ML070100159
| ML070100159 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades, Harris, South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/2007 |
| From: | Boger B NRC/NRR/ADRO |
| To: | Reyes L NRC/EDO |
| Mensah T | |
| References | |
| 2.206, G20060369, G20060525, G20060793 | |
| Download: ML070100159 (12) | |
Text
January 29, 2007 MEMORANDUM TO: Luis A. Reyes Executive Director for Operations FROM: Bruce A. Boger, Associate Director /RA/
for Operating Reactor Oversight and Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
DECEMBER 2006 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS UNDER TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, SECTION 2.206 The enclosed report gives the status of petitions submitted under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206. As of December 31, 2006, there were three open petitions that were accepted for review under the 2.206 process; two in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and one in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
Information that has changed since the last monthly report is highlighted. provides a detailed status of the open petitions as of December 31, 2006. provides the status of incoming letters that the NRC staff is 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, 2006.
This report, Directors Decisions, and other 2.206-related documents are placed in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). By making these documents readily accessible to the public, the NRC staff is addressing the performance goal of ensuring openness in our regulatory process.
Enclosures:
As stated CONTACT: Tanya M. Mensah, NRR 301-415-3610
January 29, 2007 MEMORANDUM TO: Luis A. Reyes Executive Director for Operations FROM: Bruce A. Boger, Associate Director /RA/
for Operating Reactor Oversight and Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
DECEMBER 2006 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS UNDER TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, SECTION 2.206 The enclosed report gives the status of petitions submitted under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206. As of December 31, 2006, there were three open petitions that were accepted for review under the 2.206 process; two in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and one in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
Information that has changed since the last monthly report is highlighted. provides a detailed status of the open petitions as of December 31, 2006. provides the status of incoming letters that the NRC staff is 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, 2006.
This report, Directors Decisions, and other 2.206-related documents are placed in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). By making these documents readily accessible to the public, the NRC staff is addressing the performance goal of ensuring openness in our regulatory process.
Enclosures:
As stated CONTACT: Tanya M. Mensah, NRR 301-415-3610 DISTRIBUTION: See next page ADAMS Accession Number: ML070100159 OFFICE PM:PSPB LA:PSPB BC:PSPB DD:DPR ADRO NAME TMensah DBaxley SRosenberg HNieh BBoger DATE 1 / 22 / 07 1 /22/ 07 1 /24 / 07 1 / 26 / 07 1 / 29 / 07 OFFICIAL AGENCY RECORD
DISTRIBUTION FOR DECEMBER 2006 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS UNDER TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, SECTION 2.206 Date: January 29, 2007 PUBLIC PSPB Reading File RidsEdoMailCenter EJulian PAnderson RidsNrrOd RidsNrrAdro RidsOgcMailCenter RidsOcaMailCenter RidsOeMailCenter JStrosnider PGoldberg CAbrams GCaputo RidsNrrDpr RidsNrrDprPspb RidsNrrLADBaxley RidsNrrPMTMensah RidsOpaMailCenter RidsRgn1MailCenter RidsRgn2MailCenter RidsRgn3MailCenter RidsRgn4MailCenter
Status of Open Petitions Facility Petitioner/EDO No. Page Palisades Nuclear Power Plant Terry Lodge, Counsel for Petitioners G20060369.........................................................1 South Texas Service Employees International Union G20060525.........................................................3 Shearon Harris John Runkle representing Waste Awareness and Reduction Network (WARN), Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), et al.
G20060793.........................................................5 ENCLOSURE 1
Report on Status of Public Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206 Facility: Palisades Nuclear Power Plant Petitioners: Terry Lodge, Counsel for Petitioners Date of Petition: April 4, 2006 Directors Decision to be Issued by: NMSS EDO Number: G20060369 Proposed DD Issuance: November 28, 2006 Final DD Issuance: February 13, 2007 Last Contact with Petitioner: January 4, 2007 Petition Manager: Randy Hall Case Attorney: Giovonna Longo Issues/Actions requested:
That the NRC condemn and force a halt to the use of the two concrete pads holding dry casks storing used nuclear fuel at the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant. The petitioners state that the pads, on which radioactive waste are stored, do not conform with longstanding NRC requirements for earthquake stability standards because they were built on compacted sand and other subsurface materials, dozens of feet above bedrock.
In particular, the petitioners claim that the pads are in violation of requirements in 10 CFR 72.212(b)(2)(i)(B).
Background:
The NRC staff held a teleconference with the petitioners on April 26, 2006. The petitioners informed the NRC staff that they would submit a supplement to the petition.
The NRC staff delayed making a decision on whether the petition met the criteria of 10 CFR 2.206 pending receipt of the supplement.
On May 4, 2006, the NRC staff sent a letter to the petitioner, acknowledging receipt of the petition and providing a transcript of the teleconference. As of June 30, 2006, the petitioner had not provided a supplement to the petition.
On June 9, 2006, the NRC staff sent a status letter to the petitioner, indicating that the NRC staff will continue to process the petition in accordance with the 2.206 process.
On June 27, 2006, the NRC staff sent a letter to the petitioner stating that the request to condemn and stop the use of the two ISFSI concrete pads does not require immediate action. The letter also stated that the petition was accepted for review under the 2.206 process in part, specifically with respect to slope stability of the concrete pad constructed in 2003. Those portions of the petition concerning the older concrete pad constructed in 1992 and soil liquefaction related to the newer pad were not accepted for review because those issues have already been the subject of NRC staff review and have been resolved.
On August 25, 2006, the NRC staff attempted to reach the petitioner by phone and sent an email to provide a current status.
On October 31, 2006, the NRC staff attempted to reach the petitioner by phone and sent an email to provide a current status.
On December 1, 2006, the NRC staff attempted to reach the petitioner by phone and sent an email transmitting the proposed Directors Decision for comment.
Current Status:
This issue was originally identified as an unresolved item in a previous NRC inspection report, and was forwarded to the Spent Fuel Project Office (SFPO) staff by Region III in a Technical Assistance Request (TAR) dated March 10, 2006. On August 29, 2006, SFPO sent a memorandum back to Region III identifying its remaining questions on the licensee's analysis, which Region III forwarded to the Palisades licensee.
The licensee revised its slope stability analysis for the new pad to address the NRC questions and that revised analysis was provided to NMSS for review on October 24, 2006. The NRC staff has completed its review of the licensees revised slope stability analysis for the newer pad and finds it acceptable; therefore the NRC staff is proposing to deny the petition.
The NRC staff issued the proposed Directors Decision to the petitioner and to the licensee for comment on November 28, 2006. The NRC asked for comments to be submitted within 30 days of the proposed Directors Decision.
On January 4, 2007, the petitioner requested an additional 14 days to provide comments on the proposed Directors Decision, citing personal hardship and the need to consult further with a technical expert. The NRC staff agreed to allow the petitioner until January 19, 2007 to submit any comments. The NRC staff may need to request an extension for the preparation of the final Directors Decision, depending on the nature and extent of the petitioners comments. The licensee has indicated to the NRC staff that it does not have any comments on the proposed Directors Decision.
Facility: South Texas Petitioners: Service Employees International Union Date of Petition: May 16, 2006, as supplemented June 26, 2006 Directors Decision to be Issued by: NRR EDO Number: G20060525 Proposed DD Issuance: November 22, 2006 Final DD Issuance: TBD Last Contact with Petitioner: August 7, 2006 Petition Manager: Mohan Thadani Case Attorney: Giovonna Longo Issues/Actions requested:
That the NRC issue a Demand for Information that would require STPNOC to provide the NRC with copies of:
(1) any assessments of the safety conscious work environment at STP conducted since January 1, 2004, and (2) summaries of any associated action plans and the results of efforts to remediate problems revealed by these surveys and surveys in 2001 and 2003.
Background:
The NRC staff met with the petitioner on June 27, 2006. The petitioner discussed his concerns and requested actions, and provided a supplement to his petition.
The PRB determined that the petition meets the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206.
An acknowledgment letter was issued on July 28, 2006.
The petition manager spoke with the petitioner on August 7, 2006, for the purpose of post-Petition Review Board (PRB) feedback, and offered another opportunity to meet with the PRB. The petitioner said that he would call back.
The petitioner subsequently called back and indicated that he did not want another meeting with PRB. However, he reiterated that he would like the NRC to respond to his concerns about the licensees actions regarding the licensees findings and action plans relative to the 2001 and 2003 surveys.
Current Status:
Region IV staff has completed its inspections addressing the petitioners concerns. A report of the inspections was used to prepare the proposed Directors Decision. The Office of Enforcement will address the issues related to enforcement actions requested by the petitioner. The Proposed Directors Decision, issued on November 22, 2006, states that the NRC staff has access to all of the information requested by the petitioner.
Therefore, issuance of a DFI to the licensee is not warranted. The NRC staff requested that comments be submitted by December 21, 2006.
On January 5, 2007, the petitioner wrote to the Director of the Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, requesting an extension until January 12, 2007, to provide comments on the proposed Director's Decision. The NRC staff has decided to grant the requested extension and is preparing a response to the petitioner accordingly. To offset the delay in receiving the petitioner's comments, the NRC staff has requested an extension to support the review of the petitioners comments and completion of the final Director's Decision.
Facility: Shearon Harris Petitioners: John Runkle representing WARN, UCS, et al.
Date of Petition: September 20, 2006 Directors Decision to be Issued by: NRR EDO Number: G20060793 Proposed DD Issuance: April 3, 2007 Final DD Issuance: June 17, 2007 Last Contact with Petitioner: November 13, 2006 Petition Manager: Chandu Patel Case Attorney: Giovonna Longo Issues/Actions requested:
That the NRC suspend the operating license for Shearon Harris until all fire safety violations affecting safe shutdown functions are brought into compliance.
Background:
On October 23, 2006, the NRC staff held a public meeting for the petitioners to address the PRB. Due to technical difficulties with the teleconferencing system, the meeting was cancelled. The NRC staff held a public meeting on November 13, 2006, for the petitioners to address the PRB. The PRB determined that the petition meets the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206. An acknowledgment letter was issued on December 4, 2006.
During the review of this petition, several resolutions were submitted by external stakeholders in support of the petition. The resolutions were submitted to the NRC in letters dated October 11, 2006 (G20060852), October 12, 2006 (G20060858) and October 16, 2006 (G20060861). The resolutions were submitted by the townships of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and the Orange County Board of Commissioners respectively.
Regarding the resolutions concerning fire protection issues, the NRC reached agreements with the respective townships and the Orange County Board of Commissioners to include them on distribution for related NRC correspondence with the petitioners concerning their requests. This agreement is documented in individual letters dated November 17, 2006, from the NRC staff to the townships of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The NRC documented its response to the Orange County Board of Commissioners in a letter dated November 27, 2006.
In addition, in its letter dated October 16, 2006, the Orange County Board of Commissioners submitted a resolution concerning emergency preparedness. In its response dated November 27, 2006, the NRC staff determined that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency associated with the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant. The NRC staff recommended that the Orange County Board of Commissioners work through the appropriate State and local agencies to develop proposed changes to the existing plans.
Current Status:
The NRC staff is reviewing information submitted by the petitioners to support a timely issuance of the Proposed Directors Decision.
Status of Potential Petitions Under Consideration Facility: N/A Petitioner: Fred Donaldson Date of Petition: December 7, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated December 18, 2006 EDO Number: G20061005 and G20061042 PRB meeting: N/A Issues/Actions requested:
Requests that the NRC take appropriate enforcement action due to radioactive nuclear delay mechanisms associated with the Tampa, Florida police departments satellite-radar.
Current Status:
The NRC staff evaluated the concerns in the December 7, 2006, letter, as supplemented by letter dated December 18, 2006, to determine if they met the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206. In a letter from the NRC dated January 16, 2007, the NRC staff responded to the petitioner that no further action would be taken on the request for the following reasons:
- The Tampa Police Department does not hold a NRC license.
- Information contained in the December 7, 2006, and December 18, 2006, submittals does not establish that the Tampa Police Department has caused hazardous conditions with respect to matters under NRC jurisdiction.
- The petitioner did not request an action that the NRC can take under its authority.
Therefore, the information submitted by the petitioner does not meet the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206.
ENCLOSURE 2
AGE STATISTICS FOR AGENCY 2.206 PETITIONS Assigned FACILITY/ Incoming PRB Acknowledgment Proposed DD Date for Comments if not meeting the Agencys Petitioner petition meeting1 letter/days from issuance final Completion Goals Action incoming2 Date/age3 DD/age4 Office NMSS Palisades 04/04/06 04/26/06 06/27/06 11/28/06 TBD 84 118 NRR South Texas 05/16/06 6/27/06 07/28/06 11/22/06 TBD 73 118 NRR Shearon Harris 09/20/2006 11/13/06 12/4/06 04/03/07 TBD On 10/23/06, the NRC staff held a 75 public meeting for the petitioners to address the PRB. Due to technical difficulties with the teleconferencing system in the headquarters Operations Center, the meeting was cancelled. Per approval from the OEDO, the acknowledgement letter deadline was extended until 12/6/06 to provide time to reschedule the public meeting and for the PRB to meet subsequent to the public meeting.
- 1) Goal is to hold a PRB meeting, which the petitioner is invited to participate in, within 2 weeks of receipt of petition.
- 2) Goal is to issue acknowledgment letter within 35 days 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.
ENCLOSURE 3