May 20, 2003

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: APRIL 2003 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS

UNDER TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS,

SECTION 2.206

The attached reports give the status of petitions submitted under Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, Section 2.206. As of April 30, 2003, there were two open petitions, which were

accepted for review under the 2.206 process: one in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

and one in the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards. One Director’s Decision

(DD) regarding the Oyster Creek Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation was issued on

April 17, 2003. 

Attachment 1 provides a detailed status of the open petitions.

Attachment 2 provides the status of incoming letters that the staff has been reviewing to

determine if they meet the criteria for review under the 2.206 process. 

Attachment 3 shows the age statistics for the open 2.206 petitions as of April 30, 2003.

Attachment 4 shows the age trend of closed petitions for the last 3 years. 

This report, Director’s Decisions, and other 2.206-related documents are placed in the

Agencywide Documents Access and Management System. In making these readily accessible

to the public, the staff has identified another vehicle to address one of our performance goals,

i.e., to enhance public confidence.

Attachments: As stated

CONTACT: Robert Clark, NRR

415-2297
May 20, 2003

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: APRIL 2003 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS

UNDER TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS,

SECTION 2.206

The attached reports give the status of petitions submitted under Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, Section 2.206. As of April 30, 2003, there were two open petitions, which were

accepted for review under the 2.206 process: one in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

and one in the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards. One Director’s Decision

(DD) regarding the Oyster Creek Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation was issued on

April 17, 2003. 

Attachment 1 provides a detailed status of the open petitions.

Attachment 2 provides the status of incoming letters that the staff has been reviewing to

determine if they meet the criteria for review under the 2.206 process. 

Attachment 3 shows the age statistics for the open 2.206 petitions as of April 30, 2003.

Attachment 4 shows the age trend of closed petitions for the last 3 years. 

This report, Director’s Decisions, and other 2.206-related documents are placed in the

Agencywide Documents Access and Management System. In making these readily accessible

to the public, the staff has identified another vehicle to address one of our performance goals,

i.e., to enhance public confidence.

Attachments: As stated

CONTACT: Robert Clark, NRR

415-2297

DISTRIBUTION: See next page

Accession No.: ML031260112 *See previous concurrence

OFFICE PM:PDI-1 LA:PDI-1 D:PDII* D:DLPM* NMSS* ADPT:NRR

NAME RClark SLittle HBerkow JZwolinski PGoldberg BSheron

DATE 5/19/03 5/19/03 05/05/03 05/10/03 05/12/03 5/19/03

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
DISTRIBUTION FOR APRIL 2003 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS

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

Dated: May 20, 2003

PUBLIC

PDI Reading File

EDO Reading File

WKane, DEDR/OEDO

CPaperillo, DEDMRS/EDP

PNorry, DEDM/OEDO

JCraig, AO/OEDO

JShea, ODEO

PAnderson, OEDO

SCollins, NRR

RLaufer

SRichards

BSheron, NRR

JGoldberg, OGC

JCordes, Jr., OCAA

FCongel, OE

MVirgilio, NMSS

PGoldberg, NMSS

JZwolinski, NRR

LMarsh, NRR

HBerkow, NRR

RClark, NRR

OCA

OPA

Regional Administrators

PDI-1 Reading 

SLittle
Attachment 1

Status of Open Petitions

Page

Facility Petitioner/EDO No. No.

Oyster Creek Generating Station Edith Gbur for Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch/

G20020385................................................... 1

Waltz Mill Pennsylvania Site Viacom, Inc.

G20020629.................................................... 3

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Congressman Dennis Kucinich

G20030048.................................................... 5
Attachment 1

Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206

Facility: Oyster Creek Generating Station

Petitioner: Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch

Date of Letter: 6/21/2002, as supplemented on July 18, 2002

Director’s Decision to Be Issued by: NMSS

EDO Number: G20020385

Proposed DD issuance: 12/10/2002 (C)

Final DD issuance: 04/17/03 (C)

Last Contact with Petitioner: 02/24/03

Petition Manager: Steve O’Connor

Case Attorney: Jack Goldberg

Issues/Actions requested:

The petitioner requests that the NRC issue an order to the licensee, suspending the dry cask

storage program at Oyster Creek. 

Background:

As a basis for the above requests, the petitioner raised concerns with: the location of the Oyster

Creek independent spent fuel storage installation relative to local roads and communities; the

ability of the NUHOMS dry spent fuel storage system to survive a sabotage attack; the

adequacy of Oyster Creek security measures for fuel handling activities; the adequacy of the

Oyster Creek emergency evacuation plan; and the quality of the NUHOMS systems planned for

use at Oyster Creek.

The petitioner participated in a telephone call with the Petition Review Board on July 18, 2002. 

In response to the PRB discussion, the petitioner provided additional information on July 18,

2002, to supplement the petition request. This information is also being considered in the

review of the petition.

The petitioner’s request for NRC to immediately suspend the license for the NUHOMS dry

spent fuel storage system and halt transfer of spent fuel from wet pool storage to dry storage

modules at Oyster Creek was denied because the safety concerns were reviewed and

determined not to pose an undue risk to public health and safety. The Commission does not

believe that immediate action is required because the licensee for Oyster Creek is not planning

to load additional fuel canisters until 2003.

An acknowledgment letter and Federal Register notice were issued on August 7, 2002.

On October 30, 2002, a teleconference was held with the petitioner and her counsel regarding

the status of the proposed Director's Decision (DD). The petitioner asked that we specifically

address certain accident scenarios discussed in the petition in our response. She also asked if

there was any way that the petitioners could get a hearing for the Oyster Creek ISFSI issues. 

An additional teleconference with the petitioner was held with a member of OGC present on

November 4, 2002, to further discuss the issue of a hearing. The staff prepared a proposed DD

that was sent to the petitioners and the licensee for comment on December 10, 2002. Since 
-2-

the petitioner did not receive the proposed DD, it was re-sent on January 7, 2003, and the

comment period extended to February 6, 2003. The petitioner did not meet the February 6,

2003, date to respond to the proposed DD. The staff called the petitioner on February 6, 2003,

to determine when to expect comments to proposed DD. The petitioner stated that they were

still working on the response. The petitioner was contacted again on February 24, 2003, to

check on status of their response. Petitioner agreed to provide comments by February 28,

2003.

The staff received petitioners’ comments on the proposed DD on March 5, 10, and 19, 2003. 

Current Status:

The petition filed by the Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch to suspend the dry cask storage program

at Oyster Creek was denied. The bases for the denial are given in Director's Decision DD-03-

01 which was issued on April 17, 2003. No further action is required.
-3-

Facility: Waltz Mill Pennsylvania Site 

Petitioner: Viacom, Inc.

Date of Letter: October 30, 2002 

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NMSS

EDO Number: G20020629

Proposed DD issuance: 06/20/03

Final DD issuance: TBD

Last Contact with Petitioner: 05/01/03

Petition Manager: Patrick Isaac (NRR) / Derek Widmayer (NMSS)

Case Attorney: Jack Goldberg

Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC issue an order to Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, the holder of

license SNM-770 on the Waltz Mill, Pennsylvania Site, which would require

Westinghouse’s cooperation in the decommissioning of the Westinghouse Test Reactor

(WTR) license TR-2. In particular, the order would require Westinghouse to:

(1) provide certain radiological survey data to NRC which NRC has requested. The

survey data in question determines what residual radioactivity remains in-situ. 

(2) accept under SNM-770 certain residual byproduct materials now held under Viacom

license TR-2 and located at the WTR.

Background:

Viacom is the current holder of NRC facility license TR-2 which authorizes possession,

but not operation, of the WTR. To complete the Final Decommissioning Plan, two

provisions still need to be accomplished. These are determining the residual

radioactivity remaining in-situ and preparing the necessary amendments for and

requesting the transfer of the remaining residual radioactivity and WTR facilities to the

SNM-770 license.

At the time the decommissioning plan was approved, Westinghouse was the NRC

licensee under both TR-2 and SNM-770, and so the transfer of the residual radioactive

material from one materials license to another, held by the same licensee on the same

site, was straightforward. Viacom now holds the TR-2 license while Westinghouse

holds the SNM-770 license. Westinghouse’s and Viacom’s decommissioning

responsibilities to each other at the Waltz Mill Site are set forth in an Asset Purchase

Agreement. By refusing to accept the transfer to the SNM-770 license, Viacom alleges

that Westinghouse is in violation of 10 CFR 50.5. 

Westinghouse submitted a response to the petition on December 20, 2002. Viacom has

indicated that they will not respond to the Westinghouse response at this time.

On February 20, 2003, a public PRB meeting was held in Rockville, Maryland with the

petitioner and both licensees (Viacom and Westinghouse Electric Company). At the 
-4-

meeting, lawyers and staff personnel from both companies provided additional

information to support their position. 

At the March 6, 2003, closed PRB meeting, the staff agreed to accept the petition for

review under 2.206.

There are several reasons why it took the staff 4 months to determine whether this

petition met the criteria for review under 2.206. First, the petition involves complex legal

and contractual issues. Second, the staff had to await both parties’ responses to the

petition, which took the parties several months, and then had to review and evaluate the

responses prior to engaging in the public PRB meeting. The petitioners were not

available to meet with the PRB until February 20, 2003. Following the public PRB

meeting, there was still some uncertainty among the cognizant staff groups and

management regarding acceptance of these issues as a petition. Finally, at the

March 6, 2003, closed PRB meeting, agreement was reached to accept the petition for

review under 2.206.

On March 13, 2003, a letter was sent to the petitioner and both licensees (Viacom and

Westinghouse Electric Company) informing them that the petition met the acceptance

criteria for review under 2.206 and would be reviewed in accordance with Management

Directive 8.11. A Federal Register notice was published on March 27, 2003.

Westinghouse sent a letter to the NRC on March 26, 2003, indicating their intent to file a

supplement to their December 20, 2002, response to the Viacom petition. 

Westinghouse stated in the letter that the supplement will be provided by May 5, 2003. 

Viacom sent a letter to the NRC on March 28, 2003, objecting to NRC consideration of

this Westinghouse supplement. 

Current Status:

NRC staff sent a letter to Westinghouse on April 14, 2003, asking for the supplemental

information to be delivered no later than April 18, 2003. 

The Westinghouse supplemental information was received by the NRC on April 15,

2003. Viacom transmitted comments on the Westinghouse supplemental information on

April 22, 2003. 

A proposed Director's Decision is being developed for review and issuance. The

issuance of the proposed Director’s Decision is scheduled for June 20, 2003. 
-5-

Facility: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station

Petitioner: Congressman Dennis Kucinich

Date of Letter: February 3, 2003 

Director’s Decision to be Issued by: NRR

EDO Number: G20030048

Proposed DD issuance: 05/26/03

Final DD issuance: TBD

Last Contact with Petitioner: 04/07/03

Petition Manager: Dan Collins (NRR)

Case Attorney: Jack Goldberg

Issues/Actions requested:

That the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) immediately revoke FirstEnergy

Nuclear Operating Company’s (FirstEnergy) license to operate the Davis-Besse Nuclear

Power Station (DBNPS) for the reasons given in the background. 

Background:

On March 5, 2002 during a refueling outage, FirstEnergy performed inspection of the

DBNPS reactor pressure vessel head penetration (VHP) nozzles in accordance with

NRC Bulletin 2001-01. During this inspection, the licensee discovered cracks in several

VHP nozzles. Subsequent to the machining process to repair VHP Nozzle 3, the nozzle

was observed to displace, or tip in the downhill direction as the machining apparatus

was withdrawn. The displacement led DBNPS personnel to examine the region

adjacent to VHP Nozzle 3. The licensee discovered a cavity with a surface area of

approximately 20-30 square inches. Upon further examination, the licensee identified

that the cavity extended completely through the 6.63 inch-thick carbon steel reactor

pressure vessel (RPV) head down to a thin internal liner of stainless steel cladding. 

Although the exposed cladding withstood the primary system pressure during previous

plant operation, it was not designed to be a reactor coolant system pressure boundary. 

Boric acid corrosion of the carbon steel RPV head was the primary contributor to the

RPV head degradation.

In response to the licensee's identification of extensive damage to the pressure

boundary material of the RPV head on March 5, 2002, the NRC dispatched an

Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) to Davis-Besse on March 12, 2002, to examine

conditions that led to the head degradation. The NRC also issued a Confirmatory

Action Letter (CAL) to the licensee on March 13, 2002, which stated that NRC approval

is required for restart DBNPS. The CAL also documented a number of actions that the

licensee must implement before the NRC will approve a restart. The NRC also

enhanced monitoring of corrective actions at Davis-Besse, as described in NRC

Inspection Manual Chapter 0350, “Oversight of Operating Reactor Facilities in a

Shutdown Condition with Performance Problems,” to provide the required oversight

throughout the plant's shutdown and restart. The AIT follow-up special inspection report
-6-

(50-346/02-08) dated October 2, 2002, cited a number of violations of the Davis-Besse

operating license and NRC regulations.

Using information from various publicly available documents (such as NRC inspection

reports, newspaper articles, and reports published by the Union of Concerned

Scientists) to support his case, the Petitioner offers the following five basic arguments,

in various forms, on why the Davis-Besse operating license must be revoked:

1. NRC regulations and guidelines require revocation of the Davis-Besse license.

2. Revocation of the Davis-Besse license is necessary to hold FirstEnergy

accountable for its violations of NRC regulations and its own operating license.

3. If the NRC doesn’t revoke the Davis-Besse license, NRC isn’t appropriately

using the authority granted it by Congress.

4. Revocation of the Davis-Besse license is necessary in order to ensure that

FirstEnergy is complying with all NRC regulations and guidelines.

5. Revocation of the Davis-Besse license is required in order for there to be

consistency in the manner that the NRC enforces its regulations.

The staff issued an acknowledgment letter on February 10, 2003, to inform the

Congressman that the PRB has determined that the petition meets the acceptance

criteria for review under 2.206. The acknowledgment letter also informed the Petitioner

that, pending completion of the NRC’s investigative process, the NRC does not have

sufficient basis to immediately revoke the Davis-Besse operating license. Thus, the

Petitioner’s request for immediate revocation of the license was denied. 

The staff called the Petitioner’s staff on February 14, 2003, to explain the 2.206 process

and to offer an opportunity to address the PRB. The Congressman's staff indicated that

they do wish to address the PRB but need more time to prepare for the presentation. 

The petitioner informed the staff on March 12, 2003, that a supplement would be issued

in lieu of a presentation to the PRB.

The petitioner submitted a supplement to the original petition on March 27, 2003, to

address the following additional concerns:

a. boric acid dust may have corroded electrical systems & cable trays

b. as-built design may not conform to design or licensing bases

c. training of personnel may not meet licensing basis

d. DBNPS does not have ability to detect I gpm leakage within 1 hour

e. procedures instituted by NRC may not uncover or address other systems

that may be degraded i,e., RCP seal gasket leakage 

f. The O350 Panel will end and the plant will return to normal monitoring

under the ROP before Lessons Learned Task Force recommendations

regarding the ROP are implemented
-7-

g. The OI investigation must be completed before NRC allows DBNPS to

restart

A closed PRB meeting was held on April 2, 2003, to discuss the additional information

provided by the petitioner’s March 27, 2003, supplement to the original petition. The

staff decided that no immediate action was warranted, that the supplement should be

consolidated with the existing petition, that no new allegations were presented by the

petitioner, and that an acknowledgment letter was not necessary. 

Laura Gerke of the Office of Congressional Affairs contacted the petitioner’s staff and

explained that we have received the supplement to the petition, understand the

arguments being made and determined that a clarifying conference call is unnecessary. 

She also indicated that the proposed DD is scheduled to be issued within 120 days from

the date of the original acknowledgment letter which was issued on February 10, 2003.

Current Status:

Licensee responded to the petitioner's March 27, 2003, supplement by letter dated April 11,

2003.

The DRAFT proposed DD is currently under internal NRC review and comment and is expected

to be issued by May 26, 2003.
Attachment 2

Status of Potential Petitions Under Consideration

Facility: Maine Yankee

Petitioner: Randall Speck, Special Counsel for the State of Maine

Date of Letter: November 15, 2002

Responsible Office: NMSS

PRB meeting: To be scheduled 

Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC conduct a hearing on the efficacy of indefinite, long-term spent fuel

storage at Maine Yankee.

Resolution:

The petitioner has also requested a hearing, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, regarding the

October 16, 2002, safeguards order and interim compensatory measures. On

December 10, 2002, the staff sent a letter to the petitioner stating that a decision on the

acceptability of the 2.206 petition will be held in abeyance until the staff makes a

determination on the hearing request. 

Facility: Indian Point Units 2 and 3

Petitioner: Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of the State of Connecticut

Date of Letter: April 24, 2003

Responsible Office: NRR

PRB meeting: To be scheduled 

Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC take the following immediate actions:

1. Order the IP-2 licensee to conduct a full review of the facility’s vulnerabilities, security

measures and evacuation plans and to suspend operations, revoke the operating

license, or adopt other measures resulting in a temporary shutdown of Units 2 and 3 per

10 CFR 2.202.

2. Require the licensee to provide information, as contemplated by 10 CFR 2.204(a),

documenting the existing security measures which provide the Indian Point facilities with

protection against terrorist attacks.

3. Immediately modify the licensee’s operating license for Units 2 and 3 to mandate, at a

minimum, a defense and security system sufficient to protect the entire facility, including

the containment and spent fuel storage buildings, control room and electric equipment,

from land or water based terrorist attack as required by 10 CFR 73.55.
-2-

4. Order the revision of licensee’s Emergency Response Plan and the Radiological

Emergency Response Plans of the State of New York and the nearby counties, in order

to account and prepare for possible terrorist attacks. These revisions must encompass

not only realistic and catastrophic effects of a terrorist attack on the Indian Point

facilities, but also a comprehensive response to multiple attacks in the region which may

impair the efficient evacuation of the area. Examples of such attacks include

destruction of the regional road and bridge system, loss of power to passenger

railroads, and other events that deny use of necessary infrastructure.

5. If, after conducting a full review of the facility’s vulnerabilities, security measures and

evacuation plans, the NRC cannot sufficiently ensure the security of the Indian Point

facilities against terrorist threats, or cannot ensure the safety of New York and

Connecticut citizens in the event of an accident or terrorist attack, the Commission

should take prompt action to permanently retire the facility.

Resolution:

A closed PRB meeting will be held May 8, 2003 to discuss the petition prior to offering the

petitioner an opportunity to address the PRB.
Attachment 3

AGE STATISTICS FOR AGENCY 2.206 PETITIONS

ASSIGNED

ACTION

OFFICE

FACILITY Incoming 

petition

PRBmeeting1

Acknowledgment 

letter / 

days from

incoming2

Proposed DDissuanceDate/ age3

Scheduled

date for final

DD/ age 4

Comments if n

Co

NMSS Oyster Creek 6/21/02 7/18/02 8/07/02

47

12/10/02 (C)

120

04/17/03 (C)

29

NMSS Waltz Mill Site 10/30/02 02/20/03 02/28/03

118

06/20/03

112

TBD See Viacom petit

detailed explanat

NRR Davis-Besse 02/03/03 N/A 02/10/03

7

05/26/03

105

TBD

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

often a delay of up two weeks from the date that the letter is issued until it is received by the reviewing o

2) Goal is to issue acknowledgment letter within 5 weeks 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.
Attachment 4