June 14, 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: MAY 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 May 31, 2001.

Since the last report, two new petitions were received: one pertaining to all licensees using

security services provided by Wackenhut Corporation, from D. Lochbaum, UCS (G20010159),

and one on San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, by P. Borchmann (G20010158). Currently,

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

the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS).

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

the age and staff hours expended on open 2.206 petitions as of May 31, 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
1

Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206

May 31, 2001

(Table of Contents)

Attachment 1

Page

Facility Petitioner/EDO No. 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
2

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: 7/9/2001

Last Contact with Petitioners: 6/5/2001

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 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. 
3

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: 

The PRB re-convened on April 24, 2001, and the Petition Manager (PM) updated the members

on the review of the condition reports (CRs) turned over to the staff by the petitioners during the

January 24, 2001, public meeting. The PRB was informed that the licensee had not responded

to the petition, but would be asked to voluntarily do so by the NRC. On May 3, 2001, the staff

issued a formal letter to the licensee requesting their response to the issues identified in the

petition. The licensee responded on May 17, 2001. The review of the petition remains on track

with a proposed Director's Decision scheduled to be issued by July 9, 2001.
4

|

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 
5

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."

Current Status: 

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. |
6

|

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: TBD

Last Contact with Petitioners: 5/9/2001

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 1

Decommissioning”; 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. Due to the requirement to conduct an additional pre-PRB

meeting to accommodate the supplemental information from the petitioner, an extension until

July 13, 2001, has been obtained to respond to the petitioner.

Current Status:

A closed PRB meeting will be conducted during the second week of June 2001 to consider

whether the petition meets the criteria for processing under the 10 CFR 2.206 process.
1

Attachment 2

AGE AND RESOURCE EXPENDITURES FOR AGENCY 2.206 OPEN PETITIONS

As of May 31, 2001

ASSIGNE

D

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 3 7/9/2001 663 62 |

|

NRR G20010159 All Licensees

Using Wackenhut Security

Services

- 9/29/2001 89.5 6 |

NMSS G20010158 San Onofre Nuclear

GeneratingStation

- 07/31/2001 43 4 |

1

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

*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 During the Last 12 Months

Petition Number Assigned Facility Petition DD Age Comments

Action Date Date at Closure1,2

Office (Months)

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 Deni

ed 

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 Petit

ion

Moo

t

and

Clos

ed

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 .