Report on the Status of Public Petitions under 10

CFR 2.206: June 1998

MEMORANDUM TO: L. Joseph Callan

Executive Director for Operations

FROM: Bruce A. Boger

Acting Associate Director for Projects

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT: JUNE 1998 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS UNDER

10 CFR 2.206

The attached monthly report reflects the status of 10 CFR 2.206 petitions as of June 30, 1998. The petition on

Millstone (GT980070) for which the DD-98-04 became a final agency action on 6/25/98 is closed. Also the

petition on Babcock & Wilcox (G980224) had been closed per NMSS-PRB meeting decision taken on April 22,

1998 since the petiton did not qualify to be treated as a petition under 10 CFR 2.206.

Attachments 1, 2, and 3 give the status of petitions for the Offices of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

and Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Attachment 1 includes only petitions with status change from the previous

update, Attachment 2 includes petitions with no status change from the previous update, and Attachment 3 lists

other sensitive matters, which are for internal distribution only. Please note that Attachment 1 also includes first

time additions to the list of petitions.

By issuing the monthly report on the status of pending 10 CFR 2.206 petitions, the staff is documenting its

responsiveness to petitioners. Those parts of the monthly report not of a sensitive nature will be placed in the

Public Document Room and are intended to be a link on the NRC external home page, making them readily

accessible to the public. However, this feature is currently not in operation.

Attachments:

1. List of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206 with Status Change from previous month.

2. Report on Status of Public Petitions with No Status Change from previous month.

Attachment 1:

Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206 with Status

Change from Previous Update

June 30, 1998 
Facility Petitioner/EDO No.

Vermont Yankee* Citizens Awareness Network/G980358

Envirocare of Utah, Inc. Cochran, Natural Resources Defense Council/GT970863 

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Borchmann/GT97494

St. Lucie/Turkey Point Saporito, National Litigation Consultants/multiple GTs

Vermont Yankee Daly/G980233

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Dwyer/GT97339

Philadelphia VA Medical Center Lovell, Ann/G980069

Haddam Neck Block, CAN/G980168

D.C. Cook, Units 1 and 2 Lochbaum/GT97724

Key:

* Denotes addition to the petition list from previous update

Facility: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

Petitioner: Citizens Awareness Network

Date of Petition: 5/27/98

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 6/2/98

EDO Number: G980358

OGC Number:

Scheduled Completion Date: 7/10/98 (Immediate response)

Last Contact with Petitioner: 6/10/98

Petition Manager: R. Croteau

Issues/Action Requested:

Immediate enforcement action by suspending the operating license until the entire facility has been subjected to

an independent safety analysis review similar to the one conducted at Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station. As

an alternative, prior to restart: 1) Require VY management to certify under oath that all back-up safety systems

and all security systems are fully operable, and all safety systems and security systems meet and comply with

NRC requirements. 2) VY be held to compliance with all of the restart criteria and protocols in the NRC

Manual. 3) VY only be allowed to resume operations after the NRC has conducted a "vertical slice"

examination of the degree to which the new design basis documents (DBDs) and FSAR accurately describe at

least two of the primary safety systems for the VY reactor. 4) Once operation resumes, VY only be allowed to

continue operation for so long as it adheres to its schedule for coming into compliance and completing the DBD

and FSAR project. 5) NRC hold a public hearing prior to restart to discuss the changes to the torus, VY DBD

and FSAR projects, and VY scheduled completion of these projects in relation to operational safety.

Background:

The request was based on 50.72 reports and other information already available to the NRC. No new issues were

presented. The plant restarted from the outage prior to receiving this request in NRR.
Current Status:

Immediate response is in concurrence denying the request for immediate action. The licensee will be requested

to address the issues raised by the petitioner. Following the licensee's response, a director's decision will be

prepared.

Facility: Envirocare of Utah, Inc.

Petitioner: T. Cochran, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

Date of Petition: 12/12/97

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NMSS

Date Referred to Review Organization: 12/18/97

EDO Number: GT970863; GT980293

OGC Number: P-97-014

Scheduled Completion Date: 8/31/98

Last Contact with Petitioner: 5/20/98

Petition Manager: H. Lefevre

Case Attorney: H. McGurren

Issues/Action Requested:

Immediate NRC investigation and suspension of Envirocare's license.

Background:

The Petitioner was contacted by telephone on 12/18/97 and informed of NRC's receipt of the petition. NRC's

letter of 12/31/97 to Mr. Charles Judd of Envirocare requires that the licensee do the following: (1) respond to

each of the issues raised in the petition, (2) advise the NRC whether it intends to enforce its Employment

Agreement against current and former employees who have engaged, or do engage, in protective activities

cognizable under Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act (Section 211) and other employee protection

statutes, and (3) respond to inconsistencies in its employee protection policies as identified in NRC's 12/08/97

letter.

NRDC's 1/21/98 response to NRC's 1/16/98 letter provided the names of 11 individuals who may have

knowledge of current and former employees who feel threatened by Envirocare. The staff issued, on 5/13/98,

letters to three law firms and the State of Utah confirming that the identified individuals had responded with the

requested information or otherwise. The Petitioner submitted another petition on 5/06/98. The Petition Review

Board (PRB) in its 5/19/98 board meeting determined that it provided no new information. The board decided

that the 5/06/98 petition (EDO Control: G980293) would be grouped with the existing petition of 12/12/97. The

Petitioner was informed by voice mail on 5/20/98 of NRC's receipt of the 5/06/98 petition and an

acknowledgment letter was issued on 6/9/98.

Current Status:

Evaluation of information gathered in anticipation of preparation of Director's Decision by the end of August

1998.
Facility: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

Petitioner: P. Borchmann

Date of Petition: 6/23/97, 6/28/97, and 7/11/97, as supplemented 10/21/97

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 7/3/97

EDO Number: GT97494

OGC Number: P-97-011

Scheduled Completion Date: 6/5/98

Last Contact with Petitioner: 4/20/98

Petition Manager: B. Westreich

Case Attorney: H. McGurren

Issues/Action Requested:

Demands that the NRC extend the current San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Unit 3 refueling

outage until all outstanding public safety concerns are fully resolved including: (1) serious flaws in the SONGS

emergency evacuation plans for both San Diego and Orange County; (2) undersized pressurizer; (3) SONGS

mismanagement in loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) dose calculations; (4) Unit 1 spent fuel pool is not designed

for permanent storage; (5) high density racks in Units 2 and 3 spent fuel pools increase the probability of

accidental criticality as degradation of materials occurs and break up of pool during a seismic event; (6) the

condition of the spent fuel pool waterproof membrane is unknown; (7) NRC has failed to establish requirements

and procedures for licensee monitoring any leaks in the spent fuel pool; (8) local population will not respond to

an emergency at SONGS because of conditioned response to military training at Camp Pendleton or because of

lack of attention due to listening to tapes or compact disks; (9) reliance on civilian personnel to respond to an

emergency; (10) no safe disposal plan exists for the spent fuel from SONGS; (11) SONGS and Southern

California Edison are more interested in profit than safety; and (12) questions regarding SONGS increase in

liability insurance.

Background:

The petitioner was contacted by telephone on 2/19/98 to discuss the status of the petition. An acknowledgment

letter to the original three letters which denied the petitioner's request for immediate action was issued on

9/22/97. The petitioner sent a response dated 10/21/97 to the 9/22/97 acknowledgment letter. An

acknowledgment letter to the 10/21/97 petitioner's letter was issued on 2/17/98.

Current Status:

The Director's Decision (DD-98-05) was issued on June 5, 1998 as scheduled. This decision will become an

final agency action on July 1, 1998.
Facility: St. Lucie 1 & 2, Turkey Point 3 & 4

Petitioners: T. Saporito, Jr. National Litigation Consultants

Date of Petitions: 2/26, 2/27, 3/6, and supplemented 3/15, 3/17, 3/29, 3/30, and 4/4/98

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 3/2/98

EDO Numbers: G980124/125, G980138, G980203/204/232

OGC Number: P-98-003

Scheduled Completion Date: 10/28/98

Last Contact with Petitioners: 6/5/98

Petition Manager: W. Gleaves

Case Attorney: S. Chidakel

Issues/Action Requested:

Petitioner requests the NRC (1) take escalated enforcement action, including modifying, suspending, or

revoking FPL's operating licenses until it demonstrates that there is a work environment which encourages

employees to raise safety concerns directly to the NRC, and issuing civil penalties for violations of the NRC's

requirements; (2) permit you to intervene in a public hearing regarding whether FPL has violated the NRC's

employee protection regulations and require FPL to allow NLC to assist its employees in understanding and

exercising their rights under these regulations; (3) conduct investigations and require FPL to obtain appraisals

and third-party oversight in order to determine whether its work environment encourages employees to freely

raise nuclear safety concerns; (4) inform all employees of their rights under the Energy Reorganization Act and

NRC's regulations to raise such concerns; and (5) establish a website on the Internet to allow employees to raise

concerns to the NRC.

Background:

The Petition Review Board met on March 19, 1998, to discuss the ongoing proceeding. The staff intends to

group a large number of issues into specific categories and address each category. The acknowledgment letter

and Federal Register notice were issued on May 4, 1998. OI issues will be forwarded to OI for their action. The

licensee has been requested to address the individual issues, within the limits of privacy for named individuals.

Current Status:

Responses from the Region II Office and from Florida Power & Light are expected in the second week of July.

In the interim, the Division of Reactor Projects is in the process of addressing, by separate letter, comments by

the Petitioner that did not meet the criteria for consideration under 10 CFR 2.206. These comments included a

request for NRC to provide a vehicle on the Internet by which licensee personnel could submit safety concerns,

and a request for leave to intervene in public hearings.
Facility: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

Petitioner: M. Daly, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, Inc.

Date of Petition: 4/10/98

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 4/15/98

EDO Number: G980233

OGC Number:

Scheduled Completion Date: 9/15/98

Last Contact with Petitioner: 5/13/98

Petition Manager: R. Croteau

Case Attorney: H. McGurren

Issues/Action Requested:

The Petitioner requests that the NRC issue an order requiring that the licensee's more limiting administrative

limits, which preclude Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee) from operating with a torus

water temperature above 80 0F or with service water injection water temperature greater than 50 0F, shall

remain in force until certain conditions are met. The conditions include a complete reconstitution of the

licensing basis for the maximum torus water temperature, submittal to the NRC of a TS amendment request

establishing the correct maximum torus water temperature, and completion of NRC review of the amendment

request.

Background:

The current TS specify a maximum torus temperature of 100oF, however, the licensee determined that 90oF had

been used as an input to the containment response analysis. The licensee then instituted administrative controls

to limit torus temperature to 90oF while a TS change was prepared. While performing preliminary calculations

and evaluations to verify the adequacy of the 90oF limit, the licensee determined that it was necessary to further

reduce the administrative limit to 80oF until the final analysis was completed. This issue was discussed with the

licensee in a series of meetings on March 5, March 24, and April 7, 1998. During the meetings the licensee

indicated that the adequacy of a 90oF initial torus temperature would be confirmed and a TS amendment request

would be submitted before restart from the outage (May 1998). The licensee intends to restart the plant,

administratively controlling torus temperature to 90oF, while the NRC reviews the TS change. PRB met on

4/16/98 and a letter denying the petitioner's immediate request was issued on May 13, 1998. The licensee has

submitted the TS amendment specifying a torus water temperature limit of 90oF and the staff is reviewing the

submittal.

Current Status:

Amendment is under review by the staff.
Facility: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

Petitioner: S. Dwyer

Date of Petition: 4/25/97

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 5/2/97

EDO Number: GT97339

OGC Number: P-97-009

Scheduled Completion Date: 6/12/98

Last Contact with Petitioner: 4/20/98

Petition Manager: M. Fields

Case Attorney: H. McGurren

Issues/Action Requested:

Petitioner believes that San Onofre will not be able to withstand a major seismic event due to the degradation of

steam generator internal tube supports. In addition, petitioner requests that a thorough investigation should be

done in Unit 2 to find any corrosion of the steam generator internal tube supports similar to that identified in

Unit 3. Further, petitioner requests that a general seismic evaluation upgrade should be done for the San Onofre

steam generators and a retrofitting upgrade of the steam generator supports could be done at the same time.

Background:

An acknowledgment letter was issued on 6/26/97 denying the petitioner's request to immediately shut down the

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. The staff's course of action involved reviewing the inspection results of

both units, most recently during mid cycle outages conducted in Feb-April, 1998. Inspection findings are being

finalized for issuance and will be used in the final Director's Decision. An acknowledgment letter was issued on

6/26/97 denying the petitioner's request to immediately shut down the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

Current Status:

The Director's Decision (DD-98-06) was issued on June 11, 1998, as scheduled. This decision will become an

final agency action on July 6, 1998.
Facility: Philadelphia VA Medical Center

Petitioner: Ann Lovell

Date of Petition: 01/28/98

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NMSS

Date Referred to Review Organization: 2/4/98

EDO Number: G980069

OGC Number: P-98-001

Scheduled Completion Date: 8/14/98

Last Contact with Petitioner(s): 6/24/98

Petition Manager: T. Taylor

Case Attorney: S. Chidakel

Issues/Action Requested:

Request NRC to immediately suspend or revoke the NRC Operating License issued as they are operating in a

manner in which there is potential to present a significant danger to medical center patients, staff, and the

general public.

Background:

A copy of the Petition was provided to the Office of the Inspector General on 2/12/98. An acknowledgment

letter was sent to the petitioner on 2/27/98, and a Federal Register notice announcing the receipt of the Petition

was filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication. The Petition Review Board is scheduled to

meet again on 6/8/98 to discuss the results of Region I's inspection of the licensee.

The Petition Review Board met on 2/10/98 to discuss the petition. A letter was sent to the VA Philadelphia on

February 27, 1998, informing them of receipt of the petition and requested their views on the central concerns

expressed by the petitioner. Region I received the licensee's response by letter dated 3/31/98. A letter was sent to

the Petitioner on April 23, 1998, providing the Petitioner with a copy of the PVAMC's response to the petition,

and updating the Petitioner on the status of the Petition.

Current Status:

The Petition Review Board met on 6/8/98 to discuss the results of Region I's inspection of the licensee,

performed in the first week of June. The staff is working on the Director's Decision, which is scheduled to be

completed by August 14, 1998. A letter was sent to the Petitioner on June 24, 1998, providing the Petitioner

with an update on the status of the Petition.
Facility: Haddam Neck Nuclear Power Station

Petitioner: J. Block

Date of Petition: 3/13/98

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 3/20/98

EDO Number: G980168

OGC Number: P-98-004

Scheduled Completion Date: 8/20/98

Last Contact with Petitioner: 7/1/98

Petition Manager: T. Fredrichs

Case Attorney: M. Rafky

Issues/Action Requested:

Petitioners requested immediate suspension of the licensee's operating license. Petitioners present three issues in

support of their request: 1) that contaminated materials were released offsite, 2) that on-site radiological failures

have occurred, and 3) that the licensee's planned procedure to ventilate the spent fuel building through open

doors and roof hatches, in the event that the spent fuel pool cooling system becomes inoperable and cannot be

restored, constitutes an unmonitored, unplanned release of radiation.

Background:

This is a new petition received on March 20, 1998. An acknowledgment letter was issued on 4/22/98.

Current Status:

RAI sent to licensee on 5/28/98 requesting their plans for using the roof hatch for ventilation, and requesting

dose projections if that ventilation path is used. A copy of the RAI was sent to petitioners. RAI response from

licensee received 6/29/98.

Facility: Donald C. Cook, Units 1 and 2

Petitioner: D. Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists

Date of Petition: 10/9/97

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 10/15/97

EDO Number: GT97724

OGC Number: P-97-013

Scheduled Completion Date: 8/8/98

Last Contact with Petitioner: 6/25/98

Petition Manager: John Stang

Case Attorney: R. Hoefling

Issues/Action Requested:
Petitioner requests that the operating licenses for Donald C. Cook Units 1 and 2 be modified, revoked, or

suspended until there is reasonable assurance that their systems are in conformance with design and licensing

bases requirements. The petitioner also requests that a public hearing into this matter be held in the Washington,

DC area prior to the first unit at D.C. Cook being authorized to restart so that the petitioner can present

information supporting the contentions in this petition.

Background:

The acknowledgment letter was issued on 12/9/97. The petitioner sent in a letter on 1/6/98 objecting to the use

of the MD 8.11 criteria to determine if a public hearing would be held without first asking him if he had new

information to present. The letter stated that he did have new information but did not provide it. A public

meeting (not hearing) was held on 1/12/98 to allow the petitioner to present his concerns.

The petitioner sent in an addendum to the petition on 1/12/98, which provided a written copy of the issues he

presented at the 1/12/98 meeting. In addition, the petitioner submitted a request on 1/15/98, to review the draft

confirmatory action letter (CAL) followup inspection report prior to Cook being authorized to restart. An

acknowledgment letter for both the 1/12 and 1/15/98 requests was issued on February 23, 1998. The petitioner

was contacted by phone on 2/10/98 to clarify how issues he raised in the 1/12/98, letter were addressed in the

acknowledgment letter, and to provide him with a general status update on Cook and the CAL. The petitioner

was contacted by phone on 2/23/98, to advise him of a meeting to be held at the Cook site to discuss their status

on the CAL and other issues. On6/25/98 the petitioner was contacted to give a status update and to provide

clarifications on the petition response.

Current Status:

RAI requesting licensee to respond to questions in the petition was issued on 6/13/98. RAI requested a 30-day

response from the licensee. NRC intends to grant the petitioner's request for an informal public hearing.

Attachment 2:

Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206 with No

Status Change from Previous Update

June 30, 1998 

Facility Petitioner/EDO No.

Commonwealth Edison Company Robarge, National Whistle Blower Center/G980185

Advanced Medical Systems, Inc. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District/EDO10395

Millstone Galatis, We the People, Inc./EDO603

Connecticut Yankee and Millstone Katz, Citizens Awareness Network(CAN)/GT96919

Connecticut Yankee Bassilakis, CAN/GT97181

Browns Ferry 1 Lochbaum/G980199
Facility: Commonwealth Edison Company

Petitioner: National Whistleblower Center and Randy Robarge

Date of Petition: 3/24/98

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 3/30/98

EDO Number: G980185

OGC Number: P-98-006

Scheduled Completion Date: 8/27/98

Last Contact with Petitioner: 6/22/98

Petition Manager: G. Dick

Case Attorney: S. Chidakel

Issues/Action Requested:

Petitioner requests: 1) Immediate issuance of a show cause order requiring ComEd to explain why the filing of a

PIF [Problem Identification Form] does not constitute core protected activity under section 211 of the Energy

Reorganization Act, 42 USC § 5851 (1993); 2) The issuance of a Level I violation and appropriate civil penalty

for taking action that ComEd knew or should have known would chill employees from filing PIFs; 3) Require

the licensee to post a public apology for claiming that the filing of a PIF does not constitute protected activity;

4) Issue a show cause order to ComEd requiring it to explain under oath why the imposition of restrictive

confidentially clauses prohibiting employees from directly communicating information to the NRC should not

be prohibited; 5) Require ComEd to transmit to all individuals under similar restrictive confidentiality terms

notice that they are now free to communicate information to the NRC; and 6) Require licensee to release to the

NRC copies of all restrictive confidentially agreements entered into by ComEd and any subcontractors

employed by ComEd since March 21, 1990.

Background:

This is a new petition received on March 24, 1998. One of the petitioners, Mr. Robarge, has an active

Department of Labor Discrimination Case (98-ERA-2) and these issues arose during the Discovery portion of

the case. Petition Review Board (PRB) met on 4/9/98 and an acknowledgment letter was issued on April 29,

1998. The licensee was requested to respond to the petition and provide the staff with a the copy of letter

referenced in the petition. Awaiting licensee's response to staff RAI of 5/20/98.

Current Status:

There is no change in status for this update.
Facility: Advanced Medical Systems, Inc.

Petitioner: Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District

Date of Petition: 8/19/94

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NMSS

Date Referred to Review Organization: 8/29/94

EDO Number: 10395

OGC Number: P-94-020

Scheduled Completion Date: 9/10/98

Last Contact with Petitioner(s): 6/19/98

Petition Manager: J. DeCicco

Case Attorney: R. Weisman

Issues/Action Requested:

Amend AMS license to install, maintain, and operate alarms on all drains from the London Road facility.

Background:

An acknowledgment letter was issued on 9/7/94. On 12/29/94 the Sewer District requested a license renewal

hearing per Subpart L, 10 CFR 2.1205. The staff provided status updates to the petitioner by telephone on

5/30/95, 8/1/95, 10/3/95, 12/4/95, 2/12/96, 4/16/96, 6/18/96, 8/20/96, 10/22/96, and 12/20/96. The staff

requested the petitioner's views regarding the impact of a settlement agreement on the petition by letter dated

2/3/97. The petitioner's letter dated 3/4/97 indicated that the petitioner's requests are not completely covered by

the settlement agreement, and the petition remains relevant. A decision was made by the staff to defer the

Director's Decision until completion of the license renewal application review process, currently scheduled to be

completed by September 1998.

Current Status:

There is no change in status for this update.

Facility: Millstone

Petitioners: G. Galatis and E. Hadley on behalf of We the People, Inc.

Date of Petition: 8/21/95, supplemented 8/28/95

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 8/30/95

EDO Number: 603

OGC Number: P-95-015

Scheduled Completion Date: 12/30/98

Last Contact with Petitioner(s): 5/5/98

Petition Manager: S. Dembek

Case Attorney: R. Hoefling
Issues/Action Requested:

The petitioners allege that Northeast Utilities (NU) has offloaded more fuel assemblies into the spent fuel pool

than permitted under License Amendments 39 and 40; that NU has knowingly operated Millstone in violation of

its operating licenses; and that NU has submitted material false statements. Petitioners seek a 60 day license

suspension for Millstone Unit 1 (after the unit is brought into compliance with the license and the design basis).

The petitioners also request that the operating license be revoked until the facility is in full compliance with the

terms and conditions of its license; before reinstatement of the license, a detailed independent analysis of the

offsite dose consequences of total loss of spent fuel pool water be conducted; that enforcement action be taken

against NU pursuant to 10 CFR 50.5 and 50.9; that actions be taken regarding a proposed license amendment

pending before the Commission wherein NU seeks to increase the amount of spent fuel it may offload and that

the amendment be denied; that the NRC retain an independent expert, at NU's expense, to prepare a safety

analysis report on the proposed amendment; and that, before the issuance of any amendment, an analysis

including both the probability and consequences of applicable events be conducted. In the supplement,

Mr. Galatis raised additional concerns including concerns at Millstone Units 2 and 3 and Seabrook.

Background:

Northeast Utilities (NU) provided its responses in 9/22/95 and 10/11/95 letters. The acknowledgment letter was

issued on 10/26/95. On 12/26/96, the staff issued a partial Director's Decision (DD-96-23) that addressed the

technical aspects of the petitioners' requests. The wrongdoing aspects are still under review and will be

addressed in a subsequent Director's Decision. The completion date was extended to 6/30/98 to allow time for

additional staff review. A status update letter was sent to the petitioner on 5/5/98.

Current Status:

There is no change in status for this update.

Facility: Connecticut Yankee and Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3

Petitioners: D. Katz, Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) and P. Gunter, Nuclear

Information and Resource Service

Date of Petition: 11/25/96, as amended 12/23/96

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review

Organization:

12/20/96

EDO Number: GT96919

OGC Number: P-96-026

Scheduled Completion Date: 7/1/98

Last Contact with Petitioners: 4/17/98

Petition Manager: D. McDonald

Case Attorney: R. Hoefling

Issues/Action Requested:

Petitioners request the staff to take the following actions: (1) immediately suspend or revoke Northeast Utilities'

(NU's) license to operate the Connecticut Yankee (CY) (Haddam Neck) and Millstone reactors due to chronic

mismanagement; (2) investigate the possibility that NU made material misrepresentations to the NRC

concerning engineering calculations and other information or actions relied upon to assure the adequacy of
safety systems at CY and Millstone; (3) if an investigation determines that NU deliberately provided insufficient

and/or false or misleading information to the NRC, revoke NU's operating licenses for CY and Millstone, or, if

not, keep the reactors off-line pending a Department of Justice independent investigation; (4) if the reactors

remain operating, petitioners request that they remain on the NRC's "watch list"; (5) keep CY and Millstone

off-line until NU's chronic mismanagement has been analyzed, remedial management programs put into effect

and the NRC has evaluated and approved the effectiveness of NU's actions; (6) in the event NU decides to

decommission any or all of the reactors at issue, petitioners request the NRC not to permit any decommissioning

activity to take place until the above issues are resolved; and (7) commence an investigation into how the staff

allowed the illegal situation at NU's Connecticut reactors to exist and continue over a decade.

Background:

A Director's Decision (DD-97-21) addressing most of the issues was issued to the petitioners on 9/12/97.

DD-97-21 partially granted some of the petitioner's requests. Request (3) above was partially deferred for the

Millstone plants and will be addressed in a subsequent final Director's Decision, currently scheduled for 7/1/98.

Current Status:

There is no change in status for this update.

Facility: Connecticut Yankee

Petitioners: R. Bassilakis, Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) and P. Gunter,

Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS)

Date of Petition: 3/11/97

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 3/20/97

EDO Number: GT97181

OGC Number: P-97-003

Scheduled Completion Date: 12/31/98

Last Contact with Petitioners: 7/1/98

Petition Manager: T. Fredrichs

Case Attorney: M. Rafky

Issues/Action Requested:

Petitioners request (1) that the NRC commence enforcement action against Connecticut Yankee (CY) (Haddam

Neck) by means of a large civil penalty to assure compliance with safety-based radiological control routines, (2)

modification of CY's license to prohibit any decommissioning activity, which would include dismantling or

decontamination, until CY manages to conduct routine maintenance of the facility without any contamination

events for at least 6 months, and (3) placement of CY on the NRC's "watch list."

Background:

An acknowledgment letter was issued on 4/3/97. The petitioner was contacted by telephone on 7/9/97 and

informed of the status of the petition. A partial Director's Decision (DD-97-19) was issued on 9/3/97. DD-97-19

denied requests (2) and (3) above. In a public meeting on 10/27/97, which the petitioner attended, the staff

stated that it was pursuing enforcement action regarding the remaining open item in the petition. Request (1)
regarding enforcement action has been deferred and will be the subject of a final Director's Decision, currently

scheduled for 9/30/98.

Current Status:

There is no change in status for this update.

Facility: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Unit 1

Petitioner: D.Lochbaum

Date of Petition: 4/5/98

Director's Decision To Be Issued by: NRR

Date Referred to Review Organization: 4/6/98

EDO Number: G980199

OGC Number:

Scheduled Completion Date: 4/29/98(Acknowledgment letter) 7/31/98 Decision

Last Contact with Petitioner: 5/4/98

Petition Manager: A. DeAgazio

Case Attorney: R. Hoefling

Issues/Action Requested:

The petitioner asked for an informal hearing requesting that the Operating License for Browns Ferry, Unit 1 be

revoked and 2) that NRC should require the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to submit either a

decommissioning plan or lay-up plan for Brown's Ferry, Unit 1. As the basis for the Union of Concenrned

Scientist (UCS) request, the petitioner asserts that because Browns Ferry Unit 1 has been on "administrative

hold" since June 1, 1985, and has not been operated since then, revocation od the operating license and requiring

relicensing, if TVA later decides to restart Unit 1, is a better, safer process than is the current inspection Manual

Chapter 0350 restart process. Further, the petitioner asserts that requiring a decommissoning plan would provide

assurance that the irradiated fuel is stored safely and that Units 2 and 3 are sufficiently independent of Unit 1 for

safe operation.

Background:

This is a new petition received on April 5, 1998. The 2.206 petition review board convened in mid-April 1998,

and endorsed a proposed course of action. The acknowledgment letter was issued 4/29/98 with a decision not to

hold an informal hearing on the UCS petition. The petitioner sent in another letter dated June 5, 1998,

requesting the staff reconsider conducting a public hearing. The staff has determined that while the 2.206

petition alone, does not meet the criteria contained in the Management Directive 8.11 regarding a hearing, the

staff has chosen to conduct an informal hearing, near the Browns Ferry site to afford the petitioner, licensee and

the members of the public the opportunity to provide relevant information to the staff.

Current Status:

There is no change in status for this update.