ML040060108

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

ML040060108
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse, Indian Point
Issue date:	01/13/2004
From:	Sheron B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Travers W NRC/EDO
Skay D, NRR/DLPM, 415-1322
References
2.206, G20030216, G20030508, G20030545
Download: ML040060108 (14)

Text

January 13, 2004 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:

DECEMBER 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 December 31, 2003, there were three open petitions, which were accepted for review under the 2.206 process in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 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 December 31, 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

ML040060108 OFFICE PM:PDI-1 LA:PDI-1 D:PDII DD:DLPM NMSS ADPT:NRR NAME DSkay SLittle HBerkow ELeeds PGoldberg BSheron DATE 1/8/04 1/8/04 1/8/04 1/9/04 1/9/04 1/12/04 DISTRIBUTION FOR DECEMBER 2003 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS UNDER TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, SECTION 2.206 Dated: January 13, 2004 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 JDyer, NRR RBorchardt, NRR JCraig, 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 DSkay, NRR OCA OPA Regional Administrators PDI-1 Reading SLittle

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

Indian Point Units 2 and 3 Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of the State of Connecticut G20030216.................................................... 1 Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists G20030508.................................................... 3 Indian Point Units 2 and 3 Riverkeeper G20030545......................................................5

Attachment 1 Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206 Facility: Indian Point Units 2 and 3 Petitioner: Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of the State of Connecticut Date of Petition: April 23, 2003, as supplemented on June 3, 2003, and October 16, 2003 Directors Decision to be Issued by: NRR EDO Number: G20030216 Proposed DD Issuance: 02/13/04 Final DD Issuance TBD Last Contact with Petitioner: 11/05/03 Petition Manager: Harold Chernoff Case Attorney: Jack Goldberg Issues/Actions requested:

That the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC):

a. 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.

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

c. 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.

d. 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.

e. 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.

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 The licensee submitted a response to the petitioners first supplement (dated June 3, 2003) on October 15, 2003.

The petitioner filed a second supplement to his petition on October 16, 2003.

Based on the significant additional amount of information contained in the licensees response and the supplement to the petition, the staff requested and was granted an extension of time to respond to the petition to January 9, 2004. The petition manager contacted the attorney generals staff on November 5, 2003, and offered him an opportunity to discuss the supplement with the PRB. This request was declined.

Current Status:

A letter acknowledging the petitioner's second supplement was issued on December 13, 2003. The proposed Director's Decision is currently being reviewed by the technical staff and line management. Due to a delay in getting concurrence from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the issuance date of the proposed Directors Decision was postponed to two weeks following FEMAs deadline of January 31, 2004.

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: November 26, 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 also 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.

The staff issued a letter to the petitioner on October 7, 2003, acknowledging receipt of the petition.

By letter dated October 20, 2003, the licensee provided its response to the petition.

By letter dated November 26, 2003, the staff supplemented the October 7, 2003, acknowledgment letter to address the requests for immediate action.

Current Status:

The staff is reviewing the petition and plans to issue a proposed Directors Decision by February 3, 2004.

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: February 18, 2004 Final DD Issuance TBD Last Contact with Petitioner: January 5, 2004 Petition Manager: Brian Benney Case Attorney: Antonio Fernandez 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 uon 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 seperately 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 the additional letters.

The staff issued a letter to the petitioner on October 22, 2003, acknowledging receipt of the petition and addressing the need for immediate action. The staff concluded that there is no need to take immediate action. By letter dated October 29, 2003, the petitioner responded to the acknowledgment letter. The October 29, 2003, letter included an additional assertion that the licensee is not complying with 10 CFR 50.46 regarding analysis and reporting of emergency core cooling system performance.

Current Status:

The staff is reviewing the petition and supplement.

Attachment 2 Status of Potential Petitions Under Consideration Facility: Radiac Research Corporation Petitioner: Michael Gerrard, representing Neighbors Against Garbage Date of Letter: November 4, 2003 Responsible Office: NMSS PRB meeting: TBD Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC close the Radiac Research Corporation because a threat to the common defense and security exists at the facility that is not being considered by the local licensing agency. The petitioner claims that this threat exists because the facility is located in a major population center; security at the facility is poor; and an adjoining hazardous waste storage facility is permitted to handle flammable liquids, reactives, and oxidizers, and has inadequate fire prevention and suppression systems.

Resolution:

The staff has held internal PRB meetings to address the question of immediate action and has concluded that there is no need for immediate action. The petitioner has been informed of this decision. The staff continues to try to arrange a mutually agreeable date for a meeting or teleconference with the petitioner. Scheduling difficulties have delayed this meeting beyond the agencys goal.

Facility: Sequoyah Fuels Petitioner: Kelly Hunter Burch, State of Oklahoma and Julian Fite, representing Cherokee Nation Date of Letter: November 19, 2003 Responsible Office: NMSS PRB meeting: TBD Issues/Actions requested:

That the NRC deny the request for an amendment to the materials license of Sequoyah Fuels Corporation. The amendment seeks approval of a proposed ground water corrective action plan and a proposed ground water monitoring plan.

Resolution:

This petition was originally submitted as a hearing request to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Panel in response to a notice of a license amendment request by Sequoyah Fuels. The petitioners each submitted a hearing request after the published deadline.

Therefore, the ASLB dismissed the hearing requests and referred them to the Executive Director for Operations under the provisions of 10 CFR 2.1205(i)(2) for appropriate disposition under 10 CFR 2.206. Subsequently, the Cherokee Nation appealed the ASLBs decision to the Commission. The staff is awaiting Commission action.

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.

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

ACTION incoming2 age 4 OFFICE 2

NRR Indian Point 04/23/03 05/08/03 07/03/03 2/13/04 TBD Staff delayed issuing acknowledgment letter 70 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.

3 Proposed DD issuance date was extended due to a supplement to the petition, and a response from the licensee that were received within 2 weeks of the original due date.

NRR Davis Besse 08/25/03 9/17/03 10/07/03 2/03/04 TBD 43 NRR Indian Point 09/08/03 9/24/03 10/22/03 2/18/04 TBD 37

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.