ML18092B467
| ML18092B467 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/27/2018 |
| From: | Giitter J Division of Operating Reactor Licensing |
| To: | Marilyn Evans Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Johnston J | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18092B500 | List: |
| References | |
| CAC TM3058, 200700062 | |
| Download: ML18092B467 (17) | |
Text
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 April 27, 2018 Michele G. Evans, Deputy Director Reactor Safety Programs and Mission Support Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Joseph G. Giitter, Director /4~ }11 ~~j1,,
Division of Operating Reactor-L~ensik'g' Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation QUARTERLY JANUARY-MARCH 2018 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC PETITIONS UNDER TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, SECTION 2.206 (CAC NO. TM3058)
This memorandum transmits the quarterly status report of petitions submitted under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 2.206, "Requests for action under this subpart." This report covers open and closed petitions from January 1 through March 31, 2018, including their age statistics. The report also provides the status of incoming requests that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is evaluating to determine whether they meet the criteria for review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process.
Enclosure:
Quarterly 1 O CFR 2.206 Status Report cc: SECY EDO OGC OCA OPA CFO CONTACT:
Jeanne Johnston, NRR/DORL 301-415-1349
Quarterly 10 CFR 2.206 Status Report For each petition listed below, the individual status page summarizes the issues raised by the petitioner, the current status, and the next steps.
When a petition is received, it is evaluated against the criteria in Management Directive (MD) 8.11, "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions," to determine if it should be accepted for review under 10 CFR 2.206. A petition undergoing this evaluation is referred to as a petition under consideration. A petition is accepted for review under 1 O CFR 2.206 in an acknowledgement letter, and is listed as an open petition until the staff formally grants or denies the requested actions in a Director's Decision (DD), after which it is listed as a closed petition.
Before issuing a final DD, the NRC issues a proposed DD offering the petitioner and affected licensees an opportunity to comment. A petition that is not accepted for review under 10 CFR 2.206 is also listed as a closed petition, and the basis for why it is not being reviewed under 10 CFR 2.206 is communicated in a closure letter.
All operating reactor licensees Multiple new reactor licensees (AP1000s)
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Exelon Generation Company, LLC Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, and Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 Multiple operating reactor licensees U.S. Army Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA)
Roy Mathew, et al.
OED0-16-00104 Thomas Saporito LTR-17-00189 OPEN PETITIONS David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists OED0-15-004 79 Barry Quigley OED0-17-00104 Beyond Nuclear, et al.
OED0-17-00070 Michael Reimer OED0-17-00396-NMSS OPEN PETITIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION Tetra Tech EC, Inc.
Steve Castleman OED0-17-00454 Multiple operating reactor licensees Samuel Miranda OED0-17-0341 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Margrethe Kearney and Andrene Company Dabaghi OED0-18-00160 2
4 6
7 9
11 13 14 15 Enclosure CLOSED PETITION OED0-16-00104 (Petition Age: 24 months)
Facility:
Licensee Type:
Petitioner( s ):
Date of Petition:
DD to be Issued by:
Proposed DD Issued:
Final DD Issued:
Last Contact with Petitioner:
Petition Manager:
Case Attorney:
Issues/Actions Requested:
All operating reactor licensees Reactor Roy Mathew, et al.
February 19, 2016 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
September 18, 2017 December 12, 2017 (Revised January 18, 2018)
January 18, 2018 Tanya Mensah David Cylkowski The petitioners requested that either (1) the NRC issue orders that require immediate corrective actions, including compensatory measures to address the operability of electric power systems in accordance with their plant Technical Specifications, and to implement plant modifications in accordance with current NRC regulatory requirements and staff guidance, or (2) issue orders to immediately shut down the nuclear power plants that are operating without addressing the significant design deficiency identified in NRC Bulletin 2012-01, "Design Vulnerability in Electric Power System" (ADAMS Accession No. ML12074A115), contending that licensees are not in compliance with their Technical Specification 3.8.1 (typical) requirements related to onsite and offsite power systems.
Background:
On February 19, 2016, the petitioners filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
On February 24, 2016, the petition manager acknowledged receipt of the petition, and offered the petitioners an opportunity to address the Petition Review Board (PRB), which the petitioners declined.
- On March 14, 2016, the PRB met on whether there was a need to take immediate actions, and to make an initial recommendation on the petition.
On March 15, 2016, the petition manager informed the petitioners of the PRB's decision to deny the request for immediate action, and the PRB's initial recommendation to accept the petition for review.
On March 21, 2016, the NRC issued a letter to the petitioners (ADAMS Accession No. ML16069A214) denying the request for immediate action, and accepting the petition for review.
On March 13 and June 26, 2017, the petition manager informed the petitioners that the target date to issue the proposed DD was September 29, 2017.
On September 18, 2017, the proposed DD was issued to the petitioner and licensees for comment, with a comment period of 4 weeks (ADAMS Accession No. ML17156A180).
The Petitioners provided comments by letter dated October 11, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No.ML17291A040), and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) provided comments, on behalf of licensees, by letter dated October 16, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17291A846).0n December 12, 2017, the NRC issued the final DD (ADAMS Accession No. ML17304A893) denying the petition on the basis that previous actions taken by the NRC and licensees and NRC's oversight of the implementation of the industry's open phase condition voluntary initiative resolve the petitioners' concerns.
An inaccurate statement was identified after the final DD was issued.
Actions Completed This Quarter/Next Steps:
On January 18, 2018, a revised DD was issued to correct an inaccurate statement regarding an OPC event referenced in the petition (ADAMS Accession No. ML18005A052). The correction did not change the DD conclusion.
On February 8, 2018, the petitioners informed the Commission that they disagreed with NRR's decision to deny the 2.206 petition (ADAMS Accession No. ML18045A657).
On March 20, 2018, the Commission declined to review the final DD, but provided an additional comment regarding the PRB's characterization of the Staff Requirements Memorandum issued in response to SECY-16-0068 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18079A266).
CLOSED PETITION LTR-17-00189 (Petition Age: 8 months)
Facility:
Licensee Type:
Petitioner( s ):
Date of Petition:
DD to be Issued by:
Acknowledgement Letter Issued:
Closure Letter Issued:
Last Contact with Petitioner:
Petition Manager:
Case Attorney:
Issues/Actions Requested:
Multiple AP1000 reactors Thomas Saporito May 2, 2017 Office of New Reactors Not Applicable January 8, 2018 January 8, 2018 Manny Comar Marcia Simon The petitioner requested that the NRC revoke and/or deny any NRC license requested by the licensee to build and/or conduct licensed operations of AP1000 reactors because of commercial viability issues.
Background:
On May 2, 2017, the petitioner filed a petition for enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206 related to Turkey Point Nuclear Units 6 and 7.
On May 9, 2017, the petition manager acknowledged receipt of the petition.
On May 22, 2017, the petitioner amended his petition to include all AP1000 reactors.
On June 20, 2017, the petition manager confirmed with the petitioner that a teleconference with the PRB was scheduled for July 6, 2017.
On July 6, 2017, the petitioner addressed the PRB via teleconference and submitted supplemental information.
On July 27, 2017, the PRB met to evaluate the petition and supplemental information and make an initial recommendation on whether to accept the petition for review.
On August 1, 2017, the petition manager informed the petitioner of the PRB's recommendation to reject the petition because it fails to provide sufficient facts to support the petition and raises issues that have already been reviewed, evaluated, and resolved by the NRC in accordance with MD 8.11, Part Ill, C. Additionally, the petitioner's request to deny license applications for Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 meet the MD 8.11, Part C(2) criteria for rejection. The petitioner was offered a second opportunity to address the PRB, which he accepted.
On August 7, 2017, the petition manager provided the petitioner additional details of the basis for the PRB's recommendation and scheduled a teleconference for August 10, 2017.
On August 8, 2017, the petitioner requested that the teleconference be rescheduled.
On August 14, 2017, the petition manager and petitioner discussed alternative dates and rescheduled the teleconference for early September.
On September 7, 2017, the petitioner requested rescheduling the teleconference, due to an approaching hurricane, and proposed the latter part of October 2017.
On October 26, 2017, the petitioner addressed the PRB in a teleconference.
The PRB determined that the information presented by the petitioner did not change its initial recommendation.
Actions Completed This Quarter/Next Steps:
On January 8, 2018, a closure letter (ADAMS Accession No. ML17334A027) was issued rejecting the petition for review based on the reasons stated above. All actions on this petition are closed.
OPEN PETITION OED0-15-00479 (Petition Age: 33 months)
Facility:
Licensee Type:
Petitioner( s ):
Date of Petition:
DD to be Issued by:
Proposed DD Issued:
Final DD Issued:
Last Contact with Petitioner:
Petition Manager:
Case Attorney:
Issues/Actions Requested:
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Reactor David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists June 24, 2015 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Not Applicable Not Applicable February 9, 2018 Booma Venkataraman Olivia Mikula The petitioner requested that NRC take enforcement action to require that the current licensing basis for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station explicitly include flooding caused by local intense precipitation events or probable maximum precipitation events. The petitioner cited a letter dated March 12, 2015, from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the licensee), to NRC, which contained a flood re-evaluation report in response to NRC's 50.54(f) letter (ADAMS Accession No. ML12053A340), to satisfy one of NRC's post-Fukushima mandates.
Background:
On June 24, 2015, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
For a complete summary of NRC actions through September 2016, see the July-September 2016 10 CFR 2.206 status report (ADAMS Accession No. ML16264A169).
On December 6, 2016, and February 7, 2017, the petition manager informed the petitioner that his petition was still under review.
On April 10 and June 8, 2017, the petition manager informed the petitioner that his petition was still under review.
On April 17, 2017, the NRC staff responded to the licensee's August 18, 2016, request and deferred the remaining flood assessments until December 31, 2019 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16278A313).
On June 8 and August 8, 2017, the petition manager informed the petitioner that the issue of re-evaluated flooding hazards raised in the petition is currently being considered as part of SECY-16-0142, concerning the mitigation of beyond-design-basis (MBDBE) draft final rule dated December 15, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16301A005), and that the PRB review determined that the Commission's decis.ion on the MBDBE draft final rule would likely disposition the petition.
On October 6 and December 11, 2017, the petition manager restated the information from the June 8 and August 8, 2017, communications to the petitioner as stated above.
Actions Completed This Quarter/Next Steps:
On February 9, 2018, the petition manager informed the petitioner that his petition was still under review.
The next step is to issue a proposed DD reflecting the Commission's decision on the rule.
OPEN PETITION OED0-17-00104 (Petition Age: 14 months)
Facility:
Licensee Type:
Petitioner( s ):
Date of Petition:
DD to be Issued by:
Proposed DD Issued:
Final DD Issued:
Last Contact with Petitioner:
Petition Manager:
Case Attorney:
Issues/Actions Requested:
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, and Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 Reactor Barry Quigley February 8, 2017 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation February 23, 2018 Not Applicable December 18, 2017 Joel Wiebe Emily Monteith The petitioner requested that the NRC take several enforcement actions regarding his concerns with high-energy line breaks (HELB) outside the containment as well as safety-conscious work environment (SCWE) concerns. He stated that the analysis of record (AOR) for the main steam isolation valve (MSIV) room pressurization following a HELB is deficient; corrective actions to resolve an issue in the AOR are long overdue and improperly tracked; a proposed revision to the AOR shows that the MSIV room roof slabs will be ejected by the high pressures in the MSIV room, becoming potential missiles; and that an SCWE is not assured.
Background:
On February 8, 2017, the petitioner filed a petition for enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
On March 2, 2017, the petition manager acknowledged receipt of the petition and offered the petitioner the opportunity to address the PRB, which he accepted.
On March 27, 2017, the petition manager confirmed details regarding the petitioner addressing the PRB.
On April 13, 2017, the petitioner addressed the PRB.
On May 17, 2017, the PRB met and made an initial recommendation to accept the petition for review.
On June 2, 2017, the petition manager informed the petitioner that the petition was accepted for review.
On July 17, 2017, an acknowledgement letter was issued to the petitioner accepting the petition for review (ADAMS Accession No. ML17125A245).
On September 1, 2017, the petition manager received a voluntary response from the licensee (ADAMS Accession No. ML17255A824).
On December 18, 2017, the petition manager informed the petitioner that on December 15, 2017, the NRC had issued violations as requested by the petitioner.
Actions Completed This Quarter/Next Steps:
On February 23, 2018, a proposed DD was issued to the petitioner and licensee for comment, with a comment period of 14 days (ADAMS Accession No. ML17291A218).
On March 9, 2018, the petitioner informed the petition manager that he had no comments on the proposed DD.
On March 14, 2018, the licensee informed the petition manager that it had no comments on the proposed DD.
The next step is to issue the DD by April 23, 2018.
OPEN PETITION OED0-17-00070 (Petition Age: 14 months)
Facility:
Licensee Type:
Petitioner( s ):
Date of Petition:
DD to be Issued by:
Proposed DD Issued:
Final DD Issued:
Last Contact with Petitioner:
Petition Manager:
Case Attorney:
Issues/Actions Requested:
Multiple Reactor Beyond Nuclear, et al.
January 24, 2017 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Not Applicable Not Applicable January 18, 2018 Merrilee Banic Sarah Kirkwood The petitioner requested that the NRC take emergency enforcement action per 10 CFR 2.206 at U.S. reactors that currently rely on potentially defective safety-related components and quality assurance documentation with anomalies supplied by AREVA-Le Creusot Forge and its subcontractor Japan Casting and Forging Corporation.
Background:
On January 24, 2017, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
On February 2, 2017, the petition manager acknowledged receipt of the petition and offered the petitioner the opportunity to address the PRB.
On February 3, 2017, the petitioner requested a public meeting with the PRB.
On February 8, 2017, the PRB met to make a decision on the emergency action request.
On February 13, 2017, the petition manager informed the petitioner that an immediate action was not warranted.
On March 8, 2017, the petitioner addressed the PRB in a public meeting.
On April 11, 2017, the PRB met to make a decision on the petition.
On May 19, 2017, the petition manager informed the petitioner of the PRB's initial recommendation to accept the petition, in part.
On June 16, June 22, June 27, June 30, and July 5, 2017, the petitioner submitted supplements to his petition.
On July 5, 2017, the petition manager asked the petitioner to respond as to whether he wished to address the PRB a second time. The petitioner did not respond.
On August 30, 2017, an acknowledgement letter was issued to the petitioner (ADAMS Accession No. ML17198A329), accepting the petition, in part. A portion of the request was referred to another NRC program for review.
On November 8, 2017, the petition manager informed the petitioner that his petition was still under review and that the target date for a proposed DD was May 2018. The target date was revised because the NRC staff needed to receive and evaluate a technical report from an external entity concerning issues raised in the petition.
Actions Completed This Quarter/Next Steps:
On January 18, 2018, the petition manager informed the petitioner that his petition was still under review and that the target date for a proposed DD was May 2018.
On March 26, 2018, the petition manager informed the petitioner that his petition was still under review but that the target date for the proposed DD may change.
The next step is to develop a proposed DD.
OPEN PETITION OED0-17-00396-NMSS (Petition Age: 12 months)
Facility:
Licensee Type:
Petitioner( s ):
Date of Petition:
DD to be Issued by:
Proposed DD Issued:
Final DD Issued:
Last Contact with Petitioner:
Petition Manager:
Case Attorney:
Issues/Actions Requested:
Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA)
Source material Michael Reimer March 16, 2017 Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards February 20, 2018 Not Applicable March 12, 2018 Amy Snyder Emily Monteith The petitioner requested that the NRC reconsider its position regarding the issuance of Amendment 2 to License SUC-1593 for the possession of depleted uranium located in radiation controlled areas on the United States Army's Pohakuloa Training Area, one of the facilities licensed under License SUC-1593. Concerns focus on lack of air monitoring and soil sampling, inappropriateness of the location and number of sediment samples, insufficient geologic sampling procedures for sediment collection, lack of transparency in the licensing process, and lack of transparency in the reporting of the licensee's environmental monitoring results.
Background:
On March 16, 2017, the petitioner filed a petition for enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
For a complete summary of NRC actions through June 2017, see the April-June 2017 10 CFR 2.206 status report (ADAMS Accession No. ML17181A037).
On June 27, July 11, July 27, and August 30, 2017, the PRB met on whether to accept the petition for review.
On July 24, August 16, and August 18, 2017, the petitioner supplemented the petition.
On September 28, 2017, the petitioner was informed of the PRB's recommendation to accept the petition in part, and parts of the petition not be accepted under 2.206 because insufficient facts were presented, there is another proceeding available, and the issues have already been the subject of NRC review and resolved. The petitioner was also offered a second opportunity to address the PRB, which he accepted.
On October 11, 2017, the petitioner addressed the PRB in a teleconference and supplemented his petition.
On October 12, 15, and 17, the petitioner supplemented his petition.
On November 9, 2017, the NRC issued an acknowledgement letter (ADAMS Accession No. ML17278A938) informing the petitioner that his petition was accepted, in part, for review, as stated above.
On November 10, 2017, the petitioner supplemented his petition.
On November 29, 2017, the staff issued a letter to the licensee asking for a voluntary response to a request for additional information (RAI) regarding sediment sampling.
On December 4, 2017, the staff had a clarification call with the licensee on its November 29, 2017, RAI.
On December 15, 2017, and January 19, 2018 the licensee responded to questions and the information provided was considered by the PRB in its evaluation of the petition.
On December 29, 2b17, the petitioner requested that he assist NRC with the technical review of license amendment 3 for SUC-1593 ( change of sediment sample location for the PTA).
Actions Completed This Quarter/Next Steps:
On January 9, 2018, the PRB met to evaluate the accepted concerns.
On January 15, 2018, the petitioner asked the staff for PTA sediment sampling data.
On February 1, 2018, the NRC responded by letter (ADAMS Accession No. ML18017A450) to the petitioner's December 29, 2017, request informing him that the NRC staff would be performing the review of the license amendment request.
On February 20, 2018, a proposed DD was issued to the petitioner and licensee for comment, with a comment period of 30 days (ADAMS Accession No. ML17342A342).
On March 12, 2018, the NRC informed the petitioner that comments on the licensee's RAI response in his January 15, 2018 letter were provided to the PRB for consideration, that the request for sediment sampling data was forwarded to the licensee, and that information about the sampling data may be addressed in routine NRC inspection reports (ADAMS Accession No. ML18023A378).
On March 13, 2018, the petitioner commented on the proposed DD (ADAMS Accession No. ML18087A134). The licensee did not provide comments.
The next step is to issue the DD by May 7, 2018.
OPEN PETITION UNDER CONSIDERATION OED0-17-00454 (Petition Age: 9 months)
Facility:
Licensee Type:
Petitioner( s ):
Date of Petition:
DD to be Issued by:
Acknowledgement Letter Issued:
Closure Letter Issued:
Last Contact with Petitioner:
Petition Manager:
Case Attorney:
Issues/Actions Requested:
Tetra Tech EC, Inc.
Materials Steve Castleman June 29, 2017 Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Not Applicable Not Applicable February 7, 2018 James Smith Lorraine Baer The petitioner requested that the NRC revoke the materials license for Tetra Tech EC, Inc., due to concerns about their role in the cleanup of Hunters Point Naval shipyard (HPNS) in San Francisco, CA, including remediation of radiological contamination. The submittal was lengthy with multiple attachments, and included requests and concerns outside 10 CFR 2.206.
Background:
On June 29, 2017, the petitioner filed a petition for enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
On July 20, July 22, and August 1, 2017, the petition manager and petitioner discussed timing of a public meeting, with the date remaining to be determined.
On October 19, 2017, the PRB met and decided to hold the petition in abeyance because the issues raised are the subject of ongoing reviews separate from the 2.206 process.
On December 6, 2017, the petition manager informed the petitioner that the processing of the petition was taking longer than the usual amount of time due to the need to obtain results from ongoing reviews outside the 2.206 process.
Actions Completed This Quarter/Next Steps:
On February 13, 2018, the petitioner supplemented the petition with information pertaining to other HPNS site areas that may have included work done by Tetra Tech at Parcels C and Eat HPNS.
The next step is for the PRB to determine if the issues separate from those that are the subject of ongoing reviews can continue to be evaluated in the 2.206 process.
OPEN PETITION UNDER CONSIDERATION OED0-17-0341 (Petition Age: 9 months)
Facility:
Licensee Type:
Petitioner( s ):
Date of Petition:
DD to be Issued by:
Acknowledgement Letter Issued:
Closure Letter Issued:
Last Contact with Petitioner:
Petition Manager:
Case Attorney:
Issues/Actions Requested:
Multiple Reactor Samuel Miranda September 13, 2017 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Not Applicable Not Applicable January 31, 2018 Lois James Marcia Simon The petitioner requested that the NRC take actions to compel licensees for multiple plants to show that plants licensed for extended lifetimes will not have a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated, particularly with respect to Condition Ill events.
Background:
On September 13, 2017, the petitioner filed a petition for enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
On October 5, 2017, the petition manager acknowledged receipt of the petition and offered the petitioner the opportunity to address the PRB, which he accepted.
On November 16, 2017, the petitioner addressed the PRB in a public meeting and supplemented the petition.
On December 5, 2017, the PRB met to evaluate the petition against the criteria in MD 8.11, and make an initial recommendation on whether to accept the petition.
Actions Completed This Quarter/Next Steps:
On January 3, 2018, the petition manager informed the petitioner that the initial recommendation was that the petition does not meet the criteria for consideration under 10 CFR 2.206 because the issues raised are not supported by sufficient, credible facts that would constitute the basis for taking the requested action or that would warrant further inquiry. The petition manager offered the petitioner a second opportunity to address the PRB which he accepted.
On January 31, 2018, the petitioner met with the PRB a second time, and supplemented his petition.
On February 1, 2018, the PRB met to consider the supplement information provided at the January 31, 2018 meeting, and determined that the supplemental information did not change the PRB's initial recommendation.
On February 28, 2018, the petition manager issued the summary for the January 31, 2018, PRB meeting with the petitioner.
The next step is for the PRB issue a closure letter to the petitioner.
OPEN PETITION UNDER CONSIDERATION OED0-18-0016 (Petition Age: 0 months)
Facility:
Licensee Type:
Petitioner( s ):
Date of Petition:
DD to be Issued by:
Acknowledgement Letter Issued:
Closure Letter Issued:
Last Contact with Petitioner:
Petition Manager:
Case Attorney:
Issues/Actions Requested:
Davis-Besse Unit 1, Perry Unit 1, and Beaver Valley Units 1 and 2 Reactor Margrethe Kearney and Andrene Dabaghi March 27, 2018 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Bhalchandra Vaidya Lorraine Baer The petitioner requested that the NRC take numerous enforcement actions against FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) and First Energy Nuclear Generation (NG), the licensee of Davis-Besse, Perry, and Beaver Valley Units 1 and 2, for failing to comply with nuclear decommissioning funding requirements of 10 CFR 50. 75.
Background:
On March 27, 2018, the petitioner filed a petition for enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
Actions Completed This Quarter/Next Steps:
This petition dated March 27, 2018 was received by the NRR staff during the reporting period that started in April, 2018. No actions were completed during the January - March reporting period.
PKG: ML180928500 Memo: ML180928467
Enclosure:
ML180928205 OFFICE NRR/DORL/LSPB/PM NAME JJohnston DATE 04/25/18 RidsOeMailCenter RidsOgcMailCenter RidsOpaMail RidsRgn1 MailCenter RidsRgn2MailCenter RidsRgn3MailCenter RidsRgn4MailCenter RidsSecyMailCenter ASnyder, NMSS JSmith, NMSS MComar, NRO TWertz, NRR TMensah, NRR/DIRS BVenkataraman, NRR/DORL JWiebe, NRR/DORL BVaidya, NRR/DORL LJames, NRR/DMLR JJohnston, NRR/DORL
- concurrence via email DWillis, OE BSanford, OEDO LBaer, OGC EMonteith, OGC MLemoncelli, OGC SKirkwood, OGC DCylkowski, OGC MSimon, OGC OMikula, OGC RChazell, SECY HSpeiser, SECY CSola, SECY BNewell, SECY BKlukan, Region I RBarkley, Region I DHills, Region 111 TFarnholtz, Region IV LBurkhart, EDO NRR/DORL/LSPB/LA
- NRR/DORL/LSPB/BC* NRR/DORL/D JBurkhardt DBroaddus JGiitter 04/05/18 04/25/18 04/27/18