May 11, 2000

MEMORANDUM TO: William D. Travers

Executive Director for Operations

THRU: Samuel J. Collins, Director /RA by B. W. Sheron Acting for/

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

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

 for Project Licensing and Technical Analysis

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT: APRIL 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 April 30, 2000.

During April 2000, the Director’s Decision (DD-00-02) on the petition on Indian Point Unit 2

(G1990465) was issued and the petition was closed. Also during the month, the petition on

Salem Units 1 & 2 was closed with a one-step acknowledgement/closeout letter. Thus, there

are four open petitions: two in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and two in the

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS).

Attachment 1 provides the status of petitions for NRR and NMSS. Attachment 2 shows the

age and staff hours expended on open 2.206 petitions as of April 30, 2000, including a

summary of the status of 2.206 petitions exceeding the 120-day scheduled completion goal. 

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
MEMORANDUM TO: William D. Travers

Executive Director for Operations

THRU: Samuel J. Collins, Director /RA by B. W. Sheron Acting for/

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

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

 for Project Licensing and Technical Analysis

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT: APRIL 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 April 30, 2000.

During April 2000, the Director’s Decision (DD-00-02) on the petition on Indian Point Unit 2

(G1990465) was issued and the petition was closed. Also during the month, the petition on

Salem Units 1 & 2 was closed with a one-step acknowledgement/closeout letter. Thus, there

are four open petitions: two in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and two in the

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS).

Attachment 1 provides the status of petitions for NRR and NMSS. Attachment 2 shows the

age and staff hours expended on open 2.206 petitions as of April 30, 2000, including a

summary of the status of 2.206 petitions exceeding the 120-day scheduled completion goal. 

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

M:\NRC\PUBLIC\2206\2000\April\220400.wpd DISTRIBUTION: See next page

OFFICE PM:PDII LA:PDII SC:PDII D:PDII NMSS/IMNS/IMOB D:DLPM ADPT:NRR D: NRR

NAME RSubbaratnam Dunnington RCorreia HBerkow PGoldberg JZwolinski/SBlack BSheron SCollins

5/5 /2000 5/5/2000 5/5/2000 5/5/2000 5/5/2000 5/ 9 /2000 5/10/2000 5/10/2000

* See Previous Concurrence OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Distribution:

M. Tschilitz, OEDO

F. Miraglia, DEDR/OEDO

C. Paperillo, DEDMRS/EDO

P. Norry, DEDM/OEDO

J. Blaha, AO/EDO

E. Julian, SECY

PDII r/f

S. Collins, NRR

B. Sheron, NRR

E. Baker, OD

R. Subbaratnam, NRR

K. Cyr, OGC

D. Dambley, OGC

L. Chandler, OGC

F. Cameron, OGC

J. Goldberg, OGC

J. Cordes, Jr., OCAA

R. Borchardt, OE

P. Lohaus, STP

W. Kane, NMSS

P. Goldberg, NMSS

S. Moore, NMSS

P. Anderson, OEDO (E-mail)

E. Dunnington, NRR

B. Boger, NRR

M. Stein, OE

G. Caputo, OI

G. Tracy, EDO

E. Adensam, NRR

J. Zwolinski, NRR

S. Black, NRR

H. Berkow, NRR

A. Kugler, NRR

OCA

OPA

Regional Administrators

PUBLIC w/att 1, 2, & 3
Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206

April 30, 2000

(Table of Contents)

Attachment 1

Page

Facility Petitioner/EDO No. No.

Atlas Corporation Dagget, et al./(G19990011)..................................2

Indian Point Unit 2 D. Lochbaum/UCS/G1990465..............................4

Salem Units 1 & 2 N. Cohen/UNPLUG Salem Campaign/

G20000111...........................................................6

Indian Point Unit 3 D. Lochbaum/UCS/G20000062............................7

Indian Point Unit 2 D. Lochbaum/UCS/G20000133............................8

Envirocare of Utah/Snake River Alliance L. Bickwit, Jr./G20000138,

G2000136............................................................9
2

Attachment 1

Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206

Facility: Moab site of Atlas Corporation (Present

Licensee PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,

Trustee)

Petitioner: Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund

Date of Petition: 1/11/99

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NMSS

Date Referred to Review Organization: 1/12/99

EDO Number: G19990011

OGC Number: P-99-02

Scheduled Completion Date: TBD*

Last Contact with Petitioner: 3/23/2000

Petition Manager: Myron Fliegel

Case Attorney: J. Goldberg

Issues/Action Requested:

The petitioners request NRC to take six immediate actions to halt impacts to and to ensure the

conservation of the endangered species of fish in the Colorado River near the Atlas site.

Background:

On August 2, 1988, Atlas submitted an application for a license amendment to revise its site

reclamation plan for uranium mill tailings at its no longer operating site near Moab, Utah. On

March 30, 1994, a notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement was

published in the Federal Register. In January 1996, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

was published for public comment. On July 29, 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in

accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), issued a final biological

opinion for impacts to federally listed endangered species from the reclamation of the Atlas mill

tailings site. On October 12, 1998, and November 13, 1998, petitioners notified NRC of their

intent to sue under the ESA. On December 16, 1998, petitioners filed a Motion for Preliminary

Injunction against NRC in the U.S. District Court, District of Utah.

A petition was filed on January 11, 1999, requesting the NRC to take six immediate actions

related to potential impact on endangered fish in the Colorado River due to contaminants from

the Atlas Uranium mill tailings pile. A Petition Review Board (PRB) meeting was held on

January 26, 1999, and the petitioners’ requests for immediate action were denied by a letter of

that date. In the letter, it was noted that none of the six items identified in the petition

addresses a health, safety, or environmental concern that requires emergency steps before a

complete review as provided for in 10 CFR 2.206. An acknowledgment letter for this petition

was published in the Federal Register on February 12, 1999. On May 13, 1999, the staff

received a supplement to the 2.206 petition requesting immediate action on several items: (1)

to suspend the issuance of the license amendment to permit reclamation; (2) to initiate a

supplemental National Environmental Policy Act process; and (3) to reinitiate consultation with

Fish and Wildlife Services under the Endangered Species Act. 

Earthjustice had, on January 27, 1999, petitioned the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

(ASLB) to intervene on the Atlas Corporation’s proposal to reclaim the Moab mill tailings and on

the cleanup of contaminated groundwater, citing the impacts to the endangered fish in the
3

Colorado River and its belief that the biological opinion was erroneous. On May 27, 1999, the

NRC wrote to the petitioners, acknowledging receipt of the supplement, denying immediate

action, and notifying the petitioners that NRC was deferring action on the 2.206 petition,

pending a decision by the ASLB on the petitioners’ request for a hearing on similar issues. 

On September 17, 1999, the staff filed responses to the ASLB presiding officers’ questions of

July 30, 1999. On September 29, 1999, the staff provided the ASLB with a copy of its 

September 29, 1999, letter to Dames & Moore, notifying that organization that it had been

selected to become the Trustee for the Atlas Moab site, since the Atlas Corporation is in

bankruptcy. Copies of both filings were sent to the petitioners. Dames & Moore subsequently

withdrew as trustee and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP was chosen to be the trustee.

On October 18, 1999, Earthjustice filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th

Circuit, arguing that the May 27, 1999, letter and a May 28, 1999, license amendment constitute

final agency action and a de facto denial of the 2.206 petition. On November 3, 1999, OGC

filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. A copy of

the motion was sent to the petitioners. On November 23, 1999, the petitioner filed a response

to the NRC motion to dismiss, arguing that the rejection of its request for immediate action and

subsequent lack of action on the part of the NRC in issuing a final Director’s Decision

constitutes a final agency action. NRC filed its reply with the court to the petitioners’ response

on December 2, 1999.

On October 28, 1999, the ASLB presiding officer found the Earthjustice petition of January 27,

1999, to be timely, and entertained further argument on the issue of petitioners’ standing. On

November 16, 1999, Earthjustice requested the presiding officer to rule on whether the ASLB

has jurisdiction with respect to determining whether NRC has complied with the Endangered

Species Act. On December 6, 1999, the staff filed a response arguing that the ASLB should

deny the petitioners’ November 16, 1999, motion. 

On December 27, 1999, an Order transferring source material license SUA-917 from Atlas

Corporation to the Maob Mill Reclamation Trust was signed. The Order transfers the license to

the Trust and orders the Trust and the Trustee (PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP) to perform

reclamation of the uranium mill tailings site in accordance with the terms and conditions of the

license. The terms and conditions of the license include reasonable and prudent measures in

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s final biological opinion, as well as mitigative measures

developed by the NRC staff. The Order was effective December 30, 1999, and was published

in the Federal Register on January 3, 2000.

On January 13, 2000, the petitioners filed a reply with the ASLB in support of their motion

originally filed on November 16, 1999, for a preliminary ruling on jurisdiction. On February 17,

2000, the ASLB granted the petitioners’ request for hearing. The PRB, in consultation with the

Office of the General Counsel (OGC), deferred action on this 2.206 petition pending resolution

of the litigation before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and of the petition before the ASLB.

 

Current Status:

There is no change in status for this petition for the month. See the background section for

current status. 

* Schedule for completion will be set following resolution of the litigation issues. 
4

Facility: Indian Point Unit 2 

Petitioner: D. Lochbaum

Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)

Date of Petition: 9/15/99

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 9/15/99

EDO Number: G19990465

OGC Number: -

Scheduled Completion Date: 4/13/2000(Completed)

Last Contact with Petitioners: 4/7/2000

Petition Manager: J. Harold

Case Attorney: J. Goldberg

Issues/Action Requested:

The petitioner requests that the NRC modify or suspend Indian Point Unit 2's (IP2's) operating

license to prevent restart until the five identified issues are resolved. In lieu of license

modification or suspension, the petitioner requests issuance of a Confirmatory Action Letter or

Order requiring the petitioner’s identified issues be addressed prior to restart. Additionally, the

petitioner requests a public hearing on the petition be conducted in the vicinity of the plant prior

to restart. The petition identified five issues, which are as follows: (1) Apparent Violation of

Station Battery Design and Licensing Basis; (2) Apparent Failure to Adequately Correct Circuit

Breaker Problems; (3) Apparent Unreliability of Emergency Diesel Generators; (4) Potential

Unjustified License Amendment for Under-Voltage and Degraded Voltage Relay Surveillance

Intervals; and (5) Apparent Errors and Non-Conservatism in Individual Plant Examination. A

telephone conference was held on September 22, 1999, between the petitioner and the Petition

Review Board (PRB), offering the petitioner an opportunity to articulate, in more detail, the basis

for the petition and to allow the staff to ask the petitioner clarifying questions. There were two

additional issues provided during the telephone conference call. They are: (1) IP2's ability to

cope with a station blackout scenario with current procedures; and (2) the incorporation of

licensing commitments into plant procedures. 

Background:

In a public meeting held in Region I on September 14, 1999, to discuss a plant trip at IP2 from

full power on August 31, 1999, ConEd described the complications of the events that led to the

trip and provided a copy of their recovery plan. This plan detailed actions that ConEd viewed as

necessary to complete prior to plant restart. On September 15, 1999, the staff received a 

10 CFR 2.206 petition from UCS on IP2. A PRB meeting on the petition was held on

September 22, 1999. An acknowledgment letter and Federal Register notice on the petition

were issued on October 8, 1999. The PRB accepted the petition as a valid one pursuant to

10 CFR 2.206. The PRB determined that the petitioner’s issues had been identified by the

licensee in their September 14,1999, meeting and plant restart was contingent upon

implementation of the recovery plan, which would resolve the petitioner’s issues. The PRB

concurred that several issues in the petition as well as others not addressed need to be

resolved prior to restart, thereby partially granting the petition. The PRB also made a decision

to request a licensee response to the issues raised in the petition to aid the staff in preparing

the acknowledgment letter to the petitioner. The licensee’s response dated September 24,

1999, provided information, on the docket, which the staff had already acquired through its

ongoing inspection effort. An additional request for additional information was issued on

October 1, 1999, and the licensee responded by letter dated October 6, 1999. The staff used
5

this information in part to prepare the acknowledgment letter, which was issued on October 8,

1999. The staff determined that the immediate enforcement actions the petitioner requested

were not appropriate because the short-term actions in the licensee’s recovery plan adequately

addressed some of the petitioner’s issues and all of the restart issues. However, had the

licensee not adequately addressed these issues, the staff would have considered enforcement

actions. The unit was restarted on October 13, 1999.

The petitioner, in a letter dated October 12, 1999, expressed dissatisfaction that the

acknowledgment letter failed to address his safety concerns on the station battery design and

licensing basis and the adequate correction of breaker problems. The staff responded to those

concerns by letter dated October 25, 1999. The staff determined that the issues raised in the

petitioner’s October 12, 1999, letter did not change the conclusion of the October 8,1999,

acknowledgment letter. However, the staff plans to factor the supplemental information into the

final decision on the petition. 

Current Status: 

The Director’s Decision (DD-00-02) on the petition was issued on April 13, 2000, and the

petition was closed. The DD acknowledged that several of the issues raised in the petition

needed to be resolved before unit restart, and that in response to the August 31, 1999, event,

the staff performed special inspection and evaluation efforts. These efforts included

dispatching an Augmented Inspection Team (AIT), supplementing the resident inspector staff

with regional specialist inspectors prior to and during restart, and an AIT follow-up inspection

team which was also present prior to and after unit restart. The scope of the inspection and

evaluation effort included event cause determination and corrective actions, review of Con Ed’s

recovery plan, control of the station load tap changer, and Con Ed’s initial extent of condition

review. The staff found that Con Ed’s corrective actions and recovery plan were adequate for

ensuring the underlying root causes were identified and resolved prior to restart. Therefore, the

DD concluded that, although the issues raised by the petitioner had merit, a confirmatory action

letter and/or Order preventing restart was not necessary to ensure the licensee adhered to the

requirements of their license, and the licensee had taken prudent actions to address the key

concerns contained in the petition.
6

Facility: Salem Nuclear Units 1 & 2

Petitioner: Norm Cohen

UNPLUG Salem Campaign

Date of Petition: 2/22/2000

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 3/1/2000

EDO Number: G20000111

OGC Number: -

Scheduled Completion Date: TBD

Last Contact with Petitioners: 4/7/2000

Petition Manager: R. Fretz

Case Attorney: J. Goldberg

Issues/Action Requested:

The petitioner requests that the NRC order the Salem Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, to be

immediately shut down so that their steam generators (SGs) can be completely checked out by

both NRC inspectors and by independent scientists so as to assure the people of South Jersey

and Delaware that these two plants are indeed safe to operate. The petitioner later expanded

this concern during the presentation to the Petition Review Board (PRB) (see below) that

certain members of the public are concerned that either one of the Salem units could

experience an SG tube rupture, and that the “public lacks the confidence in the NRC” to ensure

the safe operation of the Salem Generating Station given the event at Indian Point, Unit 2.

Background:

The PRB met on this petition on March 14, 2000, and March 21, 2000. The petitioner was

provided with an opportunity to address the PRB in an open session during the March 14, 2000

meeting, and did so with the licensee present.

Current Status:

The NRC staff is not aware of any recently identified violations at Salem Units 1 & 2 associated

with the SG inspections that are covered under the inservice inspection program. NRC

inspection reports (No. 05000272 & 311/1999004) found the SGs’ condition satisfactory. Mr.

Cohen’s request does not present any plant-specific information, nor anything substantial or

new over previous agency considerations on SG issues. As such, the petitioner’s request does

not meet the screening criteria threshold per Management Directive 8.11 (pages 8 and 9) for

accepting the petition under 10 CFR 2.206. Therefore, the PRB recommended that the Petition

Manager prepare a reply letter explaining that the request will not be treated as a 2.206 petition,

and the staff address the issues raised by the petitioners under the controlled correspondence

process. The one-step acknowledgement/closeout letter was issued on April 17, 2000, and the

petition was closed. The letter provided the technical basis for the acceptability of Salem’s

SGs. Any generic concerns identified during the review of the IP2 tube failure will be

considered for application to other pressurized water reactors, including Salem.
7

Facility: Indian Point Unit 3

Petitioner: D. Lochbaum, UCS

Date of Petition: 2/10/2000

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 2/10/2000

EDO Number: G20000062

OGC Number: -

Scheduled Completion Date: 7/24/2000

Last Contact with Petitioners: 3/24/2000

Petition Manager: G. Wunder

Case Attorney: J. Goldberg

Issues/Action Requested:

The petitioner requests that the NRC order the licensee to conduct assessments of the Indian

Point 3 (IP3) corrective action program and work environment and to take appropriate action in

response to these assessments. The petitioner further requested that these orders be closed

before the NRC allows the transfer of the IP3 license. As the basis for the requested action,

the petitioner cited allegations by Ms. Rebecca Green, formerly a member of the licensee’s

Operations Review Group, that her work environment was not safety-conscious. The petitioner

also cited various inspection reports, which identified shortcomings in the licensee’s corrective

action programs, as well as a letter informing the licensee of a potential violation of 10 CFR

50.7 involving discrimination against an employee. 

Background:

A Petition Review Board (PRB) meeting was held on February 16, 2000. The petitioner was

provided with an opportunity to address the PRB in an open session to articulate the petition,

and did so with the licensee present.

The PRB concluded that the petition meets the threshold for processing under 10 CFR 2.206

and the PRB concluded that the details provided in the petitioner’s request are found sufficient

to warrant further inquiry. An acknowledgment letter and Federal Register notice on the petition

were issued on March 24, 2000.

Current Status:

There is no change in status of the petition for this month.
8

Facility: Indian Point Unit 2

Petitioner: David A. Lochbaum, Union of Concerned

Scientists (UCS), on behalf of Nuclear

Information & Resource Service, PACE Law

School Energy Project, and Public Citizen’s

Critical Mass Energy Project

Date of Petition: 3/14/2000

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 3/14/2000

EDO Number: G20000133

OGC Number: -

Scheduled Completion Date: 8/5/2000 (Technical issues will be resolved

prior to plant restart)

Last Contact with Petitioners: 4/7/2000

Petition Manager: L. Wiens

Case Attorney: J. Goldberg

Issues/Action Requested:

Petitioners request that the NRC issue an Order to ConEd Company of New York preventing

the restart of Indian Point Unit 2 (IP2) until the following conditions are satisfied: (1) all four

steam generators (SGs) are replaced; (2) the SG tube integrity concerns identified in Dr. Joram

Hopenfeld’s Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) and in generic safety issue GSI-163, “Multiple

Steam Generator Tube Leakage,” are resolved; and (3)Potassium Iodide (KI) tablets are

distributed to residents and businesses within the 10-mile emergency planning zone or

stockpiled in the vicinity of the IP2 facility. The petitioners also requested that a public meeting

be held in the vicinity of the IP2 facility as soon as possible.

Background:

Petition Review Board (PRB) meetings were held on March 16, 2000, March 21, 2000, April 17,

2000, and April 27, 2000. The petitioners were provided with an opportunity to address the

PRB in an open session during the initial March 16, 2000 meeting, and did so with the licensee

present.

Current Status:

The PRB concluded that the petition meets the threshold for processing under 10 CFR 2.206

and also concluded that the details provided in the petitioners’ request were found sufficient to

warrant further inquiry. The petitioners’ request for a public meeting was granted and

conducted on April 7, 2000. An acknowledgment letter and Federal Register notice on the

petition were issued on April 5, 2000. Dr. Hopenfeld issued a memo to Dr. Travers on April 5,

2000, which he characterized as a “supplement to my DPO regarding Multiple Steam Generator

Leakage.” Also, by letter dated April 12, 2000, Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy Project

supplemented the petition with regard to the KI issue, and by letter dated April 14, 2000, the

UCS supplemented the petition with regard to the DPO. An acknowledgment letter and Federal

Register notice on the supplements to the petition as above will be issued mid May 2000.
9

Facility: Envirocare of Utah & Snake River Alliance

Petitioner: L. Bickwit, Jr. and P. Alister

Date of Petition: 3/13/2000

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NMSS

Date Referred to Review Organization: 3/16/2000

EDO Number: G2000138, G2000136

OGC Number: -

Scheduled Completion Date: 8/25/2000

Last Contact with Petitioners: 4/12/2000

Petition Manager: J. Lusher

Case Attorney: J. Goldberg

Issues/Action Requested:

Snake River Alliance is requesting that the NRC: (1) take jurisdiction of 11e.(2) material; (2)

take action to ensure the workers and the public are fully protected from radiation exposure; and

(3) enforce the AEA and NRC’s regulation governing disposal of mill tailings byproduct material

as defined in section 11e.(2) of Uranium Mill Tailing Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). 

Envirocare of Utah contends that the Commission’s current interpretation of UMTRCA is

erroneous and that it should be revised as soon as possible. It also requests that the NRC

recognize its authority over all section 11.e.(2) material, and should take appropriate

enforcement action to ensure that all such material is disposed of at section 11e.(2)-licensed

facilities.

Background:

The Executive Director for Operations has agreed in principle that the petitions from Snake River

Alliance and Envirocare of Utah can be consolidated and handled as one petition because the

requested actions are similar per Management Directive (MD) 8.11, Page 9. This was finalized

in the Petition Review Board (PRB) meeting held on April 11, 2000. The petitioners, in

accordance with MD 8.11, were provided with an opportunity to address the PRB in an open

session to articulate the petition, with the owners of the facility present.

Current Status:

A PRB meeting on the petitions was held on April 11, 2000. The PM advised the petitioners by

phone on April 12, 2000, that the petitions have been consolidated and accepted as a single

petition for review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process. The acknowledgment letters and the

Federal Register Notice on the petitions were issued on April 25, 2000.
10

Attachment 2

AGE AND RESOURCE EXPENDITURES FOR AGENCY 2.206 OPEN PETITIONS

As of April 30, 2000

OFFICEACTION ASSIGNED

NUMBERPETITION

NUMBEROGC FACILITY AGE

(months)* Completion

Scheduled

Date

Resources

Action Office

Expended by

(HOURS)1

Resources

Expended by

OGC

(HOURS)1

Comments if not meeting the

Agency’s 

120-day Completion Goal

NMSS G19990011 P-99-02 ATLAS CORPORATION 14** TBD2 5 65

Appeals for the 9with the U.S. Court ofEarthjustice filed a petition

th Circuit

before the ASLBof Appeals and the petitionbefore the 9th Circuit Courtresolution of the litigation

Staff action deferred pending

denial of the 2.206 petition. regarding the staff’s de facto

NMSS G2000138,136NRR G20000062 - INDIAN POINT UNIT 3 1 7/24/2000 35.0 1.0

ALLIANCEUTAH/SNAKE RIVERENVIROCARE OF 1 8/25/2000 75 24.5

NRR G20000133 - INDIAN POINT UNIT 2 1 8/5/2000 337 18

1 Staff professional time only; does not include management or administrative time.2 Projected completion date (Please see Attachment 1 for explanation).

** The Clock on this petition stopped as of May 27, 1999*Age calculated from the date of the acknowledgment letter.
1

Attachment 3

Report on Status of Public Petitions

Under 10 CFR 2.206 for DDs Issued and/or Closed During the Last 12 Months

Petition Number Assigned Facility Petition DD Age Comments

Action Date Date at Closure1,2

Office

GT96919 NRR Millstone 1, 2 & 3 11/25/96, as G19990268 NRR Nine Mile Point 1 5/24/99 11/28/99 5 DeniedG19990224 NRR Nine Mile Point 1 & 2 4/5/99 10/28/99 4 DeniedG19990201 NRR Millstone 3/31/99 9/28/99 4 DeniedG19980767 NMSS Enviro Care of Utah 12/30/98 7/12/99 5 GrantedGT97181 NRR Connecticut Yankee 3/11/97 9/9/99 29 Partly GrantedG19990173 OE Seabrook 3/31/99 8/3/99 3 Denied603 NRR Millstone 8/21/95 7/27/99 45 Partly GrantedG980592 NRR River Bend 9/25/98 4/18/99 5 DeniedG19980678 NRR Perry 11/9/98 4/18/99 4 Denied

amended 12/23/96 2/16/2000 37 Partly Granted

G19990465 NRR Indian Point Unit 2 9/15/99 4/13/2000 6 Denied

2) Goals: Acknowledgment letter issued within 5 weeks from date of receipt; DD issued within 4 months of acknowledgment lette1) Age calculated from the date of the acknowledgment letter.

r.