ML102940362

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
October 2010 10 CFR 2.206 Monthly Status Report: Enclosures
ML102940362
Person / Time
Site: Davis Besse, Indian Point, Pilgrim, Three Mile Island, River Bend, Crystal River, Callaway, Yankee Rowe
Issue date: 11/12/2010
From:
Division of Policy and Rulemaking
To:
NRC/OCM
Mensah T
References
200700062, SECY-2010-0489, 2.206
Download: ML102940362 (21)
v • d • e


Text

Enclosure 1 ML102940362 Monthly 10 CFR 2.206, Requests for Action Under this Subpart Status Report

PETITIONS CLOSED DURING THIS PERIOD FACILITY PETITIONER/EDO No. Page Flower Power and Light Company Thomas Saporito 2 G20100574 CURRENT STATUS OF OPEN PETITIONS Indian Point Units 2 and 3; Vermont Sherwood Martinelli 3 Yankee Nuclear Power Station, River G20090487 Bend Nuclear Power Plant Crystal River Nuclear Generating Thomas Saporito 4 Plant, Unit 3 G20090690 U.S. Army Installation Command Isaac Harp 5 G20100136 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Representative Paul W. Hodes 6 Station G20100235 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Michael Mulligan 7 Station G20100027 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Ray Shadis 8 Station G20100074 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Thomas Saporito 9 Station G20100098 Davis-Besse Nuclear Plant David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned 10 Scientists G20100192 CURRENT STATUS OF OPEN PETITIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION Pilgrim Nuclear Station Mary Lampert 11 G20100454 Pilgrim Nuclear Station Mary Lampert 12 G20100527 Callaway Nuclear Power Plant Lawrence S. Criscione 13 G20100592 Three Mile Island Unit 2 Eric Epstein 14 G20100619 Indian Point Paul Blanch 15 G20100655

FACILITY: Turkey Point (TP), Units 3 and 4 CLOSED PETITION LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor EDO # G20100574 PETITIONER: Thomas Saporito DATE OF PETITION: SEPTEMBER 12, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY: NRR PROPOSED DD ISSUANCE: N/A FINAL DD ISSUANCE: N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER: OCTOBER 12, 2010 PETITION M ANAGER: JASON PAIGE CASE ATTORNEY: N/A ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES As described in detail in the petition, the petitioner requests that the NRC take enforcement action against Florida Power and Light Company (FPL), the licensee for TP, Units 3 and 4, NEXTera Energy, and specific individuals named in the petition request.

CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES PETITION AGE: ~1 MONTH The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 09/12/10

  • The NRC staff was evaluating the petition to 09/27/10 10 CFR 2.206. determine if it meets the criteria for review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206.
  • In a letter dated October 12, 2010 (ADAMS 10/12/10 Accession No. ML102560072), the NRC staff concluded that the petition did not meet the criteria for consideration under 10 CFR 2.206 because it did not present substantial new information for issues that have already been the subject of NRC review and evaluation. All NRC actions on this petition are closed.

FACILITY: Indian Point (IP), Units 2 & 3; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station; OPEN PETITION River Bend Nuclear Power Plant EDO # G20090487 LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor PETITIONER: Sherwood Martinelli DATE OF PETITION: AUGUST 22, 2009 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY: NRR PROPOSED DD ISSUANCE: JANUARY 21, 2011 FINAL DD ISSUANCE: N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER: NOVEMBER 1, 2010 PETITION M ANAGER: DOUG PICKETT CASE ATTORNEY: N/A ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES The petitioner requests that the NRC suspend the operations of Entergy owned plants, (specifically for Indian Point Units 2 (IP2) and 3 (IP3), Vermont Yankee Nuclear Station, and River Bend Nuclear Power Plant) until Entergy brings the decommissioning funds for all of its licensed nuclear reactors to the adequate minimum levels required by the NRC regulations.

CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES PETITION AGE: ~14 MONTHS The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 08/22/09

  • The PRB met internally on January 14, 2010, 01/14/10 10 CFR 2.206. and concluded that in accordance with MD 8.11, Mr. Martinelli's email dated December 28, 2009 (G20090722), would be better handled as a supplement to For a complete summary of NRC actions prior to 12/17/09, please refer 12/17/09 G20090487. Therefore, the information to the August 2010 monthly status report (ML102510120). provided in G20090722 will be reviewed as a supplement to G20090487. The OEDO has terminated G20090722.
  • On March 2, 2010, the OEDO approved an 03/02/10 extension request until May 28, 2010, to On December 17, 2009, the PRB issued an acknowledgement letter to 12/17/09 support the NRCs staffs resolution of the petitioner, accepting the petition in part for review for Vermont decommissioning funding issues.

Yankee Nuclear Station and River Bend Nuclear Power Plant, under

  • On May 14, 2010, the OEDO approved an 05/14/10 10 CFR 2.206 (ADAMS Accession No. ML093440334). extension request until August 20, 2010, to support the NRC staffs resolution of decommissioning funding issues.

07/26/10

  • On July 26, 2010, the OEDO approved an On December 22, 2009, the petitioner provided supplemental 12/22/09 extension request until January 21, 2011, to information in support of his petition by email. support the NRC staffs resolution of decommissioning funding issues.
  • On September 2, 2010, the petition manager 09/02/10 informed the petitioner of the schedule On December 28, 2009, Mr. Martinelli submitted an email to the NRC, 12/28/09 change.

which was tracked under G20090722 (now a closed petition). In G20090722, Mr. Martinelli referenced his petition of August 22, 2009 (G20090487) and voiced objections to the PRB denying his petition with respect to Indian Point.

FACILITY: Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3 OPEN PETITION LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor EDO # G20090690 PETITIONER: Thomas Saporito DATE OF PETITION: DECEMBER 5, 2009 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY: NRR PROPOSED DD ISSUANCE: DECEMBER 3, 2010 FINAL DD ISSUANCE: N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER: OCTOBER 18, 2010 PETITION M ANAGER: FARIDEH SABA CASE ATTORNEY: MICHAEL CLARK ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES For reasons specified within the petition request, the petitioner requests that the NRC take enforcement action against Progress Energy Company, the licensee for Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3, in the interest of protecting the public health and safety regarding the structural failure of the Crystal River, Unit 3, containment building.

CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES PETITION AGE: ~11 MONTHS The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 12/05/09

  • On February 3, 2010, the petitioner was 02/03/10 10 CFR 2.206. informed of the PRBs initial recommendation and offered a second opportunity to address the PRB.
  • On February 12, 2010, the petitioner declined 02/12/10 On December 9, 2009, the petition manager contacted the petitioner (by 12/09/09 the opportunity to address the PRB.

telephone and email) to discuss the 2.206 process. The petitioner

  • On March 4, 2010, the PRB issued an 03/04/10 informed the petition manager by email that he requested an opportunity acknowledgement letter (ADAMS Accession to address the PRB by telephone before the PRB meets to make the No. ML100471416) to the petitioner. The initial recommendation to accept or reject the petition for review under acknowledgement letter conveyed the final 10 CFR 2.206. A call is scheduled with the petitioner on January recommendation to accept the petition for 7, 2010. review, in part.

On December 11, 2009, the OEDO approved an extension request until 12/11/09

  • On June 24, 2010, the OEDO approved an 06/24/10 March 8, 2010, to support the PRB with scheduling of the initial telephone extension request until December 4, 2010, to phone call with the petitioner, the PRB internal meetings, a possible second permit additional time for the staff to issue the presentation by the petitioner to the PRB by phone, and issuance of the Proposed Directors Decision. An extension acknowledgement letter. was needed because of the complexity of the activities that need to be completed by the licensee and for the NRC to review and On January 7, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB by telephone to 01/07/10 evaluate these actions. The petition manager provide additional information in support of the petition. informed the petitioner of this change on June 24, 2010.
  • In an email dated October 17, 2010, the petitioner requested another opportunity to 10/17/10 On January 21 and February 1, 2010, the PRB met internally and made an 01/21/10 & present additional information to the PRB as initial recommendation to accept the petition for review, in part. 02/1/10 a direct result of information shared during a NRC public meeting held with the licensee on June 30, 2010. In accordance with MD 8.11, the petition manager informed the petitioner that additional information should be submitted in writing to the EDO for PRB consideration. If the PRB determines that a call is warranted with the petitioner to clarify any additional information provided, a conference call will be coordinated. To date, the petitioner has not provided any new information to the EDO for PRB consideration.

FACILITY: U.S. Army Installation Command OPEN PETITION LICENSEE TYPE: Materials EDO # G20100136 PETITIONER: Isaac Harp DATE OF PETITION: M ARCH 4, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY: FSME PROPOSED DD ISSUANCE: JANUARY 28, 2011 FINAL DD ISSUANCE: N/A NO IMAGE AVAILABLE LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER: OCTOBER 20, 2010 PETITION M ANAGER: KENNETH KALMAN CASE ATTORNEY: N/A ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES For detailed reasons described in the petition, the petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal in the matter of the Atomic Energy Safety and Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Denying Requests for Hearing) (LBP-10-04), US Army Installation Command, Docket No. 40-9083, served February 24, 2010. In the Notice of Appeal, the petitioner requested that the NRC take enforcement action by initiating an investigation into a potential violation of License SUB-459 and if it is determined that a violation has occurred to apply the full penalty permissible by law. In addition, the petitioner requests that any monetary fines should go toward environmental remediation of depleted uranium contamination at Schofield and Pohakuloa, if the law provides for such action.

CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES PETITION AGE: ~8 MONTHS The petitioner filed a petition for a Notice of Appeal, 03/04/10

  • On April 26, 2010, the PRB issued an 04/26/10 which was referred to the 10 CFR 2.206 process for acknowledgement letter (ADAMS Accession review. No. ML101100139) to convey the PRBs final recommendation to accept the petition for review under 10 CFR 2.206.

On March 25, 2010, the petition manager contacted the 03/25/10 petitioner to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 process and

  • On June 28, 2010, the petition manager offered the petitioner an opportunity to provide 06/28/10 updated the petitioner on the status of the additional information to the PRB. The petitioner petition review via telephone and followed up accepted this opportunity to address the PRB by the phone conversation with a summary email telephone. of the conversation dated June 28, 2010, per the petitioners request. The petitioner On April 14, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB by 04/14/10 confirmed receipt of the summary email on telephone to provide additional information in support of June 29, 2010.

the petition.

  • On July 30, 2010, the OEDO approved an 07/30/10 extension request until January 28, 2011, to On April 14, 2010, the PRB met internally to make the 04/14/10 support the NRCs ability to obtain additional initial recommendation. The PRBs initial information from the U.S. Army.

recommendation was that the petition met the criteria for review, as provided by 10 CFR 2.206.

  • By a teleconference and emails dated 10/20/10 August 24, 2010 and October 13, 2010, the On April 22, 2010, the petition manager 04/22/10 petition manager notified the petitioner that nformed the petitioner of the PRBs initial the PRB needed additional information from recommendation. The petitioner was offered a second the Army and was working to obtain it.

opportunity to address the PRB and declined. Since no Although not related to the 2.206 request, by new information was provided, the initial email dated October 20, 2010, and prior recommendation by the PRB became the final teleconference, the petition manager also recommendation. informed the petitioner that a technical meeting between the NRC and the Army was scheduled for October 29, 2010, to discuss matters related to licensing actions and that the petitioner was welcome to participate in this meeting in person or by teleconference.

FACILITY: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station OPEN PETITION LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor EDO # G20100235 PETITIONER: Representative Paul W. Hodes DATE OF PETITION: APRIL 19, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY: NRR PROPOSED DD ISSUANCE: NOVEMBER 12, 2010 FINAL DD ISSUANCE: N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER: SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 PETITION M ANAGER: JOHN BOSKA CASE ATTORNEY: MOLLY BARKMAN ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES For detailed reasons described in the petition, the petitioner requested that the NRC prevent Entergy, the licensee for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, from resuming power production after its scheduled refueling outage until several efforts (as described in the petition) have been completed to the NRC Commissions satisfaction.

CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES PETITION AGE: ~7 MONTHS The petitioner submitted a letter to the Honorable Gregory B. Jaczko to 04/19/10

  • On May 4, 2010, the petition manager informed the 05/04/10 request that the NRC not allow Vermont Yankee to restart after its petitioner of the initial recommendation and offered a scheduled refueling outage until all environmental remediation work and second opportunity to address the PRB. The petitioner relevant reports on leaking tritium at the plant have been completed. declined. Thus the initial recommendation became the Since the letter requested an enforcement action against Entergy, the final recommendation.

letter was referred by the Office of the Secretary to the 10 CFR 2.206 process.

  • On May 14, 2010, the petitioner submitted a supplement to 05/14/10 the petition (ADAMS Accession No. ML101370031).

On April 29, 2010, the Office of Congressional Affairs confirmed that the 04/29/10 05/20/10

  • On May 20, 2010, the EDO issued an acknowledgement petitioner was in agreement with the NRCs approach to process the letter (ADAMS Accession No. ML101310049) to convey letter in accordance with the 10 CFR 2.206 process. In a subsequent the PRBs final recommendation to accept the petition for discussion with the petition manager, the petitioner declined an review under 10 CFR 2.206.

opportunity to address the PRB before it met internally to make the initial recommendation.

  • On June 16, 2010, the petitioner submitted a letter to NRC 06/16/10 Chairman Jaczko after learning of recent reports of leaking radioactive water at Vermont Yankee.
  • On June 18, 2010, the NRCs Office of Congressional Affairs confirmed that Representative Paul Hodes wanted 06/18/10 On May 3, 2010, the PRB met internally to discuss the petition. The 05/03/10 PRBs initial recommendation was that the petition met the criteria for the June 16, 2010, letter treated as additional information review and should be accepted for review under the 10 CFR 2.206 in support of his April 19, 2010, petition request.

process.

  • On September 3, 2010, the OEDO approved an extension 09/03/10 until November 12, 2010, to support the PRBs ability to coordinate with Region I, prior to issuing the Proposed Directors Decision.
  • On September 8, 2010, the petition manager informed 09/08/10 Congressman Hodes staff of the extension.

FACILITY: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station OPEN PETITION LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor EDO # G20100027 PETITIONER: Michael Mulligan DATE OF PETITION: JANUARY 12, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY: NRR PROPOSED DD ISSUANCE: JANUARY 21, 2011 FINAL DD ISSUANCE: N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER: OCTOBER 26, 2010 PETITION M ANAGER: JAMES KIM CASE ATTORNEY: MOLLY BARKMAN ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES The petitioner believes that the radioactive leak at Vermont Yankee poses risks to human health and environment and he requests that Vermont Yankee be immediately shutdown and all leaking paths be isolated. The petitioner also requests that Vermont Yankee discloses its preliminary root cause analysis and that the NRC releases its preliminary investigative report on this before plant start-up.

CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES PETITION AGE: ~9 MONTHS The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 01/12/10

  • On February 26, 2010, the PRB obtained 02/26/10 10 CFR 2.206. approval from the NRR Office Director to consolidate this petition with similar On January 15, 2010, the petition manager contacted the petitioner by 01/15/10 Vermont Yankee 2.206 petitions from Mr.

email to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 process and offer the petitioner an Shadis (G20100074) and Mr. Saporito opportunity to address the PRB. On January 20, 2010, the petitioner (G20100098) in accordance with MD 8.11, accepted this opportunity to address the PRB. Criteria for Consolidating Petitions. The petition manager notified each Vermont Yankee petitioner of the PRBs decision to On January 25, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB by telephone. 01/25/10 consolidate all of the similar VY 2.206 petitions.

  • The PRB was still evaluating the additional 03/30/10 On February 1 and 4, 2010, the PRB met internally to consider the 02/01/10 & information provided by the petitioner, additional information received and to make an initial recommendation. 02/04/10 before it reached a final recommendation.

The PRBs initial recommendation is that the petition meets the criteria for rejection because the issue raised has already been the subject of NRC

  • On April 12, 2010, the OEDO approved an 04/12/10 staff review, and a resolution has been achieved. extension until July 15, 2010, to issue the acknowledgement letter.
  • On June 25, 2010, the NRC issued an 06/25/10 On February 12, 2010, the petition manager informed the petitioner of the 02/12/10 acknowledgement letter (ADAMS PRBs initial recommendation. The petitioner requested a second Accession No. ML101450004), accepting opportunity to address the PRB. the petition for review, in part.
  • On October 8, 2010, the OEDO 10/08//10 approved an extension request until On February 23, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB by telephone to 02/23/10 January 21, 2011, to issue the Proposed provide additional information in support of his petition. The PRB planned Directors Decision. Additional time was to evaluate the additional information provided by the petitioner, before it needed to support NRRs ability to meets internally to make a final recommendation. coordinate with Region I.
  • On October 26, 2010, the petition manager 10/26/10 informed the petitioner of the change in the Proposed Directors Decision due date.

FACILITY: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station OPEN PETITION LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor EDO # G20100074 PETITIONER: Raymond Shadis, New England Coalition (NEC)

DATE OF PETITION: FEBRUARY 8, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY: NRR PROPOSED DD ISSUANCE: JANUARY 21, 2011 FINAL DD ISSUANCE: N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER: OCTOBER 26, 2010 PETITION M ANAGER: JAMES KIM CASE ATTORNEY: MOLLY BARKMAN ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES For detailed reasons discussed within the petition request, the petitioner requested that the NRC immediately require that Vermont Yankee be placed in cold shutdown and depressurize all systems in order to slow or stop the leak. The NEC also requests that VY be held in cold shutdown until all leaks of radio-contaminants have been repaired, all buried pipes replaced, and until the affected area (of the leaks) is radiologically characterized together with a determination of its potential additional cost of remediation in decommissioning.

CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES PETITION AGE: ~8 MONTHS The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206. 02/08/10

  • On April 22, 2010, the PRB met internally 04/22/10 to make the initial recommendation. The On February 17, 2010, the PRB met to discuss the request for immediate action. 02/17/10 PRB determined that the petition met the The PRB did not identify any immediate health or safety concerns to warrant an criteria for acceptance, in part.

immediate shutdown of Vermont Yankee. Thus the PRB denied the petitioners

  • On April 27, 2010, the petitioner was 04/27/10 request for immediate action. informed of the PRB initial recommendation and requested a second opportunity to address the PRB.

On February 19, 2010, the petition manager informed the petitioner of the PRBs 02/19/10 decision regarding the request for immediate action. The petitioner was also

  • On May 5, 2010, the petitioner addressed 05/05/10 offered an opportunity to address the PRB prior to its internal meeting to make the PRB by telephone.

the initial recommendation. The petitioner accepted this opportunity and

  • On May 10, 2010, the PRB met internally 05/10/10 requested to address the PRB by telephone on March 3, 2010. to discuss the additional information provided during the call and to make a final recommendation.

On February 26, 2010, the PRB obtained approval from the NRR Office Director 02/26/10 to consolidate this petition with similar Vermont Yankee 2.206 petitions from Mr.

  • On June 25, 2010, the NRC issued an 06/25/10 Mulligan (G20100027) and Mr. Saporito (G20100098) in accordance with acknowledgement letter (ADAMS MD 811, Criteria for Consolidating Petitions. The petition manager notified Accession No. ML101450004),

each Vermont Yankee petitioner of the PRBs decision to consolidate all of the accepting the petition for review, in part.

similar VY 2.206 petitions.

  • On October 8, 2010, the OEDO 10/08/10 approved an extension request until January 21, 2011, to issue the Proposed On March 3, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB by telephone to provide 03/03/10 Directors Decision. Additional time was additional information in support of the petition, prior to the PRBs internal discussion needed to support NRRs ability to to make the initial recommendation. coordinate with Region I.
  • On October 26, 2010, the petition 10/26/10 manager informed the petitioner of the On March 25, 2010, the PRB met internally to make the initial recommendation. The 3/25/10 change in the Proposed Directors PRB determined that further internal discussions were needed to consider all aspects Decision due date.

of the consolidated Vermont Yankee 2.206 petitions. Therefore, a subsequent internal PRB meeting was planned for April 2010 to make the initial recommendation.

FACILITY: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station OPEN PETITION LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor EDO # G20100098 PETITIONER: Thomas Saporito DATE OF PETITION: FEBRUARY 20, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY: NRR PROPOSED DD ISSUANCE: JANUARY 21, 2011 FINAL DD ISSUANCE: N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER: OCTOBER 26, 2010 PETITION M ANAGER: JAMES KIM CASE ATTORNEY: MOLLY BARKMAN ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES For detailed reasons described in the petition, the petitioner requested that the NRC immediately bring the Vermont Yankee to a cold-shut-down mode of operation until such time as (1) the root-cause of the radioactive tritium leak can be determined; and (2) the tritium leak repaired and verified by an independent NRC contractor or state contractor; and (3) Licensee executives that gave false and misleading information to state officials are removed from positions of authority in the oversight and operation of Vermont Yankee.

CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES PETITION AGE: ~8 MONTHS The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 02/20/10

  • On April 22, 2010, the PRB met internally 04/22/10 10 CFR 2.206. to make the initial recommendation. The PRB determined that the petition met the On February 25, 2010, the PRB met to discuss the request for immediate 02/25/10 criteria for acceptance, in part.

action. The PRB did not identify any immediate health or safety concerns to warrant an immediate shutdown of Vermont Yankee. Thus the PRB

  • On April 27, 2010, the petitioner was 04/27/10 denied the petitioners request for immediate action. informed of the PRB initial recommendation and requested a second opportunity to address the PRB by telephone.

On February 26, 2010, the PRB obtained approval from the NRR Office 02/26/10 Director to consolidate this petition with similar Vermont Yankee 2.206

  • On May 5, 2010, the petitioner addressed 05/05/10 petitions from Mr. Mulligan (G20100027) and Mr. Shadis (G20100074) in the PRB by telephone.

accordance with MD 811, Criteria for Consolidating Petitions. The

  • On May 10, 2010, the PRB met internally to 05/10/10 petition manager has notified each Vermont Yankee petitioner of the discuss the additional information provided PRBs decision to consolidate all of the similar VY 2.206 petitions.

during the call and to make a final recommendation.

On March 1, 2010, the petition manager informed the petitioner of the 03/01/10

  • On June 25, 2010, the NRC issued an 06/25/10 PRBs decision regarding the request for immediate action. The petitioner acknowledgement letter (ADAMS was also offered an opportunity to address the PRB prior to its internal Accession No. ML101450004), accepting meeting to make the initial recommendation. The petitioner accepted this the petition for review, in part.

opportunity and requested to address the PRB by telephone on

  • On October 8, 2010, the OEDO March 8, 2010. 10/08/10 approved an extension request until January 21, 2011, to issue the Proposed On March 8, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB by telephone to 03/08/10 Directors Decision. Additional time was provide additional information in support of the petition, prior to the PRBs needed to support NRRs ability to internal discussion to make the initial recommendation. coordinate with Region I.
  • On October 26, 2010, the petition manager 10/26/10 On March 25, 2010, the PRB met internally to make the initial 03/25/10 informed the petitioner of the change in the recommendation. The PRB determined that further internal discussions Proposed Directors Decision due date.

were needed to consider all aspects of the consolidated Vermont Yankee 2.206 petitions. Therefore, a subsequent internal PRB meeting was planned for April 2010 to make the initial recommendation.

FACILITY: Davis-Besse Nuclear Plant OPEN PETITION LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor EDO # G20100192 PETITIONER: David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists DATE OF PETITION: APRIL 5, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY: NRR PROPOSED DD ISSUANCE: NOVEMBER 10, 2010 FINAL DD ISSUANCE: N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER: JULY 13, 2010 PETITION M ANAGER: MICHAEL M AHONEY CASE ATTORNEY: M AURI LEMONCELLI ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES As described in detail in the petition, the petitioner requests that the NRC take enforcement action against the licensee for Davis-Besse nuclear plant to prevent the reactor from restarting until such time the NRC determines that applicable adequate protection standards have been met and reasonable assurance exists that these standards will continue to be met after operation is resumed. The specific technical issue of concern pertains to the UCS conclusion that Davis-Besse has operated repeatedly for longer than six hours after the onset of pressure boundary leakage, and that the Davis-Besse technical specifications do not allow any pressure boundary leakage.

CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES PETITION AGE: ~6 MONTHS The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 04/05/10

  • On April 28, 2010, the OEDO approved an extension 04/28/10 10 CFR 2.206. request until July 16, 2010, to support additional coordination with Region III.

On April 7, 2010, the petition manager contacted the petitioner by 04/07/10 email to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 process and offer the petitioner

  • The PRB met internally on June 14, 2010, to make 06/14/10 an opportunity to address the PRB. The petition manager spoke the initial recommendation. The PRB determined on the telephone with the petitioner or April 8, 2010 to discuss the that the petition met the criteria for review. The process. The petitioner confirmed his understanding of the petition manager informed the petitioner by email on 10 CFR 2.206 process and declined an opportunity to address the June 22, 2010.

PRB before it met internally to make the initial recommendation. 07/13/10

  • On July 13, 2010, the NRC issued an acknowledgement letter (ADAMS Accession No.

On April 14, 2010, the PRB met internally to discuss the petition 04/14/10 ML101890876) to the petitioner. A proposed and to make the initial recommendation. The PRB was unable to Directors Decision is scheduled for issuance by make an initial recommendation regarding if the petition met the November 10, 2010.

criteria for review and recommended additional coordination with Region III.

On April 21, 2010, the petition manager informed the petitioner that 04/21/10 additional time was needed to coordinate with Region prior to making the initial recommendation. The petitioner confirmed by email that he had no questions or concerns at this time.

FACILITY: Pilgrim Nuclear Station OPEN PETITION LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor UNDER PETITIONER: Mary Lampert CONSIDERATION EDO # G20100454 DATE OF PETITION: JULY 19, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY: NRR PROPOSED DD ISSUANCE: N/A FINAL DD ISSUANCE: N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER: SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PETITION M ANAGER: RICHARD GUZMAN CASE ATTORNEY: M AURI LEMONCELLI ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES For detailed reasons described in the petition, the petitioner requested that the NRC issue a Demand For Information Order that Entergy, the licensee for Pilgrim Nuclear Station (PNS), demonstrate that all inaccessible cables at Pilgrim NPS are capable of performing their required function, be it safety or non-safety related.

CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES PETITION AGE: ~4 MONTHS The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 07/19/10

  • On September 1, 2010, the petition manager 09/01/10 10 CFR 2.206. informed the petitioner of the PRBs initial recommendation.
  • On September 1, 2010, the petitioner submitted 09/01/10 On July 27, 2010, the petition manager contacted the petitioner to 07/27/10 her August 13, 2010, petition (G20100527) as a discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 process and offer the petitioner an supplement to be considered with the review of opportunity to address the PRB. The petitioner requested an her original petition dated July 19, 2010 opportunity to address the PRB by telephone before it meets (G201000454).

internally to make the initial recommendation.

  • On September 27, 2010, the petitioner 09/27/10 addressed the PRB by telephone to provide The petition manager confirmed that the petitioner could support a 07/31/10 additional information in support of the petition call on August 9, 2010. request.
  • On October 4, 2010, the OEDO approved an 10/04/10 extension request until November 16, 2010, for On August 6, 2010, the petitioner submitted a supplement to her 08/06/10 the PRB to issue the acknowledgement letter.

petition dated July 19, 2010. Additional time was requested by the PRB to support additional interactions with the petitioner and for the PRB to meet internally to make the initial and final recommendation. On On August 9, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB by telephone 08/09/10 November 4, 2010, the PRB plans to meet to provide additional information in support of her petition.

internally to discuss the supplemental information received prior to making the final recommendation.

On August 12, 2010, the OEDO approved an extension request until 08/12/10 October 19, 2010, to permit additional time for the staff to conduct its PRB meeting and to issue the acknowledgement letter. An extension was needed in part, to support limited availability of PRB members and for the staff to review and evaluate the petition and supplement dated August 6, 2010.

On August 23, 2010, the PRB met internally to discuss the petition 08/23/10 and to make the initial recommendation. The PRBs initial recommendation was that the petition met the criteria for review.

FACILITY: Pilgrim Nuclear Station OPEN PETITION LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor UNDER PETITIONER: Mary Lampert CONSIDERATION EDO # G20100527 DATE OF PETITION: AUGUST 13, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY: NRR PROPOSED DD ISSUANCE: N/A FINAL DD ISSUANCE: N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER: SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PETITION M ANAGER: RICH GUZMAN CASE ATTORNEY: M AURI LEMONCELLI ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES For detailed reasons described in the petition, the petitioner requested that the NRC issue an Order that requires Entergy, the licensee for Pilgrim Nuclear Station (PNS), to immediately perform an updated hydro-geologic analysis.

CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES PETITION AGE: ~2 MONTHS The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 08/13/10

  • On September 1, 2010, the petition manager contacted 09/01/10 10 CFR 2.206. the petitioner to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 process and offer the petitioner an opportunity to address the PRB.

The petitioner conveyed her intent for the PRB to consider this petition dated August 13, 2010 (G20100527) as a supplement to her original petition dated July 19, 2010 (G201000454).

  • On September 27, 2010, the petitioner addressed the 09/27/10 PRB by telephone to provide additional information in support of the petition request. The PRB plans to meet internally to discuss the supplemental information received.
  • On October 4, 2010, the PRB requested that the OEDO 10/04/10 cancel the green ticket (G20100527) which tracks the petitioners letter dated August 13, 2010, and track this letter as a supplement to G20100454 (Ms. Lamperts original petition). The OEDO requested that instead of cancelling G20100527, NRR should combine both green tickets into one response. For future updates, the status of G20100527 will be tracked in this monthly status report, under G20100454.

FACILITY: Callaway Nuclear Power Plant OPEN PETITION LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor UNDER PETITIONER: Lawrence S. Criscione CONSIDERATION EDO # G20100592 DATE OF PETITION: SEPTEMBER 17, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY: NRR PROPOSED DD ISSUANCE: N/A FINAL DD ISSUANCE: N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER: N/A PETITION M ANAGER: MOHAN THADANI CASE ATTORNEY: N/A ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES As described in detail in the petition, the petitioner requests that the NRC issue a Demand For Information to Ameren Corporation regarding the abnormalities of the October 21, 2003, reactor shutdown at Callaway Plant.

CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES PETITION AGE: ~1 MONTH The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 09/17/10

  • The NRC staff is evaluating the petition to 09/27/10 10 CFR 2.206. determine if it meets the criteria for review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206.
  • On October 19, 2010, the petitioner confirmed his 10/19/10 availability to address the PRB in person during a public meeting at NRC Headquarters, to discuss the petition request. A meeting notice will be issued to inform the public.

FACILITY: Three Mile Island, Unit 2 OPEN PETITION LICENSEE TYPE: Materials UNDER PETITIONER: Eric Epstein CONSIDERATION EDO # G20100619 DATE OF PETITION: SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY: FSME PROPOSED DD ISSUANCE: N/A FINAL DD ISSUANCE: N/A NO IMAGE AVAILABLE LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER: OCTOBER 19, 2010 PETITION M ANAGER: JOHN BUCKLEY CASE ATTORNEY: PATTY JEHLE ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES For detailed reasons described in the petition, the petitioner seeks enforcement action in the form of a Demand for Information (DFI) requiring FirstEnergy to provide the NRC with site-specific information and financial guarantees that demonstrate and verify the licensee has adequate funding in place to decommission and decontaminate Three Mile Island, Unit 2 (TMI-2), and that any proposed mergers will not place additional financial pressures on FirstEnergys ability to satisfy its decommissioning obligations in 2036.

CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES PETITION AGE: ~1 MONTH The petitioner filed a petition for enforcement action 09/30/10

  • On October 27, 2010, the petition manager 10/27/10 under 10 CFR 2.206. informed the petitioner of the PRBs initial recommendation. The petitioner was offered a second opportunity to address the PRB and declined. Since no new information was On October 18, 2010, the petition manager contacted 10/18/2010 provided, the initial recommendation by the the petitioner to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 process and PRB became the final recommendation. By offered the petitioner an opportunity to provide November 15, 2010, the PRB plans to issue additional information to the PRB. The petitioner an acknowledgement letter to convey the accepted this opportunity to address the PRB by PRBs final recommendation to accept the telephone. petition for review under 10 CFR 2.206.

On October 19, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB 10/19/10 by telephone to provide additional information in support of the petition.

On October 19, 2010, and October 25, 2010, the PRB 10/25/2010 met internally to make the initial recommendation. The PRBs initial recommendation was that the petition met the criteria for review, as provided by 10 CFR 2.206.

FACILITY: Indian Point (IP) OPEN PETITION LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor UNDER PETITIONER: Paul Blanch CONSIDERATION EDO # G20090655 DATE OF PETITION: OCTOBER 25, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY: NRR PROPOSED DD ISSUANCE: N/A FINAL DD ISSUANCE: N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER: N/A PETITION M ANAGER: JOHN BOSKA CASE ATTORNEY: N/A ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES For reasons specified within the petition request, the petitioner requests that the NRC issue a Demand For Information to Entergy, for Indian Point (IP),

to demonstrate its capability to protect the public in the event of a natural gas line rupture, explosion, or fire in the proximity of and passing directly through the IP site.

CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES PETITION AGE: ~1 WEEK The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10/25/10

  • The NRC staff is evaluating the petition to 10/31/10 10 CFR 2.206. determine if it meets the criteria for review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206.
  • On October 27, 2010, the petitioner confirmed his 10/27/10 availability to address the PRB by teleconference to discuss the petition request.

Enclosure 2 ML102940362 Age Statistics for Open 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions

AGE STATISTICS FOR AGENCY 10 CFR 2.206 OPEN PETITIONS 1

Assigned Facility/ Incoming PRB Meeting Acknowledgment Proposed Directors Final Directors Comments on the 3 4 Action Petitioner Petition Letter/Days from Decision/Age in Days Decision/Age in Days Completion Goal status 2

Office Incoming Petition The goal to issue the acknowledgement letter was not met. The PRB meeting was delayed to Indian Point, support a request from the Units 2 and 3; petitioner to address the Vermont Yankee PRB by phone, before it Nuclear Station NRR 8/22/09 12/08/09 12/17/09 met internally to make an Sherwood initial recommendation.

109 days 117 days Martinelli The delay in holding the PRB meeting impacted our G20090487 ability to issue an acknowledgement letter in accordance with the NRCs timeliness goals.

The goal to issue the acknowledgement letter was not met. The PRB meeting was delayed to Crystal River support a request from the petitioner to address the Thomas 12/05/09 01/07/10 03/04/10 PRB by phone, before it NRR Saporito 33 days 86 days met internally to make an G20090690 initial recommendation.

The delay in holding the PRB meeting impacted our ability to issue an acknowledgement letter in accordance with the NRCs timeliness goals.

1 Goal is to hold a Petition Review Board 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 Directors Decision within 120 days of the acknowledgment letter.

4 Goal is to issue final Directors Decision within 45 days of the end of the comment period.

The goal to issue the acknowledgement letter was not met. This letter was originally submitted to the NRC as a petition for a Notice of Appeal, which was subsequently referred to the 10 CFR 2.206 process for review. The U.S. Army additional time required to Installation 03/04/10 04/14/10 04/26/10 ensure that this letter was Command FSME in the correct process, in Isaac Harp 41 days 53 days addition to time needed to coordinate a call with the G20100136 petitioner, contributed to the delay with holding a call with the PRB within two weeks of receipt of the petition and with issuing the acknowledgement letter in accordance with the NRCs timeliness goals.

Vermont Yankee Representative 04/19/10 05/03/10 05/20/10 NRR Paul Hodes 14 days 31 days G20101235 The goal to issue the acknowledgement letter was not met. On February 26, 2010, the PRB obtained approval from the NRR Office Director to consolidate this petition Vermont Yankee with similar VY petitions from Mr. Shadis and Mr.

NRR Michael Mulligan 01/12/10 01/25/10 06/25/10 Saporito. The goal to G20100027 12 days 164 days issue the acknowledgement letter within 35 days of the incoming petition was exceeded as a result of the PRBs interactions with all three petitioners.

However the delay facilitated the PRBs ability

to review all similar VY petitions in a consolidated manner.

The goal to issue the acknowledgement letter was not met. On February 26, 2010, the PRB obtained approval from the NRR Office Director to consolidate this petition with similar VY petitions from Mr. Mulligan and Vermont Yankee Mr. Saporito. The goal to Raymond issue the NRR 02/08/10 02/17/10 06/25/10 Shadis, NEC acknowledgement letter 9 days 137 days within 35 days of the G20100074 incoming petition was exceeded as a result of the PRBs interactions with all three petitioners.

However the delay facilitated the PRBs ability to review all similar VY petitions in a consolidated manner.

The goal to issue the acknowledgement letter was not met. On February 26, 2010, the PRB obtained approval from the NRR Office Director to consolidate this petition Vermont Yankee with similar VY petitions from Mr. Shadis and Mr.

Thomas 02/25/10 06/25/10 NRR 02/20/10 Mulligan. The goal to Saporito 5 days 125 days issue the G20100098 acknowledgement letter within 35 days of the incoming petition was exceeded as a result of the PRBs interactions with all three petitioners.

However the delay facilitated the PRBs ability to review all similar VY

petitions in a consolidated manner.

The goal to issue the acknowledgement letter was not met. Additional coordination between the Office of Nuclear Reactor Davis-Besse Regulation and Region III was necessary to support David NRR 04/05/10 04/14/10 07/13/10 inspections and a public Lochbaum meeting at the plant, to 9 days 99 days G20100192 support the PRBs ability to make the initial and final recommendations. This delayed issuance of the acknowledgement letter to the petitioner.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML102940362&oldid=2554144"