitioner 

Incoming 

petition 

PRB 

meeting1

Acknowledgment 

letter/days from 

incoming2

Proposed 

Director’s 

Decision 

/age3

Final 

Director’s 

Decision 

/age4

Comments 

Agency=s 

NRR Indian Point 

Units 2 and 3/ Sherwood Martinelli - FUSE 

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

221 

05/30/08 

99 

TBD PRB meeting 

request of the requested a dPRB, affording to focus their rPoint License 

NRR Indian Point 

Units 2 and 3/ Sherwood Martinelli - FUSE 

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

137 

TBD TBD PRB meeting 

request of the requested a dPRB, affording to focus their rPoint License The proposed will reference implementatiosystem, which have operatio2008. 

NRR Indian Point 

Units 2 and 3/ Sherwood Martinelli 

03/30/08 04/16/08 TBD TBD TBD On May 14, 20

requested thaPRB be delayAugust 1, 200the OEDO agrdue date to Se

1) Goal is to hold a PRB meeting, which the petitioner is invited to participate in, within 2 weeks of receipt of pe2) 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.