ML110670576
| ML110670576 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Palisades, Indian Point, Oyster Creek, Byron, Pilgrim, Vermont Yankee, Crystal River, Duane Arnold, Crane |
| Issue date: | 03/17/2011 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | NRC/OCM |
| Mensah T, NRR/DPR, 301-415-3610 | |
| References | |
| WITS 200700062, SECY-2011-0080 | |
| Download: ML110670576 (29) | |
Text
Enclosure 1 ML110670576 Monthly 10 CFR 2.206, Requests for Action Under this Subpart Status Report
PETITIONS CLOSED DURING THIS PERIOD FACILITY PETITIONER/EDO No.
Page Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Representative Paul W. Hodes G20100235 2
Davis-Besse Nuclear Plant David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists G20100192 3
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Raymond Shadis G20100694 4
Byron Station Unit 2 Barry Quigley G20110002 5
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Michael Mulligan G20110069 6
N/A: Exposure of Patients to Radiation Stephen H. Shepherd G20110128 7
CURRENT STATUS OF OPEN PETITIONS Indian Point Units 2 and 3; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, River Bend Nuclear Power Plant Sherwood Martinelli G20090487 8
Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3 Thomas Saporito G20090690 9
U.S. Army Installation Command Isaac Harp G20100136 10 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Michael Mulligan G20100027 11 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Ray Shadis G20100074 12 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Thomas Saporito G20100098 13 Three Mile Island Unit 2 Eric Epstein G20100619 14 CURRENT STATUS OF OPEN PETITIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION Pilgrim Nuclear Station Mary Lampert G20100454,G20100527,G20100689 15 Indian Point Paul Blanch G20100655 16 Duane Arnold Energy Center Thomas Saporito G20100688 17 Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station &
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Mark E. Leyse G20100729 18 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Thomas Saporito G20110043 19 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Michael Mulligan G20110050 20 Palisades Michael Mulligan G20110127 21 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Michael Mulligan G20110130 22
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~11 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 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.
On November 18, 2010, the Proposed Directors Decision was issued to the petitioner and the licensee for comment (ADAMS Accession No. ML101250260). No comments were provided by the petitioner, and only minor comments were provided by the licensee.
On February 2, 2011, the final Directors Decision was issued (ADAMS Accession No. ML110060012). On February 2, 2011, the petitioner was informed of the Directors Decision.
By letter dated February 23, 2011, the Commission informed The Honorable Paul W. Hodes, that the Commission declined to review the Directors Decision (DD-11-01). Accordingly, the decision became final agency action on February 23, 2011.
05/20/10 06/16/10 06/18/10 09/03/10 09/08/10 11/18/10 02/02/11 02/23/11 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 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.
05/04/10 On May 14, 2010, the petitioner submitted a supplement to the petition (ADAMS Accession No. ML101370031).
05/14/10 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 CLOSED PETITION EDO # G20100235 DATE OF PETITION:
APRIL 19, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
NOVEMBER 18, 2010 FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
JANUARY 27, 2011 LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
FEBRUARY 23, 2011 PETITION MANAGER:
JOHN BOSKA CASE ATTORNEY:
MOLLY BARKMAN
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~10 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 was issued on November 10, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML103020469) to the petitioner and the licensee for comment.
On November 23, 2010, the petitioner provided written comments on the Proposed Directors Decision.
On December 13, 2010, the OEDO approved an extension request to support the staffs ability to disposition the petitioners written comments in the Final Directors Decision until February 15, 2011.
On December 28, 2010, the petition manager informed the petitioner of this schedule change to issue the Final Directors Decision.
On February 15, 2011, the final Directors Decision was issued (ADAMS Accession No. ML110250296).
04/28/10 06/14/10 07/13/10 11/10/10 11/23/10 12/13/10 12/28/10 02/15/11 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:
FEBRUARY 15, 2011 LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
FEBRUARY 15, 2011 PETITION MANAGER:
MICHAEL MAHONEY CASE ATTORNEY:
MAURI LEMONCELLI CLOSED PETITION EDO # G20100192
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~3 MONTHS The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
11/17/10 On December 20, 2010, the PRB met internally to discuss the petition. The PRBs initial recommendation was that the petition did not meet the criteria for review because the petition does not contain a request for enforcement-related action. The petitioner was informed of the initial recommendation and requested a second opportunity to address the PRB, per MD 8.11.
On January 20, 2011, the petitioner addressed the PRB by teleconference to provide additional information in support of the petition request.
By letter dated February 24, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML110420347), the PRB issued a closure letter stating that the petition did not meet the criteria for review because the petition did not contain a request for enforcement-related action. All NRC actions on this petition are closed.
12/20/10 01/20/11 02/24/11 On November 22, 2010, the NRC Petition Manager, contacted the petitioner to explain the 10 CFR 2.206 petition review process.
11/22/10 On November 23, 2010, the petitioner requested an opportunity to address the PRB before it met internally to make the initial recommendation.
11/23/10 On December 8, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB by teleconference to provide additional information in support of the petition request.
12/08/10 ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES For detailed reasons discussed within the petition request, the petitioner requested that the NRC act to restore assurance of public health and safety by requiring Entergy to do a thorough root cause analysis of Vermont Yankees recent reactor feedwater piping-system inspection-port leak and perform a comprehensive extent-of-condition review; all under close NRC supervision.
FACILITY:
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor PETITIONER:
Raymond Shadis, New England Coalition (NEC)
CLOSED PETITION EDO # G20100694 DATE OF PETITION:
NOVEMBER 17, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
N/A FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
FEBRUARY 24, 2011 PETITION MANAGER:
JAMES KIM 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.
01/02/11 On February 3, 2011, the PRB met internally to discuss the petition and made an initial recommendation that the petition met the criteria for rejection because the issues raised have been reviewed, evaluated, and resolved.
On February 8, 2011, the petitioner was informed of the PRBs initial recommendation.
The petitioner declined a second opportunity to address the PRB by teleconference. Thus the initial recommendation became the final PRB recommendation.
By letter dated February 28, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML110530078), the PRB documented the final PRB recommendation to the petitioner. All NRC actions on this petition are closed.
02/03/11 02/08/11 02/28/11 On January 7, 2011, the petitioner requested a teleconference with the PRB to provide additional relevant information in support of his petition, before the PRB meets internally to make the initial recommendation.
01/07/11 On January 12, 2011, the petitioner addressed the PRB by teleconference to provide additional information in support of his petition request. The PRB plans to meet internally to make the initial recommendation.
01/12/11 ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES For detailed reasons discussed within the petition request, the petitioner requests that the NRC issue the appropriate level of violation to Exelon for failure to comply with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI as it applies to the pressurizer safety valve (2RY8010A) and for failure to document operability for IR 1144179, Disagree with 2RY8010A Operability Evaluation CA Extension.
FACILITY:
Byron Station, Unit 2 LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor PETITIONER:
Barry Quigley CLOSED PETITION EDO # G20110002 DATE OF PETITION:
JANUARY 2, 2011 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
N/A FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 PETITION MANAGER:
CHUCK NORTON CASE ATTORNEY:
N/A
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.
01/29/11
- On January 31, 2011, the petitioner withdrew his petition request from NRC review via e-mail. The petitioner concluded that the petition has no bases.
- By letter dated February 15, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML110400668), the petition manager issued a closure letter to the petition. All NRC actions on this petition are closed.
01/31/11 02/15/11 ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES For detailed reasons described in the petition, the petitioner is concerned with the unreliability of Vermont Yankees radiological and emergency plans for an indeterminate amount of time. The petitioner notes that the liquid scintillation counter was broken between December 29, 2010, and January 11, 2011, and asserts that as a result of this equipment failure, the emergency evacuation plans were unreliable. The petitioner requested a number of actions (described in the petition), including a request for the NRC to conduct an emergency shutdown of the plant.
FACILITY:
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor PETITIONER:
Michael Mulligan CLOSED PETITION EDO # G20110069 DATE OF PETITION:
JANUARY 29, 2011 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
N/A FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
FEBRUARY 15, 2011 PETITION MANAGER:
JAMES KIM CASE ATTORNEY:
N/A
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~3 WEEKS The petitioner filed a petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.206.
02/19/11
- On March 9, 2011, the EDO transferred G20110128 to ADM to be handled under the 10 CFR 2.802 process. All NRC actions regarding this 2.206 request are closed.
03/09/11 A request for rulemaking is not considered under the 10 CFR 2.206 process. By letter dated February 25, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML110591054), Mr. Shepherd was informed by the NRCs Office of Administration (ADM), that the petition is currently under review to determine if it meets the NRCs requirements for docketing under our regulations for petitions for rulemaking under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 2.802.
02/25/11 ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES For detailed reasons described in the petition, the petitioner filed a 10 CFR 2.206 petition for the Commission to pursue rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 20.1002 to require that the limits of 10 CFR 20 apply during the exposure of patients to radiation for the purpose of medical diagnosis or therapy except when alternative, medically effective, lower radiation or non-radiation-based diagnosis or therapy methods do not exist or cannot be utilized due to an emergency condition.
FACILITY:
N/A LICENSEE TYPE: Materials PETITIONER:
Stephen H. Shepherd CLOSED PETITION EDO # G20110128 DATE OF PETITION:
FEBRUARY 19, 2011 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
N/A FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A NO IMAGE AVAILABLE LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
FEBRUARY 25, 2011 PETITION MANAGER:
N/A CASE ATTORNEYS:
N/A
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~18 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.
On December 21, 2010, the OEDO approved an extension request until June 24, 2011, to support the NRC staffs resolution of decommissioning funding issues. The petitioner was informed of this schedule change on December 28, 2010.
01/14/10 03/02/10 05/14/10 07/26/10 09/02/10 12/21/10 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:
JUNE 24, 2011 FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
DECEMBER 28, 2010 PETITION MANAGER:
DOUG PICKETT CASE ATTORNEY:
PATRICIA JEHLE 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: ~15 MONTHS The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
12/05/09 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.
On November 23, 2010, the OEDO approved an extension request until June 3, 2011, to permit additional time for the staff to issue the Proposed Directors Decision. The petition manager informed the petitioner of this change on November 23, 2010.
03/04/10 06/24/10 10/17/10 11/23/10 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 teleconference 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 teleconference 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 On February 3, 2010, the petitioner was informed of the PRBs initial recommendation and offered a second opportunity to address the PRB.
02/03/10 On February 12, 2010, the petitioner declined the opportunity to address the PRB.
02/12/10 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:
JUNE 3, 2011 FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
NOVEMBER 23, 2010 PETITION MANAGER:
FARIDEH SABA CASE ATTORNEY:
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~12 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 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 e-mail 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.
In addition to the October 29, 2010 meeting, by e-mail dated November 15, 2010, the PM sent a reminder to the petitioner of another meeting between the Army and the NRC to discuss licensing issues that were not related to the 2.206 request.
On January 27, 2011, NRC staff held an enforcement panel to disposition some recently identified potential issues as a prerequisite to a possible Preliminary Enforcement Conference with the U.S. Army.
By e-mail dated February 2, 2011, the PM e-mailed a response to the petitioners January 22, 2011, e-mail concerning the Armys intent to modernize the Pohakaloa Training Area and also provided an update on the status of 2.206 petition.
Next Steps: The staff intends to send a letter to the U.S. Army outlining unresolved questions/issues related to the 2.206 enforcement action in March 2011. The OEDO approved an extension request to support FSMEs issuance of the Proposed Directors Decision by June 30, 2011.
07/30/10 10/20/10 11/15/10 01/27/10 02/02/11 02/28/11 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 teleconference.
03/25/10 On April 14, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB by teleconference 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 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.
04/22/10 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.
04/26/10 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 e-mail on June 29, 2010.
06/28/10 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:
JUNE 30, 2011 FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A NO IMAGE AVAILABLE LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
FEBRUARY 2, 2011 PETITION MANAGER:
KENNETH KALMAN CASE ATTORNEYS:
BRETT KLUKAN & KIMBERLY SEXTON
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~13 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.
On January 20, 2011, the NRC issued the Proposed Directors Decision (ADAMS Accession No. ML103350566). The petitioner and licensee were given 30 days to provide written comments, however, no comments were provided to the NRC.
02/26/10 03/30/10 04/12/10 06/25/10 10/08//10 10/26/10 01/20/11 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 teleconference.
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 teleconference 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 20, 2011 FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
JANUARY 20, 2011 PETITION MANAGER:
JAMES KIM CASE ATTORNEY:
MOLLY BARKMAN
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~12 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 teleconference.
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.
On January 20, 2011, the NRC issued the Proposed Directors Decision (ADAMS Accession No. ML103350566).
The petitioner and licensee were given 30 days to provide written comments, however, no comments were provided to the NRC.
04/22/10 04/27/10 05/05/10 05/10/10 06/25/10 10/08/10 10/26/10 01/20/11 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 teleconference 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 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.
02/26/10 On March 3, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB by teleconference 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 20, 2011 FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
JANUARY 20, 2011 PETITION MANAGER:
JAMES KIM CASE ATTORNEY:
MOLLY BARKMAN
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~12 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 teleconference.
On May 5, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB by teleconference.
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.
On January 20, 2011, the NRC issued the Proposed Directors Decision (ADAMS Accession No. ML103350566). The petitioner and licensee were given 30 days to provide written comments, however, no comments were provided to the NRC.
04/22/10 04/27/10 05/05/10 05/10/10 06/25/10 10/08/10 10/26/10 01/20/11 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 8.11, 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 teleconference on March 8, 2010.
03/01/10 On March 8, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB by teleconference 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 20, 2011 FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
JANUARY 20, 2011 PETITION MANAGER:
JAMES KIM CASE ATTORNEY:
MOLLY BARKMAN
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~5 MONTHS The petitioner filed a petition for enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
09/30/10 By letter dated November 9, 2010, the PRB issued an acknowledgement letter (ML103010346) to accept the petition for review under 10 CFR 2.206.
By letter dated November 9, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML103200528) FENOC submitted Information Regarding the Mr. Epstein petition on Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2 Decommissioning Funding.
By letter dated November 22, 2010, the NRC issued a meeting report for the October 19, 2010, PRB meeting to the TMI-2 Distribution List (which includes the Petitioner, Mr. Epstein). The meeting report states that the official transcript of the PRB meeting is available in ADAMS at ML103120216.
On February 14, 2011, the OEDO approved an extension request, until May 13, 2011, to provide FSME with additional time to issue the Proposed Directors Decision.
On March 9, 2011, the petition manager informed the petitioner of the schedule change via telephone.
11/09/10 11/09/10 11/22/10 02/14/11 03/09/11 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 teleconference.
10/18/2010 On October 19, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB by teleconference to provide additional information in support of the petition. A transcript of the call is available in ADAMS at ML103120216.
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 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.
10/27/10 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 Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) 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 EDO # G20100619 DATE OF PETITION:
SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
MAY 13, 2011 FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A NO IMAGE AVAILABLE LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
MARCH 9, 2011 PETITION MANAGER:
JOHN BUCKLEY CASE ATTORNEY:
PATTY JEHLE
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~8 MONTHS Please refer to prior 10 CFR 2.206 monthly status reports (on the NRC public website) to review the status of this petition prior to November 2010.
The petitioner submitted a late-filed request for hearing of a contention related to Entergys management of inaccessible cables under the Pilgrim license renewal review proceeding on 12/13/10. Per MD 8.11 (Part III, Section C.1.a(iii)), a 2.206 petition request will not be treated under the 2.206 process if there is an ongoing licensing hearing/proceeding through which the petitioners concerns could be addressed. The PRB reconvened on January 4, 2011, and determined that the petitioners concerns related to inaccessible cables would be held in abeyance until an outcome of the contention is made under the Pilgrim license renewal hearing process.
On January 25, 2011, the petition manager informed the petitioner of the PRBs determination and confirmed that the aforementioned PRB determination would be documented in a letter.
By letter dated February 23, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML103400692), the PRB issued a partial letter to the petitioner, which stated that the portion of her petition related to the hydro-geologic analysis met the criteria for rejection, and that the portion related to inaccessible cables was being held in abeyance until an outcome of the contention is made under the Pilgrim license renewal hearing process.
01/04/11 01/25/11 02/23/11 On November 4, 2010, the PRB met internally to discuss the supplemental information (G201000527) received prior to making the final recommendation. The PRB determined that the information submitted under G20100454 met the criteria for review. The supplemental information provided under G20100527, met the criteria for rejection because the issues raised on the hydro-geological analysis were reviewed, evaluated, and resolved by the NRC.
11/04/10 On November 5, 2010, the OEDO approved an extension request until December 30, 2010.
11/05/10 On November 10, 2010, the petitioner was informed of the PRBs final recommendation and of the schedule change.
11/10/10 By letter dated November 15, 2010 (G20100689), the petitioner requested that the Commission review the PRBs decision to reject the portion of the petition relevant to the hydro-geologic analysis for review under 10 CFR 2.206. The NRC acknowledgement letter to the petitioner will address G20100454, G20100527, and G20100689.
11/15/10 On December 22, 2010, the OEDO approved an extension request until February 26, 2011, to support the staffs ability to document the PRBs final recommendation.
12/22/10 On December 28, 2010, the petition manager informed the petitioner of this schedule change to issue the acknowledgement letter.
12/28/10 ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES For detailed reasons described in the petition (G20100454), 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.
As supplemented on August 13, 2010 (G20100527), 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. On November 15, 2010 (G20100689), the petitioner requested that the Commission review the PRBs decision with respect to G20100527.
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:
FEBRUARY 23, 2011 PETITION MANAGER:
RICHARD GUZMAN CASE ATTORNEY:
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~5 MONTHS The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
10/25/10 On December 8, 2010, the OEDO granted an extension to April 7, 2011, to allow time for an NSIR review.
On December 15, 2010, the petition manager informed the petitioner that the PRBs initial recommendation would be delayed until February 2011.
On February 14, 2011, the PRB met internally and made an initial recommendation that the petition met the criteria for rejection because the issue s raised have already been the subject of NRC review, for which a resolution has been achieved at IP2 and IP3.
On February 18, 2011, the petitioner was informed of the PRBs initial recommendation and requested a second opportunity to provide additional explanation in support of the petition.
On March 3, 2011, the petitioner addressed the PRB by teleconference. The PRB is considering the information provided during the teleconference prior to making a final recommendation.
12/08/10 12/15/10 02/14/11 02/18/11 03/03/11 On November 2, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB by teleconference. During the call, the petitioner requested a delay and asked the PRB to reschedule the call at a later date.
11/02/10 On November 4, 2010, the EDO approved an extension until February 24, 2011, to support the PRBs ability to make an initial and final recommendation on the petition.
11/04/10 On November 5, 2010, the petitioner submitted a supplement to his petition.
11/05/10 On November 9, 2010, the petitioner addressed the PRB by teleconference to provide additional information in support of his petition.
11/09/10 On November 17, 2010, the PRB met internally to discuss the petition. The PRB was not able to reach an initial recommendation because additional support is needed from the NRO and NSIR technical leads. The PRB plans to continue its discussion in mid-February 2011.
11/17/10 ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES FACILITY:
Indian Point (IP)
LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor PETITIONER:
Paul Blanch OPEN PETITION UNDER CONSIDERATION EDO # G20100655 DATE OF PETITION:
OCTOBER 25, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
N/A FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
MARCH 3, 2011 PETITION MANAGER:
JOHN BOSKA CASE ATTORNEY:
KIMBERLY SEXTON 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.
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.
11/12/10 On January 4, 2011, the PRB met internally to discuss the petition. During the meeting, the PRB evaluated the petition against the criteria in MD 8.11 and determined that the petition met the criteria for rejection, on the basis that the issue raised had been reviewed, evaluated, and resolved by the NRC.
On January 26, 2011, the petitioner was informed of the PRBs initial recommendation and offered a second opportunity to address the PRB. The petitioner manager requested that the petitioner respond to the email message by January 27, 2011, if he wanted a second opportunity to address the PRB. No response was provided by the petitioner.
On January 31, 2011, the petition manager contacted the petitioner with a duplicate email message (derived from 1/26/11) to ensure receipt of the 1/26/11 information. After February 1, 2011, the petitioner is presumed to have declined the invitation to present additional information to the PRB. The PRB plans to issue a closure letter documenting the PRBs final recommendation.
01/04/11 01/26/11 01/31/11 On November 17, 2010, the NRC Petition Manager, contacted the petitioner to explain the 10 CFR 2.206 petition review process. The petitioner requested an opportunity to address the PRB by phone to discuss the petition request, before the PRB met internally to make the initial recommendation.
11/17/10 On November 19, 2010, the PRB members met to discuss if there were any immediate safety concerns which would warrant that the NRC require the licensee to remain in cold shutdown. The PRB members agreed that there was no immediate safety concern to the plant or to the public health or safety. Therefore, the PRB denied the request to prevent the restart of Duane Arnold Energy Center. The petitioner was informed of the PRBs decision on November 22, 2010.
11/19/10 On November 22, 2010, the PRB held a call with the petitioner so that he could provide additional information to the PRB. The petitioner also provided a written statement that he identified as the basis for his spoken remarks. The PRB plans to meet internally on January 4, 2011, to make the initial recommendation. The PRB members could not meet earlier due to scheduling conflicts.
11/22/10 ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES A cracked weld was discovered by the licensee during a recent Duane Arnold refueling outage. For reasons specified within the petition request, the petitioner requests that the NRC issue a confirmatory order requiring the licensee to bring the plant to cold shutdown and to prevent the licensee from restarting until further testing of system piping throughout the plant occurs, as described in the petition.
FACILITY:
Duane Arnold Energy Center LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor PETITIONER:
Thomas Saporito OPEN PETITION UNDER CONSIDERATION EDO # G20100688 DATE OF PETITION:
NOVEMBER 12, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
N/A FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
JANUARY 31, 2011 PETITION MANAGER:
KARL FEINTUCH CASE ATTORNEY:
MOLLY BARKMAN-MARSH
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~3 MONTHS The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
12/10/10 On January 31, 2011, the petition manager informed the petitioner of the PRBs initial recommendation. The petitioner requested a second opportunity to provide additional information to the PRB by teleconference.
On February 17, 2011, the petitioner addressed the PRB by teleconference.
On March 3, 2011, the PRB met internally to discuss the supplemental information provided during the February 17, 2011, teleconference. The PRB is considering the information provided before making a final recommendation.
01/31/11 02/17/11 03/03/11 On December 16, 2010, the NRC Petition Manager, contacted the petitioner to explain the 10 CFR 2.206 petition review process.
11/22/10 On December 17, 2010, the petitioner requested a teleconference with the PRB to provide additional relevant information in support of his petition, before the PRB meets internally to make the initial recommendation.
12/17/10 On January 13, 2011, the petitioner addressed the PRB by teleconference to provide additional information in support of his petition request.
01/13/11 On January 20, 2011, the PRB met internally to make the initial recommendation. The PRB determined that the petition did not meet the criteria for review in accordance with MD 8.11.
01/20/11 ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES For detailed reasons discussed within the petition request, the petitioner requests that the NRC order Exelon, the licensee for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS), and Constellation Energy, the licensee for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (NMPNS), to lower the licensing basis peak cladding temperature in order to provide the necessary margins of safety to help prevent partial or complete meltdowns in the event of loss of coolant accidents (LOCAs). The petitioner also requests that the NRC order the licensees for OCNGS and NMPNS to demonstrate that the emergency core cooling systems would effectively quench the fuel cladding in the event of LOCAs and prevent partial or complete meltdowns.
FACILITY:
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station & Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1 LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor PETITIONER:
Mark Edward Leyse OPEN PETITION UNDER CONSIDERATION EDO # G20100729 DATE OF PETITION:
DECEMBER 10, 2010 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
N/A FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
FEBRUARY 17, 2011 PETITION MANAGER:
ED MILLER 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.
01/14/11 On January 26, 2011, the petitioner addressed the PRB by teleconference to provide additional information in support of his petition request.
On February 2, 2011, the PRB met internally to discuss the petition and made an initial recommendation that the petition meets the criteria for review.
On February 8, 2011, the petitioner was informed of the PRBs initial recommendation to accept his petition for review. The petitioner requested a second opportunity to address the PRB by teleconference.
On Monday, February 14, 2011, the petitioner provided additional information to the PRB in support of his request for an immediate shutdown. The additional information provided did not change the PRBs decision to deny the request for immediate action. The PRB plans to document its final recommendation to accept the petition for review in an acknowledgement letter.
01/26/11 02/02/11 02/08/11 02/14/11 On January 19, 2011, the petitioner requested a teleconference with the PRB to provide additional relevant information in support of his petition, before the PRB meets internally to make the initial recommendation 01/19/11 On January 24, 2011, the PRB met internally to discuss the request for immediate action only. The PRB determined that there was no immediate safety concern to the public health and safety and no technical basis to warrant an immediate shutdown of Vermont Yankee.
The petitioner was informed of the PRBs decision to deny the request for immediate action.
01/24/11 ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES For detailed reasons described in the petition, the petitioner is concerned with the safety of the plant and requested that the NRC take escalated enforcement action against the licensee, to include, but not to be limited to, (1) issuing a confirmatory order requiring the licensee to immediately bring the reactor in question to a cold shutdown mode of operation; (2) issuing a civil penalty against the licensee, (3) cause the removal of licensee employees responsible for this matter from NRC licensed activities for a period of no less than 5 years; and (4) cause an immediate NRC investigation and inspection of the licensees Vermont Yankee facility to ensure that all nuclear safety-related systems are properly operational in accordance with the licensees technical specifications and NRC license.
FACILITY:
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor PETITIONER:
Thomas Saporito OPEN PETITION UNDER CONSIDERATION EDO # G20110043 DATE OF PETITION:
JANUARY 14, 2011 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
N/A FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
JANUARY 26, 2011 PETITION MANAGER:
JAMES KIM CASE ATTORNEY:
N/A
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.
01/18/11 On February 3, 2011, the petitioner addressed the PRB by teleconference to provide additional relevant information in support of his petition, before the PRB met internally to make the initial recommendation On February 10, 2011, the PRB met internally to discuss the petition and made the initial recommendation that some aspects of this petition were outside the scope of the 10 CFR 2.206 process, and the other requests did not meet the criteria for review because the petitioner failed to provide sufficient facts to warrant further inquiry.
On February 23, 2011, the petitioner was informed of the PRBs initial recommendation and requested a second opportunity to address the PRB by teleconference.
On March 2, 2011, the petitioner addressed the PRB by teleconference. The PRB is considering the additional information provided before it makes a final recommendation.
02/03/11 02/10/11 02/23/11 03/02/11 On January 21, 2011, the petitioner requested an opportunity to address the PRB by teleconference prior to the PRBs initial meeting to make the initial recommendation.
01/21/11 On January 24, 2011, the PRB met internally to discuss the request for immediate action only. The PRB determined that there was no immediate safety concern to the public health and safety and no technical basis to warrant an immediate shutdown of Vermont Yankee.
The petitioner was informed of the PRBs decision to deny the request for immediate action.
01/24/11 ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES For detailed reasons described in the petition, the petitioner is concerned with the NRCs behavior surrounding inspection activities associated with the Advanced Off-Gas (AOG) piping tritium leak and the Vermont Yankee Root Cause Analysis. The petitioner requests that the NRC immediately shutdown Vermont Yankee that that Entergy be prohibited from owning nuclear power plants. Additional requests for the NRC are discussed in the petition.
FACILITY:
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor PETITIONER:
Michael Mulligan OPEN PETITION UNDER CONSIDERATION EDO # G20110050 DATE OF PETITION:
JANUARY 18, 2011 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
N/A FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
MARCH 2, 2011 PETITION MANAGER:
JAMES KIM CASE ATTORNEY:
N/A
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~2 WEEKS The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
02/22/11 On March 7, 2011, the petitioner addressed the PRB by teleconference to provide additional information in support of the petition. The PRB will meet internally to discuss the petition and supplemental information provided during this call.
03/07/11 On February 24, 2011, 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 February 24, 2011, the petitioner accepted this opportunity to address the PRB.
02/24/11 On March 3, 2011, the PRB met internally to discuss the request for immediate action only. The PRB denied the request for an immediate shutdown because there is no immediate safety concern to the health and safety of the public. The petitioner was informed of the PRBs decision to deny the request for immediate action on March 4, 2011.
03/03/11 ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES For detailed reasons discussed in the petition, Mr. Mulligan requested an emergency shutdown of Palisades, citing among many reasons that the Reactor Oversight Program is ineffective and that Entergy, the licensee for Palisades Nuclear Plant, has a documented history of a culture of falsification and thumbing their noses at recurring violations.
FACILITY:
Palisades Nuclear Plant REACTOR TYPE:
Pressurized Water Reactor PETITIONER:
Michael Mulligan OPEN PETITION UNDER CONSIDERATION EDO # G20110127 DATE OF PETITION:
FEBRUARY 22, 2011 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
N/A FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
MARCH 7, 2011 PETITION MANAGER:
MAHESH (MAC) CHAWLA CASE ATTORNEY:
N/A
BACKGROUND, ACTIONS & KEY MILESTONES CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS PETITION AGE: ~2 WEEKS The petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
02/24/11 On March 8, 2011, the petitioner addressed the PRB by teleconference to provide additional information in support of the petition. The PRB will meet internally to discuss the petition and supplemental information provided during this call.
03/08/11 On March 1, 2011, 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 March 2, 2011, the petitioner accepted this opportunity to address the PRB.
03/01/11 On March 3, 2011, the PRB met internally to discuss the request for immediate action only. The PRB denied the request for an immediate shutdown because there is no immediate safety concern to the health and safety of the public. In addition, the PRB determined that there was no public release of security-related information. The petitioner was informed of the PRBs decision to deny the request for immediate action on March 7, 2011.
03/03/11 ACTIONS REQUESTED AND ISSUES For detailed reasons described in the petition, the petitioner requested an emergency shutdown of Vermont Yankee, because Entergy (the licensee for Vermont Yankee) released a public relations video. The petitioner claims that the video, which was made public, contains security-related information.
FACILITY:
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station LICENSEE TYPE: Reactor PETITIONER:
Michael Mulligan OPEN PETITION UNDER CONSIDERATION EDO # G20110130 DATE OF PETITION:
FEBRUARY 24, 2011 DIRECTORS DECISION (DD) TO BE ISSUED BY:
N/A FINAL DD ISSUANCE:
N/A LAST CONTACT WITH PETITIONER:
MARCH 8, 2011 PETITION MANAGER:
JAMES KIM CASE ATTORNEY:
N/A
ML110670576 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 11/18/10 182 days 01/27/11 38 days The goal to issue the Final Directors Decision was met.
NRR Vermont Yankee Michael Mulligan G20100027 01/12/10 01/25/10 12 days 06/25/10 164 days 1/20/11 209 days The goal to issue the Proposed Directors Decision was not met. On October 8, 2010, the OEDO approved an extension request to support NRRs ability to coordinate with Region I.
Specifically, NRR was awaiting results from inspections of the tritium leakage, in order to discuss the inspection results in the proposed Directors Decision. In addition, the Deviation Memorandum dated April 5, 2010, provided an approval to deviate from
the ROP in order to provide increased oversight of the VY for conducting additional inspections and stakeholder communications related to the on-site ground water contamination. These inspection results and the closure of Deviation Memorandum were needed to support issuance of the Proposed Directors Decision.
NRR Vermont Yankee Raymond Shadis, NEC G20100074 02/08/10 02/17/10 9 days 06/25/10 137 days 1/20/11 209 days The goal to issue the Proposed Directors Decision was not met. On October 8, 2010, the OEDO approved an extension request to support NRRs ability to coordinate with Region I.
Specifically, NRR was awaiting results from inspections of the tritium leakage, in order to discuss the inspection results in the proposed Directors Decision. In addition, the Deviation Memorandum dated April 5, 2010, provided an approval to deviate from the ROP in order to provide increased oversight of the VY for conducting additional inspections and stakeholder communications related to the on-site ground water contamination. These inspection results and the closure of Deviation Memorandum were needed to support issuance of the Proposed
Directors Decision.
NRR Vermont Yankee Thomas Saporito G20100098 02/20/10 02/25/10 5 days 06/25/10 125 days 1/20/11 209 days The goal to issue the Proposed Directors Decision was not met. On October 8, 2010, the OEDO approved an extension request to support NRRs ability to coordinate with Region I.
Specifically, NRR was awaiting results from inspections of the tritium leakage, in order to discuss the inspection results in the proposed Directors Decision. In addition, the Deviation Memorandum dated April 5, 2010, provided an approval to deviate from the ROP in order to provide increased oversight of the VY for conducting additional inspections and stakeholder communications related to the on-site ground water contamination. These inspection results and the closure of Deviation Memorandum were needed to support issuance of the Proposed Directors Decision.
NRR Davis-Besse David Lochbaum G20100192 04/05/10 04/14/10 9 days 07/13/10 99 days 11/10/10 120 days 02/15/11 76 days The goal to issue the Final Directors Decision was not met. As discussed in to this report, the petitioner provided comments in response to the Proposed Directors
Decision. The OEDO approved an extension request until February 15, 2011, to support the staffs ability to disposition the comments in the Final Directors Decision.
FSME Three Mile Island, Unit 2 G20100619 09/30/10 10/19/10 19 days 11/09/10 40 days The goal to issue the acknowledgement letter was not met. This petition was originally assigned to NRR. NRR requested that the EDO reassign the petition to FSME since the petition involved a decommissioned plant.
Internal coordination resulted between the offices to ensure that the petition was appropriately assigned. This created a minor delay in formally assigning the petition to FSME. This internal delay impacted FSMEs ability to issue the acknowledgement letter within 35 days of the date of the incoming petition.