September 17, 2001

MEMORANDUM TO: William D. Travers

Executive Director for Operations

FROM: Brian W. Sheron, Associate Director /RA by Jon R. Johnson/

 for Project Licensing and Technical Analysis

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT: AUGUST 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 August 31, 2001. 

Currently, there are two open petitions in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR).

Attachment 1 provides the detailed status of the two open petitions in NRR. Attachment 2

shows the age and staff hours expended on open 2.206 petitions as of August 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 (within a

week), 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

August 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
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: 9/21/2001

Last Contact with Petitioners: 9/4/2001

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 petitioners were

informed of this decision by telephone on December 20, 2000. 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.

On June 5, 2001, the petitioners requested that information contained in an April 26, 2001,

submittal to the IP2 license transfer proceedings be considered as further information to support

their request for enforcement actions against the licensee for systemic mismanagement of the

IP2 reactor facility. The PRB re-convened on June 28, 2001, to discuss the supplement and its

impact on issuance of the proposed Director’s Decision (DD). During the PRB meeting, it was

determined that the supplement did not meet the requirements to be reviewed under 10 CFR

2.206 because the request is already the subject of another agency proceeding (license transfer

proceeding). The petitioners were notified on July 2, 2001, that this information would not be

considered in the proposed DD. A closure letter for the supplement to the petition was sent to the

petitioners on July 31, 2001, explaining the reasons for the rejection.

Current Status: 

The proposed DD on the original petition was issued on July 25, 2001, and a copy was provided

to both the petitioner and the licensee for comments. Both parties were given 14 days to review

the decision and provide their comments back to the agency before the decision was to be

finalized. The petitioners requested two extensions of time, the latest one until September 14,

2001, for providing their written comments on the proposed DD. The petition manager acceded

to their requests. The licensee did not have any comments on the proposed DD.
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: 7/31/2001

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 

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
5

seek another opinion by a Medical Review Officer or other health care professional, Wackenhut

fired him."

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. 

The PRB reconvened on June 25, 2001, to review progress on the petition. The PRB considered

ConEd’s response to a ‘chilling effect’ letter on this subject.

Current Status: 

The proposed Director’s Decision on this petition is in concurrence and comments received from

the reviewers are being incorporated. The proposed DD is on schedule to meet the planned

completion date.
1

Attachment 2

AGE AND RESOURCE EXPENDITURES FOR AGENCY 2.206 OPEN PETITIONS

As of August 31, 2001

ASSIGNED

ACTION

OFFICE

PETITION

 NUMBER

FACILITY Acknowledgment

Date

AGE

(days)*

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 3/9/01 138 9/21/2001 1041 86 Proposed DD issued 7/25/2001

NRR G20010159 All Licensees

Using Wackenhut

Security Services

5/29/01 94 9/29/2001 389 17

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)

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 Denied 

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 Petition Moot and

Closed

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.