August 30, 2000

MEMORANDUM TO: William D. Travers

Executive Director for Operations

THRU: Samuel J. Collins, Director /RA by Roy P. Zimmerman 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: JULY 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 August 16, 2000. 

Since the last report, Director's Decision (DD-00-03) on Indian Point Unit 3 (G20000062) was

issued and the petition was closed. Also, the petition on Nine Mile Point Units 1 & 2

(G2000245) was closed because it did not meet the threshold screening criteria for treating this

under the 10 CFR 2.206 process. 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 table of contents and detailed status of petitions for NRR, NMSS,

and OE. Attachment 2 shows the age and staff hours expended on open 2.206 petitions as of 

July 31, 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 Roy P. Zimmerman 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: JULY 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 August 16, 2000. 

Since the last report, Director's Decision (DD-00-03) on Indian Point Unit 3 (G20000062) was

issued and the petition was closed. Also, the petition on Nine Mile Point Units 1 & 2

(G2000245) was closed because it did not meet the threshold screening criteria for treating this

under the 10 CFR 2.206 process. 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 table of contents and detailed status of petitions for NRR, NMSS,

and OE. Attachment 2 shows the age and staff hours expended on open 2.206 petitions as of 

July 31, 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

A:\22700 DISTRIBUTION: See next page *See previous concurrence.

Accession Number ML003745716

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

NAME RSubbaratnam Dunnington Rcorreia/HB HBerkow

for 

PGoldberg* JZwolinski/SBlack BSheron SCollins

8/16/2000 8/16/2000 8/24/2000 8/24/2000 8/2/2000 8/17/2000 8/28/2000 8/29/2000

* See Previous Concurrence OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Distribution:

M. Satorius, OEDO

F. Miraglia, DEDR/OEDO

C. Paperillo, DEDMRS/EDO

P. Norry, DEDM/OEDO

J. Craig, 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

J. Shea, OEDO

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

July 31, 2000

(Table of Contents)

Attachment 1

Page

Facility Petitioner/EDO No. No.

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

Indian Point Unit 3 D. Lochbaum/UCS/G20000062............................4

Indian Point Unit 2 D. Lochbaum/UCS/G20000133............................5

Envirosafe of Idaho L. Bickwit, Jr./G20000138,

G20000136..........................................................7

Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 & 2 D. Lochbaum/UCS/G20000232.......................... 8

Nine Mile Point Units 1 & 2 R. Norway, G20000245.......................................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: 7/21/2000

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 (FWS), 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, the petitioners notified NRC of their

intent to sue under the ESA. On December 16, 1998, the 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 FWS under the

ESA. 

* Schedule for completion will be set following resolution of the litigation issues. 
3

 

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 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 ESA. 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. FWS 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:

On June 22, 2000, the petitioners wrote to NRC requesting it to reinitiate consultation with FWS

on two additional issues. On July 21, 2000, NRC wrote to the petitioners that it will consider the

June 22, 2000, letter as a second supplement to the original petition, which is being held in

abeyance, pending the hearing before the ASLB. 
4

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: 7/26/2000 (Completed)

Last Contact with Petitioners: 7/28/2000

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 requests 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.

During the weeks of May 22, 2000, and June 5, 2000, the NRC conducted an inspection at IP3. 

The scope of the inspection included the areas of concern raised in the petition. This was a

routine, scheduled baseline inspection of the Security Program at the IP3 site. The findings

were used in developing a Director’s Decision (DD). The staff worked with Region I and ensured

that the Inspection Report was issued prior to the DD.

Current Status:

The Director's Decision (DD-00-03) on this petition was issued on July 26, 2000, and the petition

was closed. The DD concluded that the issues the petitioner raised had merit; however, the

issues have already been addressed by the staff, and the licensee has been generally effective

in identifying and correcting defects in their corrective action program, and having employees

feel comfortable in raising safety concerns. Because the petitioner's concerns have effectively

been addressed, enforcement action to order the licensee to conduct the requested audits was

not necessary to provide reasonable assurance in the effectiveness of the licensee's corrective

action program and safety-conscious work environment. With the exception of issuing an Order,

the actions requested by the petitioner have essentially been implemented. If the Commission

does not act within 25 days of the date of issuance of the DD, it will become a final agency

action. The petitioner was notified by telephone on July 28, 2000, of the issuance of the DD.
5

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: 10/5/2000 (Technical issues will be resolved

prior to plant restart)

Last Contact with Petitioners: 7/20/2000

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; (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; (4) concerns as to the adequacy of emergency preparedness at the IP2 site are

addressed; and (5) the requirement to conduct biennial emergency plan exercises is satisfied. 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, March 21, April 17, April 27, 

June 22, and July 20, 2000. The petitioners were provided with an opportunity to address the PRB

in open sessions during the March 16, June 22, and July 20, 2000 meetings, and did so with the

licensee present.

The PRB initially concluded that only the first issue (Steam Generator replacement) met the

threshold for processing under 10 CFR 2.206. An acknowledgment letter and Federal Register

notice on the petition were issued on April 5, 2000. The petitioners’ request for a public meeting

was granted and conducted on April 7, 2000. During that meeting the petitioners provided

additional supporting information for the other issues contained in their petition. Further, 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. A supplemental acknowledgment letter dated June 26, 2000, was issued,

which accepted the KI issue as meeting the 2.206 criteria; however, the DPO issue was determined

to still not meet the criteria.

Current Status:

Two supplements have been received since the last status report. The June 29 supplement

provided comments on the IP2 steam generator operational assessment and stated that the

regulations require each licensee at a site to conduct a biennial full-participation emergency

exercise. The July 13 supplement requested the PRB include the resolution of the Dr.Hopenfeld

DPO in the 2.206 process. Of the five issues listed above, the requests for resolution of Dr.

Hopenfeld’s DPO (second request) and the request that a new emergency exercise be conducted

due to alleged inadequate emergency preparedness at IP2 (fourth request) were determined not
6

to meet the criteria for review under 2.206. Additionally, on August 8, 2000, ConEd announced

that it will replace the IP2 SGs during the current outage.
7

Facility: Envirosafe of Idaho

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: G20000138, G20000136

OGC Number: -

Scheduled Completion Date: 9/25/2000

Last Contact with Petitioners: 7/28/2000

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 Atomic Energy Act of 1954 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.

A PRB meeting on the petitions was held on April 11, 2000. The Petition Manager 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.

Current Status:

The Petition Manager received two documents this month: one from the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (USACE) dated June 29, 2000; and one from the National Mining Association dated

July 18, 2000. These documents were forwarded to the petitioners and others involved in the

petition with follow-up telephone calls to the petitioners on July 12, and July 28, 2000, to ensure

that they received copies of the information. Mr. Leonard Bickwit, Jr., representing Envirocare of

Utah, indicated that a response to USACE would be provided sometime during the week of 

August 28, 2000. The Office of the General Counsel and staff continued their review of the

additional information, and work on the Director’s Decision is in progress. 
8

Facility: Hatch Nuclear Units 1 & 2

Petitioner: David A. Lochbaum, Union of Concerned

Scientists (UCS)

Date of Petition: 5/3/2000

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 5/4/2000

EDO Number: G2000232

OGC Number: -

Scheduled Completion Date: 10/20/2000

Last Contact with Petitioners: 6/20/2000

Petition Manager: L. Olshan

Case Attorney: J. Goldberg

Issues/Action Requested:

The petitioner requested that the NRC issue a demand for information to the owner of Hatch

regarding the liquid and gaseous radwaste systems.

Background:

A PRB meeting on the petition was held on May 15, 2000. The petitioner was provided with an

opportunity to address the PRB in an open session, 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 petitioner’s request were found sufficient to

warrant further inquiry. The acknowledgment letter and the Federal Register Notice on the

petition were issued on June 20, 2000. A request for additional information was sent to the

licensee on June 27, 2000, and the response was received on July 26, 2000.
1

Facility: Nine Mile Point Units 1 & 2

Petitioner: Robert T. Norway

Date of Petition: 5/10/2000

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: OE

Date Referred to Review Organization: 5/18/2000

EDO Number: G2000245

OGC Number: -

Scheduled Completion Date: 8/15/2000 (Completed)

Last Contact with Petitioners: 6/21/2000

Petition Manager: J. Luehman

Case Attorney: J. Goldberg

Issues/Action Requested:

The petitioner requested that individual enforcement action be taken against Nine Mile Point

managers for willfully presenting falsified documents to the NRC during the May 10, 1996,

Enforcement Conference for discrimination. He also requested: (1) immediate suspension of

the Nine Mile Point 1 & 2 operating licenses unless Niagara Mohawk removes certain managers

from duty; (2) that the NRC obtain the original copy of an Employee Feedback Form used by the

1994 Review Board that terminated his employment; (3) that the NRC remove the same

Employee Feedback Form from the public record and inform all who have ever seen it of its

fraudulent nature; and (4) placement of his May 10, 2000, petition in the public record.

Background:

Mr. Norway was fired from Nine Mile Point in 1994. The Department of Labor and the NRC both

agreed that his termination was discriminatory and, in 1996, a Severity Level II violation was

issued against Niagara Mohawk with a civil penalty. On April 5, 1999, Mr. Norway submitted a

petition demanding individual enforcement action against Nine Mile Point managers, which was

denied due to insufficient evidence (Director’s Decision 99-13). His 1999 petition also raised a

technical concern over the Nine Mile Point residual heat removal cooling system. This concern

was addressed in a letter dated October 6, 1999, from the NRC staff to the petitioner.

The Petition Review Board (PRB) met on May 18, 2000. Supplementary PRB meetings were

conducted on May 25, June 13, and July 20, 2000. The petitioner was provided with an

opportunity to address the PRB in an open session during the March 25, 2000 meeting, and did

so with the licensee present. 

Current Status:

The PRB had earlier concluded, after the June 13, 2000 meeting, that there was potentially one

new issue that was raised by the petitioner that was not included in his previous petition dated 

April 5, 1999, on the same subject -- an Employee Feedback Form that the petitioner claimed was

fraudulent (Request 2). Even though other issues raised by the petitioner in the current petition

dated May 10, 2000, were addressed in the earlier Director’s Decision 99-13, the PRB previously

concluded that this new discovery requires further review by the staff. By its letter dated 

June 21, 2000, OE wrote to the petitioner and the licensee requesting more information on this one

issue, i.e., whether the petitioner or the licensee can provide the PRB with a custodial copy of the

Employee Feedback Form. Since neither one of them was able to provide the form (responses

dated July 3, 2000, and June 30, 2000, respectively), the PRB, in its July 20, 2000 meeting,

concluded that there is no merit in pursuing this issue and recommended that the petition be closed

because it does not meet the threshold screening criteria for review under the 10 CFR 2.206

process (Management Directive 8.11, Part II, pages 8 and 9, second bullet). A letter was prepared

and sent to the petitioner on August 10, 2000, explaining why the request does not meet the criteria

for review under 10 CFR 2.206, and the petition was closed.
2

Attachment 2

AGE AND RESOURCE EXPENDITURES FOR AGENCY 2.206 OPEN PETITIONS

As of July 31, 2000

OFFICEACTION ASSIGNED PETITION NUMBER

NUMBEROGC FACILITY AGE

(months)*

Scheduled

Completion Date

Resources

Office (HOURS

Expended by Action

)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 3** TBD2 8 65 Earthjustice filed a petition with

the 9the U.S. Court of Appeals for

th Circuit regarding the

petition before the ASLBCircuit Court of Appeals and thethe litigation before the 9thdeferred pending resolution of2.206 petition. Staff actionstaff’s de facto denial of the

NMSS G20000138,136 ENVIROSAFE OF IDAHO 3 9/25/2000 135.2 24.5NRR G20000133,

Supplements

 - INDIAN POINT UNIT 2 3 10/5/2000 674.5 23

NRR G20000232 - HATCH UNITS 1 & 2 1 10/20/2000 98 5.5

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

Table 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 DeniedGT97181 NRR Connecticut Yankee 3/11/97 9/9/99 29 Partly GrantedG19990173 OE Seabrook 3/31/99 8/3/99 3 Denied

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

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.G20000062 NRR Indian Point Unit 3 2/10/2000 7/26/2000 4 Partly GrantedG19990465 NRR Indian Point Unit 2 9/15/99 4/13/2000 6 Denied

r.