ML032730487

September 2003 Report on the Status of Public Petition Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206

ML032730487
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse, Indian Point
Issue date:	10/21/2003
From:	Sheron B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Travers W NRC/EDO
Skay D, NRR/DLPM, 415-1322
References
2.206
Download: ML032730487 (15)

Text

October 21, 2003 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:

SEPTEMBER 2003 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS UNDER TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, SECTION 2.206 The attached reports give the status of petitions submitted under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206. As of September 30, 2003, there were three open petitions, which were accepted for review under the 2.206 process in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

One final Directors Decision was issued during the month of September. provides a detailed status of the open petitions. provides the status of incoming letters that the staff has been reviewing to determine if they meet the criteria for review under the 2.206 process. shows the age statistics for the open 2.206 petitions as of September 30, 2003. shows the age trend of closed petitions for the last 3 years.

This report, Directors Decisions, and other 2.206-related documents are placed in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System. In making these readily accessible to the public, the staff has identified another vehicle to address one of our performance goals, i.e., to enhance public confidence.

Attachments: As stated CONTACT: Donna Skay, NRR 415-1322

October 21, 2003 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:

SEPTEMBER 2003 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS UNDER TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, SECTION 2.206 The attached reports give the status of petitions submitted under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206. As of September 30, 2003, there were three open petitions, which were accepted for review under the 2.206 process in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

One final Directors Decision was issued during the month of September. provides a detailed status of the open petitions. provides the status of incoming letters that the staff has been reviewing to determine if they meet the criteria for review under the 2.206 process. shows the age statistics for the open 2.206 petitions as of September 30, 2003. shows the age trend of closed petitions for the last 3 years.

This report, Directors Decisions, and other 2.206-related documents are placed in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System. In making these readily accessible to the public, the staff has identified another vehicle to address one of our performance goals, i.e., to enhance public confidence.

Attachments: As stated CONTACT: Donna Skay, NRR 415-1322 DISTRIBUTION: See next page Accession No.: ML032730487 *See previous concurrence OFFICE PM:PDI-1 LA:PDI-1 D:PDII DD:DLPM ADPT:NRR NAME DSkay SLittle* HBerkow* ELeeds BSheron DATE 10/14/03 10/06/03 10/07/03 10/17/03 10/17/03 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

DISTRIBUTION FOR JULY 2003 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS UNDER TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, SECTION 2.206 Dated: October 21, 2003 PUBLIC SCollins, DEDR/OEDO CPaperillo, DEDMRS/OEDO PNorry, DEDM/OEDO Wkane, DEDH/OEDO WDean, AO/OEDO JShea, ODEO PAnderson, OEDO (Email after this document has been put into ADAMS)

EJulian RLaufer CHolden RBorchardt, NRR BSheron, NRR CMohrwinkel, NRR KCyr, OGC LChandler, OGC JGoldberg, OGC JCordes, Jr., OCAA FCongel, OE PLohaus, STP MVirgilio, NMSS PGoldberg, NMSS CAbrams, NMSS BBoger, NRR GCaputo, OI LMarsh, NRR HBerkow, NRR WRuland, NRR MFields, NRR BBenney, NRR DSkay, NRR OCA OPA Regional Administrators PDI-1 Reading SLittle

Attachment 1 Status of Open Petitions Page Facility Petitioner/EDO No. No.

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Congressman Dennis Kucinich G20030048.................................................... 1 Indian Point Units 2 and 3 Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of the State of Connecticut G20030216.................................................... 3 Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists G20030298.................................................... 5 Indian Point Units 2 and 3 Riverkeeper G20030545.......................................................7

Attachment 1 Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206 Facility: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Petitioner: Congressman Dennis Kucinich Date of Petition: February 3, 2003 Directors Decision to be Issued by: NRR EDO Number: G20030048 Proposed DD Issuance: 06/05/03 Final DD Issuance:

Last Contact with Petitioner: 09/12/03 Petition Manager: Dan Collins (NRR)

Case Attorney: Jack Goldberg Issues/Actions requested:

That the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) immediately revoke FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Companys (FirstEnergy) license to operate the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS) for the reasons given in the background.

Background:

In response to the licensee's identification of extensive corrosion to the pressure boundary material of the RPV head on March 5, 2002, the NRC dispatched an Augmented Inspection Team (AIT), issued a Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) , and enhanced monitoring of corrective actions as described in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0350, Oversight of Operating Reactor Facilities in a Shutdown Condition with Performance Problems.

Using information from various publicly available documents (such as NRC inspection reports, newspaper articles, and reports published by the Union of Concerned Scientists) to support his case, the Petitioner offers the following five basic arguments, in various forms, on why the Davis-Besse operating license must be revoked:

1. NRC regulations and guidelines require revocation of the Davis-Besse license.

2. Revocation of the Davis-Besse license is necessary to hold FirstEnergy accountable for its violations of NRC regulations and its own operating license.

3. If the NRC doesnt revoke the Davis-Besse license, NRC isnt appropriately using the authority granted it by Congress.

4. Revocation of the Davis-Besse license is necessary in order to ensure that FirstEnergy is complying with all NRC regulations and guidelines.

5. Revocation of the Davis-Besse license is required in order for there to be consistency in the manner that the NRC enforces its regulations.

The staff issued an acknowledgment letter on February 10, 2003, to inform the Congressman that the petition meets the acceptance criteria for review under 2.206.

The acknowledgment letter also informed the Petitioner that, pending completion of the NRCs investigative process, the NRC does not have sufficient basis to immediately revoke the Davis-Besse operating license. Thus, the Petitioners request for immediate revocation of the license was denied.

The petitioner informed the staff on March 12, 2003, that a supplement would be issued in lieu of a presentation to the PRB. The petitioner submitted a supplement to the original petition on March 27, 2003, to address the following additional concerns:

a. boric acid dust may have corroded electrical systems & cable trays

b. as-built design may not conform to design or licensing bases

c. training of personnel may not meet licensing basis

d. DBNPS does not have ability to detect I gpm leakage within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />

e. procedures instituted by NRC may not uncover or address other systems that may be degraded i,e., RCP seal gasket leakage

f. The O350 Panel will end and the plant will return to normal monitoring under the ROP before Lessons Learned Task Force recommendations regarding the ROP are implemented

g. The OI investigation must be completed before NRC allows DBNPS to restart A closed PRB meeting was held on April 2, 2003, to discuss the additional information provided by the petitioners March 27, 2003, supplement. The staff decided that no immediate action was warranted, that the supplement should be consolidated with the existing petition, that no new allegations were presented by the petitioner, and that an acknowledgment letter was not necessary.

On April 11, 2003, the staff received the licensees response to the petitioners supplement dated March 27, 2003. The information provided supported the staffs early conclusion that the supplement should be consolidated with the existing petition, and that no new allegations were presented by the petitioner. The proposed DD was issued on June 6, 2003. The staff received comments on the proposed Directors Decision from the licensee, the petitioner, and two members of the public.

Current Status:

The staff issued a final Directors Decision on September 12, 2003.

Facility: Indian Point Units 2 and 3 Petitioner: Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of the State of Connecticut Date of Petition: April 23, 2003 Directors Decision to be Issued by: NRR EDO Number: G20030216 Proposed DD Issuance: 10/31/03 Final DD Issuance TBD Last Contact with Petitioner: 08/29/03 Petition Manager: Harold Chernoff Case Attorney: Jack Goldberg Issues/Actions requested:

That the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC):

1. Order the licensee to conduct full review of vulnerabilities, security measures, and evacuation plans and to suspend operations, revoke the operating license, or adopt other measures resulting in temporary shutdown of Indian Point Units 2 and 3.

2. Require the licensee to provide sufficient information to document the existing security measures which provide protection against terrorist attacks.

3. Modify the licensees operating license to mandate specifically a defense and security system sufficient to protect the entire facility, including electric equipment, containment, spent fuel storage, and the control room from a land or water based terrorist attack.

4. Order the revision of the licensees Emergency Response Plan and the Radiological Emergency Response Plans of the State of New York and nearby counties to account and prepare for terrorist attacks. These revisions must contemplate not only the full range of realistic effects of a terrorist attack on the Indian Point facility, but also a comprehensive response to multiple attacks on the regions infrastructure that could affect execution of the evacuation plans.

5. If, after taking the above actions, the NRC cannot adequately ensure the security of the Indian Point facility against terrorist threats, or cannot ensure the safety of New York and Connecticut citizens from terrorist attacks, that it take prompt action to permanently retire the facility.

Background:

A closed PRB meeting was held on May 8, 2003, to discuss whether the petition satisfies the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206.

During this meeting the PRB decided that no immediate action was necessary. The PRB also recommended that security issues regarding potential terrorist attacks be handled separately from the issues associated with the emergency response plan by addressing the security issues in a partial Directors Decision.

By letter dated June 3, 2003, the petitioner filed a supplement to his original 2.206 Petition. The supplement provided additional information in support of the petition in three major areas: (1) shadow evacuation effects, (2) family separation, and (3) recent design-basis threat changes.

On June 19, 2003, the PRB held a conference call with the petitioners representative (Assistant Attorney General, Robert Snook) to afford the petitioner the opportunity to provide additional information or clarification with regards to the original petition and the recently submitted supplement.

Following the conference call, the PRB determined that the petition satisfied the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206. An acknowledgment letter was sent to the petitioner on July 3, 2003, stating that the petition has met the criteria for evaluation under 10 CFR 2.206 Current Status:

The NRC staff has received a copy of a letter from FEMA to Mr. Blumenthal addressing his concerns which are similar to those that Mr. Blumenthal provided to the NRC. The staff will coordinate with FEMA in the development of its conclusions.

The petitioners staff has told the NRC that he will be providing additional information to the NRC.

Facility: Davis Besse Petitioner: David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists James Riccio, Greenpeace Paul Gunter, Nuclear Information & Resource Service Date of Letter: August 25, 2003 EDO Number: G20030508 Proposed DD Issuance: February 3, 2004 Final DD Issuance: TBD Last Contact with Petitioner: September 17, 2003 Petition Manager: Mel Fields Case Attorney: Antonio Fernandez Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC:

(1) take enforcement action against FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company for failure to live up to its commitments made in response to the NRCs October 1996 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter. Since the 50.54(f) letter was issued in direct response to the problems at Millstone that netted its owner a record $2.1 million fine from the NRC, failure to heed the Millstone warning should carry at least an equivalent sanction.

(2) take enforcement action against First Energy for the numerous design basis violations dating back to the date of licensing with penalties for each day that the licensee was out of compliance with NRC regulations.

(3) suspend the license and prohibit restart of the Davis-Besse reactor unless and until FirstEnergy has adequately addressed all 1,000 design basis deficiencies identified in 1997, (4) suspend the license and prohibit restart of the Davis-Besse reactor unless and until FirstEnergy has updated its Probablisitic Risk Assessment to reflect the flaws in its design and licensing basis, and (5) suspend the license and prohibit restart of the Davis-Besse reactor with any systems in a degraded but operable condition.

Background:

A public meeting was held between the petitioners and the Petition Review Board on September 17, 2003. The transcript from the meeting will be treated as a supplement to the petition. Following the conference call, the PRB determined that the petition satisfied the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206.

Current Status:

The staff issued a letter to the petitioner on October 7, 2003, acknowledging receipt of the petition. The staff will supplement the acknowledgment letter to address the requests for immediate action prior to the NRC granting approval for restart. The petition is under review by the staff.

Facility: Indian Point Units 2 and 3 Petitioner: Alex Matthiessen, Riverkeeper David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists Date of Petition: September 8, 2003, as supplemented on September 22, 2003 Directors Decision to be Issued by: NRR EDO Number: G20030545 Proposed DD Issuance: TBD Final DD Issuance: TBD Last Contact with Petitioner: September 24, 2003 Petition Manager: Brian Benney Case Attorney: Jack Goldberg Issues/Actions requested:

That the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC):

1. Issue an Order requiring Entergy to immediately shut down Indian Point Units 2 and 3 and maintain the reactors shut down until such time that the containment sumps are modified to resolve the Generic Safety Issue 191 problem; or

2. Issue an Order requiring Entergy to prevent restart of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 from their next scheduled refueling outages until such time that the containment sumps are modified to resolve the GSI-191 problem; and Require Entergy to (a) maintain all equipment needed for monitoring leak-before-break of reactor coolant pressure boundary components within containment fully functional and immediately shutdown the affected reactor on any functional impairment to monitoring equipment, and (b) refrain from any activity under 10 CFR 50.59, 10 CFR 50.90,Section VII.C, or GL 91-18, Revision 1 that increases or could increase the probability that a loss-of-coolant accident occurs.

Background:

A public PRB meeting was held with the petitioners on September 24, 2003. The petitioners presented the staff with a supplement to their petition dated September 22, 2003. The transcript from the meeting will also be treated as a supplement to the petition. The licensee stated that it would be submitting a response to the petition.

Following the conference call, the PRB determined that the petition satisfied the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206.

Several letters have been received by the NRC separately in support of the Riverkeeper petition. The NRC staff will inform the authors of those letters of the status of its review of the Riverkeeper petition but will not open separate 2.206 reviews for these letters.

Current Status:

The staff is reviewing the petition and supplement to evaluate the need for any immediate actions. Following this evaluation, the staff will issue a letter to the petitioners acknowledging receipt of the petition and addressing the need for immediate action.

Attachment 2 Status of Potential Petitions Under Consideration Facility: Maine Yankee Petitioner: Randall Speck, Special Counsel for the State of Maine Date of Letter: November 15, 2002 Responsible Office: NMSS PRB meeting: To be scheduled Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC conduct a hearing on the efficacy of indefinite, long-term spent fuel storage at Maine Yankee.

Resolution:

The petitioner has also requested a hearing, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, regarding the October 16, 2002, safeguards order and interim compensatory measures. On December 10, 2002, the staff sent a letter to the petitioner stating that a decision on the acceptability of the 2.206 petition will be held in abeyance until the staff makes a determination on the hearing request. This letter remains as a potential 2.206 petition but the staff cannot consider whether it will be treated as a 2.206 petition until the Licensing Board settles the issues before it.

Attachment 3 AGE STATISTICS FOR AGENCY 2.206 PETITIONS ASSIGNED FACILITY Incoming PRB Acknowledgment Proposed DD Scheduled Comments if not meeting the Agencys petition meeting1 letter / issuance date for Completion Goals ACTION days from Date/ age3 final DD/

OFFICE incoming2 age 4 NRR Davis Besse 02/03/03 02/05/03 02/10/02 06/06/03 09/12/03 Issuance of the Final DD was delayed due to the 7 116 67 need to address substantial comments received on the proposed DD.

NRR Indian Point 04/23/03 05/08/03 07/03/03 10/31/03 TBD Staff delayed issuing acknowledgment letter 70 scheduled pending submittal of a supplement by the petitioner (received on June 3). Due to scheduling conflicts a teleconference with the petitioner was not completed until June 19.

NRR Davis Besse 08/25/03 9/17/03 10/07/03 02/03/04 TBD 43 NRR Indian Point 09/08/03 9/24/03 10/16/03 TBD TBD scheduled

1) Goal is to hold a PRB meeting, which the petitioner is invited to participate in, within 2 weeks of receipt of petition (there is often a delay of up two weeks from the date that the letter is issued until it is received by the reviewing organization).

2) Goal is to issue acknowledgment letter within 5 weeks of the date of incoming petition.

3) Goal is to issue proposed DD within 120 days of the acknowledgment letter.

4) Goal is to issue final DD within 45 days of the end of the comment period.