ML102940362
| ML102940362 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Indian Point, Pilgrim, River Bend, Crystal River, Callaway, Yankee Rowe, Crane |
| 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) | |
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 G20100574 2
CURRENT STATUS OF OPEN PETITIONS Indian Point Units 2 and 3; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, River Bend Nuclear Power Plant Sherwood Martinelli G20090487 3
Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3 Thomas Saporito G20090690 4
U.S. Army Installation Command Isaac Harp G20100136 5
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Representative Paul W. Hodes G20100235 6
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Michael Mulligan G20100027 7
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Ray Shadis G20100074 8
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Thomas Saporito G20100098 9
Davis-Besse Nuclear Plant David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists G20100192 10 CURRENT STATUS OF OPEN PETITIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION Pilgrim Nuclear Station Mary Lampert G20100454 11 Pilgrim Nuclear Station Mary Lampert G20100527 12 Callaway Nuclear Power Plant Lawrence S. Criscione G20100592 13 Three Mile Island Unit 2 Eric Epstein G20100619 14 Indian Point Paul Blanch G20100655 15
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~1 MONTH The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
09/12/10 The NRC staff was evaluating the petition to determine if it meets the criteria for review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206.
In a letter dated October 12, 2010 (ADAMS 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.
09/27/10 10/12/10 FACILITY:
Turkey Point (TP), Units 3 and 4 LICENSEE TYPE:
Reactor PETITIONER:
Thomas Saporito 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.
ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES DATE OF PETITION:
SEPTEMBER 12, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
N/A FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
OCTOBER 12, 2010 PETITION MANAGER:
JASON PAIGE CASE ATTORNEY:
N/A CLOSED PETITION EDO # G20100574
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~14 MONTHS The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
08/22/09 The PRB met internally on January 14, 2010, 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 G20090487. Therefore, the information provided in G20090722 will be reviewed as a supplement to G20090487. The OEDO has terminated G20090722.
On March 2, 2010, the OEDO approved an extension request until May 28, 2010, to support the NRCs staffs resolution of decommissioning funding issues.
On May 14, 2010, the OEDO approved an extension request until August 20, 2010, to support the NRC staffs resolution of decommissioning funding issues.
On July 26, 2010, the OEDO approved an extension request until January 21, 2011, to support the NRC staffs resolution of decommissioning funding issues.
On September 2, 2010, the petition manager informed the petitioner of the schedule change.
01/14/10 03/02/10 05/14/10 07/26/10 09/02/10 For a complete summary of NRC actions prior to 12/17/09, please refer to the August 2010 monthly status report (ML102510120).
12/17/09 On December 17, 2009, the PRB issued an acknowledgement letter to the petitioner, accepting the petition in part for review for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Station and River Bend Nuclear Power Plant, under 10 CFR 2.206 (ADAMS Accession No. ML093440334).
12/17/09 On December 22, 2009, the petitioner provided supplemental information in support of his petition by email.
12/22/09 On December 28, 2009, Mr. Martinelli submitted an email to the NRC, 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.
12/28/09 ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES FACILITY:
Indian Point (IP), Units 2 & 3; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station; River Bend Nuclear Power Plant LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor PETITIONER:
Sherwood Martinelli OPEN PETITION EDO # G20090487 DATE OF PETITION:
AUGUST 22, 2009 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
JANUARY 21, 2011 FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
NOVEMBER 1, 2010 PETITION MANAGER:
DOUG PICKETT CASE ATTORNEY:
N/A 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.
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~11 MONTHS The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
12/05/09 On February 3, 2010, the petitioner was informed of the PRBs initial recommendation and offered a second opportunity to address the PRB.
On February 12, 2010, the petitioner declined the opportunity to address the PRB.
On March 4, 2010, the PRB issued an acknowledgement letter (ADAMS Accession No. ML100471416) to the petitioner. The acknowledgement letter conveyed the final recommendation to accept the petition for review, in part.
On June 24, 2010, the OEDO approved an extension request until December 4, 2010, to permit additional time for the staff to issue the Proposed Directors Decision. An extension was needed because of the complexity of the activities that need to be completed by the licensee and for the NRC to review and evaluate these actions. The petition manager informed the petitioner of this change on June 24, 2010.
In an email dated October 17, 2010, the petitioner requested another opportunity to present additional information to the PRB as 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.
02/03/10 02/12/10 03/04/10 06/24/10 10/17/10 On December 9, 2009, the petition manager contacted the petitioner (by telephone and email) to discuss the 2.206 process. The petitioner informed the petition manager by email that he requested an opportunity to address the PRB by telephone before the PRB meets to make the initial recommendation to accept or reject the petition for review under 10 CFR 2.206. A call is scheduled with the petitioner on January 7, 2010.
12/09/09 On December 11, 2009, the OEDO approved an extension request until March 8, 2010, to support the PRB with scheduling of the initial telephone phone call with the petitioner, the PRB internal meetings, a possible second presentation by the petitioner to the PRB by phone, and issuance of the acknowledgement letter.
12/11/09 On January 7, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB by telephone to provide additional information in support of the petition.
01/07/10 On January 21 and February 1, 2010, the PRB met internally and made an initial recommendation to accept the petition for review, in part.
01/21/10 &
02/1/10 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.
FACILITY:
Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3 LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor PETITIONER:
Thomas Saporito OPEN PETITION EDO # G20090690 DATE OF PETITION:
DECEMBER 5, 2009 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
DECEMBER 3, 2010 FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
OCTOBER 18, 2010 PETITION MANAGER:
FARIDEH SABA CASE ATTORNEY:
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~8 MONTHS The petitioner filed a petition for a Notice of Appeal, which was referred to the 10 CFR 2.206 process for review.
03/04/10 On April 26, 2010, the PRB issued an acknowledgement letter (ADAMS Accession No. ML101100139) to convey the PRBs final recommendation to accept the petition for review under 10 CFR 2.206.
On June 28, 2010, the petition manager updated the petitioner on the status of the petition review via telephone and followed up the phone conversation with a summary email of the conversation dated June 28, 2010, per the petitioners request. The petitioner confirmed receipt of the summary email on June 29, 2010.
On July 30, 2010, the OEDO approved an extension request until January 28, 2011, to support the NRCs ability to obtain additional information from the U.S. Army.
By a teleconference and emails dated August 24, 2010 and October 13, 2010, the petition manager notified the petitioner that the PRB needed additional information from the Army and was working to obtain it.
Although not related to the 2.206 request, by email dated October 20, 2010, and prior teleconference, the petition manager also 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.
04/26/10 06/28/10 07/30/10 10/20/10 On March 25, 2010, the petition manager contacted the petitioner to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 process and offered the petitioner an opportunity to provide additional information to the PRB. The petitioner accepted this opportunity to address the PRB by telephone.
03/25/10 On April 14, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB by telephone to provide additional information in support of the petition.
04/14/10 On April 14, 2010, the PRB 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.
04/14/10 On April 22, 2010, the petition manager nformed 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 provided, the initial recommendation by the PRB became the final recommendation.
04/22/10 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.
FACILITY:
U.S. Army Installation Command LICENSEE TYPE: Materials PETITIONER:
Isaac Harp OPEN PETITION EDO # G20100136 DATE OF PETITION:
MARCH 4, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
JANUARY 28, 2011 FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A NO IMAGE AVAILABLE LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
OCTOBER 20, 2010 PETITION MANAGER:
KENNETH KALMAN CASE ATTORNEY:
N/A
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~7 MONTHS The petitioner submitted a letter to the Honorable Gregory B. Jaczko to request that the NRC not allow Vermont Yankee to restart after its scheduled refueling outage until all environmental remediation work and relevant reports on leaking tritium at the plant have been completed.
Since the letter requested an enforcement action against Entergy, the letter was referred by the Office of the Secretary to the 10 CFR 2.206 process.
04/19/10 On May 4, 2010, the petition manager informed the petitioner of the initial recommendation and offered a second opportunity to address the PRB. The petitioner declined. Thus the initial recommendation became the final recommendation.
On May 14, 2010, the petitioner submitted a supplement to the petition (ADAMS Accession No. ML101370031).
On May 20, 2010, the EDO issued an acknowledgement letter (ADAMS Accession No. ML101310049) to convey the PRBs final recommendation to accept the petition for review under 10 CFR 2.206.
On June 16, 2010, the petitioner submitted a letter to NRC 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 the June 16, 2010, letter treated as additional information in support of his April 19, 2010, petition request.
On September 3, 2010, the OEDO approved an extension 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 Congressman Hodes staff of the extension.
05/04/10 05/14/10 05/20/10 06/16/10 06/18/10 09/03/10 09/08/10 On April 29, 2010, the Office of Congressional Affairs confirmed that the petitioner was in agreement with the NRCs approach to process the letter in accordance with the 10 CFR 2.206 process. In a subsequent discussion with the petition manager, the petitioner declined an opportunity to address the PRB before it met internally to make the initial recommendation.
04/29/10 On May 3, 2010, the PRB met internally to discuss the petition. The PRBs initial recommendation was that the petition met the criteria for review and should be accepted for review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process.
05/03/10 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.
FACILITY:
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor PETITIONER:
Representative Paul W. Hodes OPEN PETITION EDO # G20100235 DATE OF PETITION:
APRIL 19, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
NOVEMBER 12, 2010 FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 PETITION MANAGER:
JOHN BOSKA CASE ATTORNEY:
MOLLY BARKMAN
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~9 MONTHS The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
01/12/10 On February 26, 2010, the PRB obtained approval from the NRR Office Director to consolidate this petition with similar Vermont Yankee 2.206 petitions from Mr.
Shadis (G20100074) and Mr. Saporito (G20100098) in accordance with MD 8.11, Criteria for Consolidating Petitions. The petition manager notified each Vermont Yankee petitioner of the PRBs decision to consolidate all of the similar VY 2.206 petitions.
The PRB was still evaluating the additional information provided by the petitioner, before it reached a final recommendation.
On April 12, 2010, the OEDO approved an extension until July 15, 2010, to issue the acknowledgement letter.
On June 25, 2010, the NRC issued an acknowledgement letter (ADAMS Accession No. ML101450004), accepting the petition for review, in part.
On October 8, 2010, the OEDO approved an extension request until January 21, 2011, to issue the Proposed Directors Decision. Additional time was needed to support NRRs ability to coordinate with Region I.
On October 26, 2010, the petition manager informed the petitioner of the change in the Proposed Directors Decision due date.
02/26/10 03/30/10 04/12/10 06/25/10 10/08//10 10/26/10 On January 15, 2010, the petition manager contacted the petitioner by email to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 process and offer the petitioner an opportunity to address the PRB. On January 20, 2010, the petitioner accepted this opportunity to address the PRB.
01/15/10 On January 25, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB by telephone.
01/25/10 On February 1 and 4, 2010, the PRB met internally to consider the additional information received and to make an initial 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 staff review, and a resolution has been achieved.
02/01/10 &
02/04/10 On February 12, 2010, the petition manager informed the petitioner of the PRBs initial recommendation. The petitioner requested a second opportunity to address the PRB.
02/12/10 On February 23, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB by telephone to provide additional information in support of his petition. The PRB planned to evaluate the additional information provided by the petitioner, before it meets internally to make a final recommendation.
02/23/10 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.
FACILITY:
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor PETITIONER:
Michael Mulligan OPEN PETITION EDO # G20100027 DATE OF PETITION:
JANUARY 12, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
JANUARY 21, 2011 FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
OCTOBER 26, 2010 PETITION MANAGER:
JAMES KIM CASE ATTORNEY:
MOLLY BARKMAN
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS 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 to make the initial recommendation. The PRB determined that the petition met the criteria for acceptance, in part.
On April 27, 2010, the petitioner was informed of the PRB initial recommendation and requested a second opportunity to address the PRB.
On May 5, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB by telephone.
On May 10, 2010, the PRB met internally to discuss the additional information provided during the call and to make a final recommendation.
On June 25, 2010, the NRC issued an acknowledgement letter (ADAMS Accession No. ML101450004),
accepting the petition for review, in part.
On October 8, 2010, the OEDO approved an extension request until January 21, 2011, to issue the Proposed Directors Decision. Additional time was needed to support NRRs ability to coordinate with Region I.
On October 26, 2010, the petition manager informed the petitioner of the change in the Proposed Directors Decision due date.
04/22/10 04/27/10 05/05/10 05/10/10 06/25/10 10/08/10 10/26/10 On February 17, 2010, the PRB met to discuss the request for immediate action.
The PRB did not identify any immediate health or safety concerns to warrant an immediate shutdown of Vermont Yankee. Thus the PRB denied the petitioners request for immediate action.
02/17/10 On February 19, 2010, the petition manager informed the petitioner of the PRBs decision regarding the request for immediate action. The petitioner was also offered an opportunity to address the PRB prior to its internal meeting to make the initial recommendation. The petitioner accepted this opportunity and requested to address the PRB by telephone on March 3, 2010.
02/19/10 On February 26, 2010, the PRB obtained approval from the NRR Office Director to consolidate this petition with similar Vermont Yankee 2.206 petitions from Mr.
Mulligan (G20100027) and Mr. Saporito (G20100098) in accordance with MD 811, Criteria for Consolidating Petitions. The petition manager notified each Vermont Yankee petitioner of the PRBs decision to consolidate all of the similar VY 2.206 petitions.
02/26/10 On March 3, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB by telephone to provide additional information in support of the petition, prior to the PRBs internal discussion to make the initial recommendation.
03/03/10 On March 25, 2010, the PRB met internally to make the initial recommendation. The PRB determined that further internal discussions 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.
3/25/10 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.
FACILITY:
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor PETITIONER:
Raymond Shadis, New England Coalition (NEC)
OPEN PETITION EDO # G20100074 DATE OF PETITION:
FEBRUARY 8, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
JANUARY 21, 2011 FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
OCTOBER 26, 2010 PETITION MANAGER:
JAMES KIM CASE ATTORNEY:
MOLLY BARKMAN
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~8 MONTHS The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
02/20/10 On April 22, 2010, the PRB met internally to make the initial recommendation. The PRB determined that the petition met the criteria for acceptance, in part.
On April 27, 2010, the petitioner was informed of the PRB initial recommendation and requested a second opportunity to address the PRB by telephone.
On May 5, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB by telephone.
On May 10, 2010, the PRB met internally to discuss the additional information provided during the call and to make a final recommendation.
On June 25, 2010, the NRC issued an acknowledgement letter (ADAMS Accession No. ML101450004), accepting the petition for review, in part.
On October 8, 2010, the OEDO approved an extension request until January 21, 2011, to issue the Proposed Directors Decision. Additional time was needed to support NRRs ability to coordinate with Region I.
On October 26, 2010, the petition manager informed the petitioner of the change in the Proposed Directors Decision due date.
04/22/10 04/27/10 05/05/10 05/10/10 06/25/10 10/08/10 10/26/10 On February 25, 2010, the PRB met to discuss the request for immediate action. The PRB did not identify any immediate health or safety concerns to warrant an immediate shutdown of Vermont Yankee. Thus the PRB denied the petitioners request for immediate action.
02/25/10 On February 26, 2010, the PRB obtained approval from the NRR Office Director to consolidate this petition with similar Vermont Yankee 2.206 petitions from Mr. Mulligan (G20100027) and Mr. Shadis (G20100074) in accordance with MD 811, Criteria for Consolidating Petitions. The petition manager has notified each Vermont Yankee petitioner of the PRBs decision to consolidate all of the similar VY 2.206 petitions.
02/26/10 On March 1, 2010, the petition manager informed the petitioner of the PRBs decision regarding the request for immediate action. The petitioner was also offered an opportunity to address the PRB prior to its internal meeting to make the initial recommendation. The petitioner accepted this opportunity and requested to address the PRB by telephone on March 8, 2010.
03/01/10 On March 8, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB by telephone to provide additional information in support of the petition, prior to the PRBs internal discussion to make the initial recommendation.
03/08/10 On March 25, 2010, the PRB met internally to make the initial recommendation. The PRB determined that further internal discussions 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.
03/25/10 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.
FACILITY:
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor PETITIONER:
Thomas Saporito OPEN PETITION EDO # G20100098 DATE OF PETITION:
FEBRUARY 20, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
JANUARY 21, 2011 FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
OCTOBER 26, 2010 PETITION MANAGER:
JAMES KIM CASE ATTORNEY:
MOLLY BARKMAN
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~6 MONTHS The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
04/05/10 On April 28, 2010, the OEDO approved an extension request until July 16, 2010, to support additional coordination with Region III.
The PRB met internally on June 14, 2010, to make the initial recommendation. The PRB determined that the petition met the criteria for review. The petition manager informed the petitioner by email on June 22, 2010.
On July 13, 2010, the NRC issued an acknowledgement letter (ADAMS Accession No. ML101890876) to the petitioner. A proposed Directors Decision is scheduled for issuance by November 10, 2010.
04/28/10 06/14/10 07/13/10 On April 7, 2010, the petition manager contacted the petitioner by email to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 process and offer the petitioner an opportunity to address the PRB. The petition manager spoke on the telephone with the petitioner or April 8, 2010 to discuss the process. The petitioner confirmed his understanding of the 10 CFR 2.206 process and declined an opportunity to address the PRB before it met internally to make the initial recommendation.
04/07/10 On April 14, 2010, the PRB met internally to discuss the petition and to make the initial recommendation. The PRB was unable to make an initial recommendation regarding if the petition met the criteria for review and recommended additional coordination with Region III.
04/14/10 On April 21, 2010, the petition manager informed the petitioner that 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.
04/21/10 FACILITY:
Davis-Besse Nuclear Plant LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor PETITIONER:
David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists 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.
ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES DATE OF PETITION:
APRIL 5, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
NOVEMBER 10, 2010 FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
JULY 13, 2010 PETITION MANAGER:
MICHAEL MAHONEY CASE ATTORNEY:
MAURI LEMONCELLI OPEN PETITION EDO # G20100192
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~4 MONTHS The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
07/19/10 On September 1, 2010, the petition manager informed the petitioner of the PRBs initial recommendation.
On September 1, 2010, the petitioner submitted her August 13, 2010, petition (G20100527) as a supplement to be considered with the review of her original petition dated July 19, 2010 (G201000454).
On September 27, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB by telephone to provide additional information in support of the petition request.
On October 4, 2010, the OEDO approved an extension request until November 16, 2010, for the PRB to issue the acknowledgement letter.
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 November 4, 2010, the PRB plans to meet internally to discuss the supplemental information received prior to making the final recommendation.
09/01/10 09/01/10 09/27/10 10/04/10 On July 27, 2010, the petition manager contacted the petitioner to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 process and offer the petitioner an opportunity to address the PRB. The petitioner requested an opportunity to address the PRB by telephone before it meets internally to make the initial recommendation.
07/27/10 The petition manager confirmed that the petitioner could support a call on August 9, 2010.
07/31/10 On August 6, 2010, the petitioner submitted a supplement to her petition dated July 19, 2010.
08/06/10 On August 9, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB by telephone to provide additional information in support of her petition.
08/09/10 On August 12, 2010, the OEDO approved an extension request until 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.
08/12/10 On August 23, 2010, the PRB met internally to discuss the petition and to make the initial recommendation. The PRBs initial recommendation was that the petition met the criteria for review.
08/23/10 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.
FACILITY:
Pilgrim Nuclear Station LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor PETITIONER:
Mary Lampert OPEN PETITION UNDER CONSIDERATION EDO # G20100454 DATE OF PETITION:
JULY 19, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
N/A FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PETITION MANAGER:
RICHARD GUZMAN CASE ATTORNEY:
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~2 MONTHS The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
08/13/10 On September 1, 2010, the petition manager contacted 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 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 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.
09/01/10 09/27/10 10/04/10 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.
FACILITY:
Pilgrim Nuclear Station LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor PETITIONER:
Mary Lampert OPEN PETITION UNDER CONSIDERATION EDO # G20100527 DATE OF PETITION:
AUGUST 13, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
N/A FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PETITION MANAGER:
RICH GUZMAN CASE ATTORNEY:
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~1 MONTH The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
09/17/10
- The NRC staff is evaluating the petition to determine if it meets the criteria for review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206.
On October 19, 2010, the petitioner confirmed his 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.
09/27/10 10/19/10 FACILITY:
Callaway Nuclear Power Plant LICENSEE TYPE:
Reactor PETITIONER:
Lawrence S. Criscione 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.
ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES DATE OF PETITION:
SEPTEMBER 17, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
N/A FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
N/A PETITION MANAGER:
MOHAN THADANI CASE ATTORNEY:
N/A OPEN PETITION UNDER CONSIDERATION EDO # G20100592
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~1 MONTH The petitioner filed a petition for enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
09/30/10 On October 27, 2010, the petition manager 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 provided, the initial recommendation by the PRB became the final recommendation. By November 15, 2010, the PRB plans to issue an acknowledgement letter to convey the PRBs final recommendation to accept the petition for review under 10 CFR 2.206.
10/27/10 On October 18, 2010, the petition manager contacted the petitioner to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 process and offered the petitioner an opportunity to provide additional information to the PRB. The petitioner accepted this opportunity to address the PRB by telephone.
10/18/2010 On October 19, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB by telephone to provide additional information in support of the petition.
10/19/10 On October 19, 2010, and October 25, 2010, the PRB 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.
10/25/2010 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.
FACILITY:
Three Mile Island, Unit 2 LICENSEE TYPE: Materials PETITIONER:
Eric Epstein OPEN PETITION UNDER CONSIDERATION EDO # G20100619 DATE OF PETITION:
SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
N/A FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A NO IMAGE AVAILABLE LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
OCTOBER 19, 2010 PETITION MANAGER:
JOHN BUCKLEY CASE ATTORNEY:
PATTY JEHLE
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~1 WEEK The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
10/25/10
- The NRC staff is evaluating the petition to determine if it meets the criteria for review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206.
On October 27, 2010, the petitioner confirmed his availability to address the PRB by teleconference to discuss the petition request.
10/31/10 10/27/10 ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES FACILITY:
Indian Point (IP)
LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor PETITIONER:
Paul Blanch OPEN PETITION UNDER CONSIDERATION EDO # G20090655 DATE OF PETITION:
OCTOBER 25, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
N/A FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
N/A PETITION MANAGER:
JOHN BOSKA CASE ATTORNEY:
N/A 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.
ML102940362 Age Statistics for Open 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions
AGE STATISTICS FOR AGENCY 10 CFR 2.206 OPEN PETITIONS Assigned Action Office Facility/
Petitioner Incoming Petition PRB Meeting1 Acknowledgment Letter/Days from Incoming Petition2 Proposed Directors Decision/Age in Days3 Final Directors Decision/Age in Days4 Comments on the Completion Goal status NRR Indian Point, Units 2 and 3; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Station Sherwood Martinelli G20090487 8/22/09 12/08/09 109 days 12/17/09 117 days The goal to issue the acknowledgement letter was not met. The PRB meeting was delayed to support a request from the petitioner to address the PRB by phone, before it met internally to make an initial recommendation.
The delay in holding the PRB meeting impacted our ability to issue an acknowledgement letter in accordance with the NRCs timeliness goals.
NRR Crystal River Thomas Saporito G20090690 12/05/09 01/07/10 33 days 03/04/10 86 days The goal to issue the acknowledgement letter was not met. The PRB meeting was delayed to support a request from the petitioner to address the PRB by phone, before it met internally to make an 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.
FSME U.S. Army Installation Command Isaac Harp G20100136 03/04/10 04/14/10 41 days 04/26/10 53 days 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 additional time required to ensure that this letter was in the correct process, in addition to time needed to coordinate a call with the 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.
NRR Vermont Yankee Representative Paul Hodes G20101235 04/19/10 05/03/10 14 days 05/20/10 31 days NRR Vermont Yankee Michael Mulligan G20100027 01/12/10 01/25/10 12 days 06/25/10 164 days 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. Shadis and Mr.
Saporito. The goal to 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.
NRR Vermont Yankee Raymond Shadis, NEC G20100074 02/08/10 02/17/10 9 days 06/25/10 137 days 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 Mr. Saporito. The goal to 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.
NRR Vermont Yankee Thomas Saporito G20100098 02/20/10 02/25/10 5 days 06/25/10 125 days 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. Shadis and Mr.
Mulligan. The goal to 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.
NRR Davis-Besse David Lochbaum G20100192 04/05/10 04/14/10 9 days 07/13/10 99 days The goal to issue the acknowledgement letter was not met. Additional coordination between the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and Region III was necessary to support inspections and a public meeting at the plant, to support the PRBs ability to make the initial and final recommendations. This delayed issuance of the acknowledgement letter to the petitioner.