June 19, 2008 

MEMORANDUM TO: R. W. Borchardt 

Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Bruce A. Boger /RA by MCase for / 

 Associate Director for Operating 

 Reactor Oversight and Licensing

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

SUBJECT: MAY 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,@ dated February 3, 

1994, the enclosed report gives the status of petitions submitted under 10 CFR 2.206. As of 

May 31, 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 May 31, 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 May 31, 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 
June 19, 2008 

MEMORANDUM TO: R. W. Borchardt 

Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Bruce A. Boger /RA by MCase for / 

 Associate Director for Operating 

 Reactor Oversight and Licensing

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

SUBJECT: MAY 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,@ dated February 3, 

1994, the enclosed report gives the status of petitions submitted under 10 CFR 2.206. As of 

May 31, 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 May 31, 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 May 31, 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 

See next page 

ADAMS Accession Number: ML081650026 NRR-106 

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

NAME MHoncharik DBaxley SRosenberg MMaxin MCase for 

BBoger 

DATE 06/18/08 06/18/08 06/18/08 06/18/08 06/19 /08 

OFFICIAL AGENCY RECORD 
Memo to R. W. Borchardt from Bruce A. Boger, dated: June 18, 2008

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

TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (10 CFR) 

SECTION 2.206 

DISTRIBUTION: WITS 200700062 

PUBLIC 

PSPB Reading File 

RidsEdoMailCenter 

EJulian 

MWyatt 

RidsNrrOd 

RidsNrrAdro 

RidsNrrAdes 

RidsOgcMailCenter 

RidsOpaMail 

RidsOcaMailCenter 

RidsOeMailCenter 

RidsNrrMailCenter 

JDeCicco 

PRathbun 

NGarciaSantos 

GCaputo 

Donna Williams 

RidsNrrDorlLpl1-1 

RidsNrrDorlLpl2-1 

DPickett 

JKim 

JBoska 

JStang 

Brenda Mozafari 

Tracy Orf 

Tom Boyce (NRR) 

Kaly Kalyanam 

Thomas Hiltz 

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, 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 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. 
-2- 

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 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. 

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 Indian Point (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.
STATUS OF POTENTIAL PETITIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION 

ENCLOSURE 2 

Facility: Indian Point, Units 2 and 3 

Petitioners: Mark Edward Leyse 

Date of Petition: March 7, 2008 

EDO Number: G20080162 

Petition Manager: John Boska 

Case Attorney: Giovonna Longo 

Last Contact with Petitioner: May 5, 2008

Last PRB meeting: April 23, 2008

Issues/Actions requested: 

The petitioner requests that the NRC: 

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

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

and 3. 

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

requests that the NRC order the licensee to conduct conservative ECCS 

evaluation calculations for IP 2 & 3 that are compliant with 10 CFR 50.46(a)(1)(i). 

Current Status: 

By letter dated March 7, 2008, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action pursuant 

to 10 CFR 2.206. The NRC staff has reviewed the petition and determined that it does not meet 

the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206. The closure letter was issued on June 5, 2008, and 

stated that the NRC would not accept the petition for review, as the petitioner did not provide 

facts sufficient to constitute a basis for the requested action.
-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: May 1, 2008

Last PRB meeting: May 28, 2008

Issues/Actions requested: 

The petitioner requests that 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 closeout letter to the 

petitioner is in final concurrence.
-3- 

Facility: Pilgrim 

Petitioners: Utility Worker’s Union Local 139 

Date of Petition: May 14, 2008 

EDO Number: G20080352 

Petition Manager: James Kim 

Case Attorney: Giovonna Longo 

Issues/Actions requested: 

The petitioner asks that: 

the NRC require Pilgrim to cease operations during a strike of its workers - Utility Workers Union 

of America local 369 - if a strike occurs. 

Current Status: 

By letter dated May 14, 2008, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action pursuant to 

10 CFR 2.206. Although the petitioner provided facts to support the claim that replacement 

workers might not be capable of safely operating the plant, ultimately their concern was mooted 

by subsequent events. The concern never materialized because a new 4-year contract 

agreement between union workers and management at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS) 

was ratified on May 23, 2008, and averted a strike. Accordingly, the Petition Review Board has 

determined the petition request does not meet the criteria for consideration under 

10 CFR 2.206 because it did not set forth facts to constitute a basis for the requested action, as 

the presumed fact of a strike never materialized. Nonetheless, the NRC staff plans to evaluate 

and address the concerns raised in this petition request via subsequent correspondence in the 

near future. The closure letter was issued to the petitioner on June 4, 2008 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML081560065). 
-4- 

Facility: Pilgrim 

Petitioners: Mary Lampert 

Date of Petition: May 13, 2008 

EDO Number: G20080347 

Petition Manager: James Kim 

Case Attorney: Giovonna Longo 

Issues/Actions requested: 

The petitioner asks that: 

In the event of a work stoppage at Pilgrim, and for the duration of any such work stoppage, the 

NRC should require the Pilgrim reactor to be shutdown. 

Current Status: 

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

10 CFR 2.206. Although the petitioner asserted that PNPS could not be safely operated by 

replacement workers in the event of a strike, they did not provide facts indicating why the 

intended replacement workers might not operate the plant safely. The concern never 

materialized because a new 4-year contract agreement between union workers and 

management at PNPS was ratified on May 23, 2008, and averted a strike. Accordingly, the 

Petition Review Board has determined the petition request does not meet the criteria for 

consideration under 10 CFR 2.206 because it did not set forth facts to constitute a basis for the 

requested action, as the presumed fact of a strike never materialized. The closure letter was 

issued to the petitioner on June 4, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML081500060).
-5- 

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: May 30, 2008 (pre-PRB call) 

Last PRB Meeting: TBD 

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 NRC staff is reviewing the petition in order to determine if it meets the 

criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206. A PRB meeting is scheduled for June 11, 2008. 
-6- 

Facility: Turkey Point 

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: May 30, 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 WNS 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 TPN 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 is 

reviewing the petition and the telephone transcript in order to determine if it meets the criteria for 

review under 10 CFR 2.206.
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.