Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR

2.206: June 30, 2001

June 18, 2001

MEMORANDUM TO: William D. Travers

Executive Director for Operations

FROM: Brian W. Sheron, Associate Director /RA/

for Project Licensing and Technical Analysis

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT: JUNE 2001 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS UNDER 10 CFR

2.206

The attached monthly report gives the status of 10 CFR 2.206 petitions as of June 30, 2001. Since the last

report, one petition on the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station by P. Borchmann (G20010158) was rejected

because it did not meet the threshold screening criteria for processing under 10 CFR 2.206. Currently, there are

two open petitions in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR).

Attachment 1 provides the detailed status of petitions for NRR and the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards. Attachment 2 shows the age and staff hours expended on open 2.206 petitions as of June 30, 2001.

Attachment 3 shows the statistics for the 2.206 petitions processed in the past 12 months.

This report and recently issued Director's Decisions are placed in the Agencywide Document Access and

Management System (ADAMS), and on the NRC's external home page, making them readily accessible to the

public. The URL address is http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/PUBLIC/2206/index.html.

Attachments: As stated

CONTACT: Ram Subbaratnam, NRR

415-1478 

Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206

June 30, 2001

(Table of Contents)

Attachment 1

Facility Petitioner/EDO No.

Indian Point Unit 2 D. Katz/CAN/G20000568...........................................................2

All Licensees Using Security Services

Provided by Wackenhut Corporation

D. Lochbaum/UCS/G20010159..................................................4

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station P. Borchmann/G20010158..........................................................6
Attachment 1: Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206

Facility: Indian Point, Unit 2

Petitioner: Deborah Katz, et al. (CAN)

Date of Petition: 12/4/2000

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 12/11/2000

EDO Number: G20000568

Scheduled Completion Date: 9/21/2001

Last Contact with Petitioners: 7/2/2001

Petition Manager: C. Gratton

Case Attorney: J. Goldberg

Issues/Action Requested:

(1)That the licensee, ConEd, have its license suspended for the Indian Point Unit 2 (IP2) facility due to

persistent and pervasive negligent management, which has endangered the public health and safety and the

environment due to significant safety problems existent at the site for decades. (2) Specifically, that NRC

investigate the apparent misrepresentation of material fact by the utility to determine whether the significantly

insufficient engineering calculations relied on to ensure adequacy of design of key systems, including the steam

generator (SG) analysis and the electric bus analysis at the IP2 reactor, were due to a lack of rigor and

thoroughness or a result of deliberately misleading information. (3) Should the investigation determine that

ConEd deliberately provided insufficient and false information, the petitioners specifically request that ConEd's

operating license be revoked for its IP2 reactor. (4) Should NRC not revoke the license, and the IP2 reactor

returns to operation, the petitioners specifically request that it remain on the list of agency focus reactors to

oversee the operation of the reactor until such time as its management demonstrates that it can fulfill its

regulatory requirements and commitments. (5) No license transfer requests should be approved for IP2 until

such time that its management can demonstrate that the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)

backlog and the maintenance requirements are up-to-date and workers have been retrained to the complete and

revised UFSAR. (6) NRC should keep IP2 off-line until the fundamental breakdown in management is analyzed

and corrected.

Background:

With the SG replacement having been completed at IP2, and the licensee in the process of restart, the Petition

Review Board (PRB) convened a meeting on December 20, 2000, to consider the Immediate Action request

related to plant restart (item 6). The petitioners were informed of this decision by telephone on December 20,

2000. The PRB concluded that there was insufficient information provided and that the petitioners did not

substantiate any safety concerns to justify delaying unit restart. The petitioners were, in accordance with

Management Directive (MD) 8.11, offered an opportunity to address the PRB in an open meeting. This meeting

was conducted on January 24, 2001, at NRC Headquarters. A PRB meeting to consider the petitioners' issues

(items 1 thru 5) was held on February 7, 2001. The PRB recommended accepting the petition.

On March 9, 2001, the staff issued an acknowledgment letter to the petitioners and a summary of the public

meeting held on January 24, 2001.
Current Status: 

On June 5, 2001, the petitioners requested that information contained in an April 26, 2001, submittal to the IP2

license transfer proceedings be considered as further information to support their request for enforcement

actions against the licensee for systemic mismanagement of the IP2 reactor facility. The PRB re-convened on

June 28, 2001, to discuss the supplement and its impact on issuance of the proposed Director's Decision(DD).

During the PRB meeting, it was determined that the supplement did not meet the requirements to be reviewed

under 10 CFR 2.206, because the request is already the subject of another agency proceeding (license transfer

proceeding). The petitioners were notified on July 2, 2001, that this information would not be considered in the

proposed Director's Decision. The proposed DD is on schedule for issuance well ahead of the scheduled

completion date of September 21, 2001.

Facility: All Licensees Using Security Services Provided by Wackenhut

Corporation

Petitioner: D. Lochbaum (UCS)

Date of Petition: 04/24/2001

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 4/25/2001

EDO Number: G20010159

Scheduled Completion Date: 9/29/2001

Last Contact with Petitioners: 5/29/2001

Petition Manager: C. Patel

Case Attorney: J. Goldberg

Issues/Action Requested:

The petitioner requests that the NRC issue a Demand for Information (DFI) to each of the licensees listed in the

petitioner's letter dated April 24, 2001, requiring each licensee to provide a docketed response as to how it

complies with 10 CFR 26.10 and 10 CFR 26.20, specifically the requirements that: (1) "Fitness-for-duty

programs must: Provide reasonable measures for the early detection of persons who are not fit to perform

activities within the scope of this part" [10 CFR 26.10]; and (2) "Licensee policy should also address other

factors that could affect fitness for duty such as mental stress, fatigue and illness." [10 CFR 26.20]

Background:

As a basis for the above requests, the petitioner stated that:

"An individual employed by Wackenhut Corporation and assigned duties as security officer at Indian Point

Nuclear Unit 2 was fired on June 26, 2000. The individual had worked five straight 12-hour shifts and declined

to report for a sixth straight 12-hour shift because he reported to his management---in writing--that it would be

'physically and mentally exhausting.' The individual reported to his management--in writing--that he was fully

aware of his condition and 'would not want to be negligent in performing [his] duties as a security officer."

"The security officer had unescorted access to Indian Point 2 and thus was covered by 10 CFR Part 26 as

specified in Section 26.2." 
Wackenhut has a requirement in its employment conditions that employees are required to report to work when

directed, which is also ratified in its Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Security Officer's Handbook. 

The petitioner claims, "Thus a worker employed by Wackenhut Corporation at an NRC-licensed facility

reported to his management that he felt unfit for duty, declined to report for mandated overtime, and was

terminated."

The petitioner states that, "10 CFR 26.20 requires all licensees to have formal policy and written procedures for

factors that could render plant workers unfit for duty. Fatigue is specifically mentioned in 10 CFR 26.20." The

petitioner claims that the contractual right conflicts with the regulations stated in 10 CFR 26.10(a) and (b), and

that in the subject case, the individual essentially provided "reasonable measures for early detection" of a

condition rendering him unfit to perform activities within the scope of Part 26. "Rather than respect the

individual's judgment or seek another opinion by a Medical Review Officer or other health care professional,

Wackenhut fired him."

In its meeting on May 7, 2001, the Petition Review Board (PRB) recommended accepting the petition. An

acknowledgment letter and Federal Register notice on the petition were issued on May 29, 2001. 

Current Status:

The PRB reconvened on June 25, 2001, to review progress on the petition. The PRB considered ConEd's

response to a 'chilling effect' letter on this subject. The staff is continuing to work on this petition.

Facility: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS)

Petitioner: P. Borchmann

Date of Petition: 04/17/2001

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NMSS

Date Referred to Review Organization: 4/25/2001

EDO Number: G20010158

Scheduled Completion Date: 6/15/2001

Last Contact with Petitioners: 6/15/2001

Petition Manager: T. Kobetz

Case Attorney: J. Goldberg

Issues/Action Requested:

The petitioner requests the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: (1) "Revoke prior permit approvals for SONGS

Unit 1 Decommissioning, and suspend further stages of work on Unit 1Decommissioning"; and (2) "Suspend or

revoke all permit approvals to date on the pending proposal for dry cask storage of spent high level radioactive

waste at SONGS ...."

As a basis for these requests, the petitioner states that: "My assertion is that the extent of seismic risks, risk from

zirconium fires, a major risk of radiation releases in the fuel loading phase from wet fuel pool to casks, and risks
from rising sea levels caused by global warming have all been severely (and inappropriately) underestimated in

analyses by Southern California Edison (SCE), California Coastal Commission (CCC), and Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC). These are serious analytical flaws, which must be reevaluated for the purpose of public

safety, since the deliberate neglect of most recent geologic data places large populations in both Orange County

and San Diego at a level of risk which is clearly unacceptable."

Background:

The petitioner was offered an opportunity to address the Petition Review Board (PRB) on May 9, 2001, to

articulate her concern, which the petitioner did with the licensee present. The meeting transcript and subsequent

submittals dated May 2 and 23, 2001, from the petitioner were treated as petition supplements.

Current Status:

A closed PRB meeting was conducted on June 5, 2001, and the petition was rejected because it did not meet the

threshold screening criteria for processing under 10 CFR 2.206. The closure letter sent to the petitioner on June

15, 2001, explained that the petitioner did not substantiate specific technical details nor identify regulatory

requirements that have been violated by Southern California Edison (the licensee). Also, the closure letter

explained that since the licensee has neither selected a 10 CFR Part 72 approved spent fuel storage cask system

nor notified the NRC of its intent to begin loading casks for storage of its spent fuel, the NRC cannot take

enforcement action to revoke or suspend a license that has not been employed..

Attachment 2: Age And Resource Expenditures For Agency 2.206 Open Petitions as of

June 30, 2001

Assigned

Action

Office

Petition

Number

Facility Age

(Months)*

Scheduled

Completion

Date

Resources

Expended

by Action

Office

(HOURS)1

Resources

Expended

by OGC

(HOURS)1

Comments if

not

meeting the

Agency's

120-day

Completion

Goal

NRR G20000568 Indian Point 2 4 5/21/2001 792 77

NRR G20010159 All Licensees 

Using

Wackenhut

Security

Services

1 9/29/2001 150 13

1 Staff professional time only; does not include management or administrative time.

*Age calculated from the date of the acknowledgment letter.

Attachment 3: Table on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206 for DDs Issued

During the Last 12 Months
Petition

Number

Assigned

Action

Office

Facility Petition

Date

DD

Date

Age

at Closure1, 2

(Months)

Comments

G20000062 NRR Indian Point Unit 3 2/10/2000 7/26/2000 4 Partly Granted

G20000133 NRR Indian Point Unit 2 3/14/2000 10/6/2000 6 Partly Granted

G20000232 NRR Hatch Units 1 & 2 5/3/2000 10/18/200 4 Denied

G20000138,136 NMSS Envirosafe, Idaho 3/13/2000 12/13/2000 8 Denied 

G20000345 NMSS US Department of

Defense

6/1/2000 1/9/2001 3 Denied 

G20000462 NRR Haddam Neck 9/26/2000 12/19/2000 2 Partly Granted

G19990011 NMSS Moab Site of Atlas

Corp.

1/11/1999 5/7/2001* N/A Petition Moot and

Closed

1) Age calculated from the date of the acknowledgment letter to the proposed Director's Decision issuance.

2) Goals: Acknowledgment letter issued within 5 weeks from date of receipt; proposed DD issued within 4

months of acknowledgment letter.

* No DD issued on this petition .