Text

NRC-2018-000251 - Resp 1 - Final, Agency Records Subject to the Request Are Enclosed. (Part 1 of 2)
	ML18354A757
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/27/2018
From:	; NRC/OCIO
To:	;
Shared Package
ML18354A758	List: ML18354A754; ML18354A757; ML18354A760;
References
	FOIA, NRC-2018-000251
	Download: ML18354A757 (377)
	v • d • e

From: Guzman, Richard Sent: 22 Jun 2017 09:09:45 -0400 To: Helton, Shana;Cylkowski, David;Setzer, Thomas;Banic, Merrilee Cc: Rudland, David;Greives, Jonathan;Haagensen, Brian;Siwy, Andrew;Rich, Sarah;Broaddus, Doug;Danna, James;Kim, James;Benner, Eric;Mikula, Olivia

Subject:

ACTION: 2.206 Immediate Action Request re: Indian Point Unit 3 Rx Head 0-rings and Restart (LTR-17-0235)

Attachments: SR1-3118K5017061606420.pdf, FW: Quick Turnaround Request for OGC Review, RE: Ticket LTR-17-0235 All, Good morning. We've received a 2.206 petition from Tom Gurdziel concerning the reactor vessel head o-rings at Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 (IP3). He requests that NRC prevent restart of IP3 until they essentially determine a root cause. Because of the timing of their startup, we are treating the petitioner's request to keep IP3 shutdown as a request for immediate action. While the licensee has already synchronized to the grid (completed ahead of schedule earlier this a.m.), we intend to follow the process per MD 8.11 , to the extent possible and 'promptly' notify the petitioner of the pending staff action (i.e., per MD 8.11, when the staff plans to take an action contrary to the requested action in the petition (i.e., permitting restart of a facility when the petitioner has requested that restart not be permitted).

To expedite this step in the process, I would like to forego a PRB F2F meeting and get your concurrence and/or comments via e-mail today by 12 pm, if possible.

ACTION by 1200 6/22: Please review the petition request (1-page email attached) and let me know if you have any objections or concerns with the proposed path to reject the petitioner's request for immediate action (i.e., to prevent the restart of IP3), based on the PRB determination that there are no immediate safety significant concerns which would adversely impact the public's health and safety. Also, provide comments/mark-ups, if any on the proposed e-mail response to the petitioner (draft e-mail below). Also, note that as stated in today's 0800 RI call , the Region does not have any immediate safety concerns with licensee's decision to startup as the reactor vessel head outer o-ring is currently holding RCS pressure.

Forthcoming steps for addressing petitioner's request for immediate action:

1. 1. PRB members to concur on determination to deny petitioner's immediate action request -

respond to PM via email today by 1200

2. 2. Obtain NRR concurrence on the PRB recommendation for addressing the petitioner's requests for immediate action

3. Inform petitioner of staff's decision or pending actions regarding the petitioner's immediate action requests (NOTE: per MD 8.11 , if the staff plans to take an action that is contrary to an immediate action requested in the petition (permitting restart of a facility when the petitioner has requested that restart not be permitted), the petitioner must promptly be notified of the pending staff action).

3.

4. Follow-on steps:

5. 1. A follow-on PRB meeting will be scheduled on a later date to make an initial recommendation as to whether or not the petition meets the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206

6. 2. Inform petitioner of staffs initial recommendation (whether to accept or reject the petition for review).

7. 3. Offer a meeting or teleconference for the petitioner to address the PRB in light of its initial recommendation.

4. Issue an acknowledgement (or closure) letter to the petitioner Proposed PRB/Contacts:

Chair: Shana Helton Petition Manager: Rich Guzman 2.206 Coordinator: Lee Banic / Jim Kim DE: Dave Rudland RI : Tom Setzer OE: TBD OGC: David Cylkowski / Olivia Mikula Other key points (from Region I)

1. The outer o-ring is currently holding RCS pressure. The system was designed to operate on just the outer o-ring. There is no engineering or licensing basis for not performing a plant startup.

2. There was no root cause completed as a result of the double o-ring leak. The apparent cause determination may not bound the problem (i.e. there may be another cause).

3. Corrective actions that could be taken to fix o-ring leakage problems beyond what was done during the last outage require a minimum of 2-3 months lead time.

4. The unidentified leak rate was just determined to be 0.1 gpm which is lower than the UIL of 1.4 gpm at the time of the shutdown.

Current IP3 startup status (0800 6/22)

Reactor went critical at 4:34 pm on 6/21

Mode 1 at 11 :36 pm on 6/21

Synched to the grid at 2:26 am on 6/22

100% expected -1 :30 on 6/23 I appreciate your help on this short-fuse request. Standing by for any questions/concerns.

Thanks, Rich Rich Guzman Sr. PM , Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: 0-9C07 I Phone: 301-415-1030

0 RAFT-----------------------------------------------

Good Afternoon, I have been assigned as a Petition Manager for the 10 CFR 2.206 petition you submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on June 11 , 2017, regard ing your concerns with the reactor vessel head o-rings at Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3.

Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations describes the petition process -

the primary mechanism for tlhe public to request enforcement action by the NRC in a public process. This process permits anyone to petition NRC to take enforcement-type action related to NRC licensees or licensed activities. Depending on the results of its evaluation, NRC could modify, suspend or revoke an NRG-issued license or take any other appropriate enforcement action to resolve a problem. The NRC staff's guidance for the disposition of 2.206 petition requests is in Management Directive 8.11 , which is publicly available.

The 2.206 process provides a mechanism for any member of the public to request enforcement action against NRC licensees. The 2.206 process is separate from the allegations process which affords individuals who raise safety concerns a degree of protection of their identity. In the 2.206 process, all of the information in your letter will lbe made public, including your identity.

You specifically requested in your letter for the NRC to keep Indian Point, Unit 3 (IP3) in cold shutdown until the condition of the reactor vessel head upper and lower surfaces are "proved to be identical to the as-purchased condition". The NRC considers your request as a short-term, immediate action given that IP3 is in the process of restarting from its refueling outage. On June 22, 2017, your request for immediate action was reviewed by members of the Petition Review Board (PRB), which includes staff from the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and Region I. After its review and discussion, the PRB determined that there were no immediate safety significant concerns which would adversely impact the public's health and safety; therefore, the PRB denied your request for immediate action in the restart of IP3.

In accordance with NRC Management Directive 8.11, you have the opportunity to address the PRB, either in person at the NRC Headquarters in Rockville, MD, or by telephone conference.

The purpose of this interaction is so that the petitioner can discuss the petition and verbally supplement the petition with any new information. During the meeting, the PRB is in listening mode and will not make any decisions regarding your petiition.

I would appreciate if you could advise me by Friday, June 30, 2017, if you agree to the NRC's processing your request under the 2.206 process. In addition, please advise me if you would like to address the PRB. If you would like to meet in person, I will need to schedule a formal public meeting at the NRC Headquarters. If you would prefer to address the PRB via phone, I will also work with you to coordinate a date/time during the upcoming weeks.

If you have other questions on the 2.206 process, or regarding the role as petition manager, please contact me at 301-415-1030.

Thank you,

DRAFT-----------------------------------------------

'\ Ticket: LTR-17-0235-1

(~U.S.NRC United Sta!tS _Nud,*1r Rrguln, <>ry C'.,mtnl., , l(,n Protecting People and the Envinmment

, .General lnfonnation . . -_

Assigned Offices: RI 01!:DO Due Date:

Other Parties: SECY Due Date:

OEDO Original Due Date:

Date Response Requested by Originator:

Subject:

Tom Gurdzie\, E-mail re: A Serious and Repetitive Matter

Description:

CC Routing:

Incoming ADAMS Accession:

Incoming ADAMS Package:

Response Accession:

Ot:her Information ** .' *, .... *:

_*_:

Cross Reference No: SRM: No Process Information " ** i'; : ; "*

Action Type: Appropriate Action OEDO Concurrence: No Slgnatu ..e Level: OCM Concurrence: No Special Instructions: OCA Concurrence: No For Appropriate Action. Office/Region to determine ifa response is needed. If response is appropriate, please be sure to include your response to the ADAMS Package and process accordingly. Copies should be sent to RidsEdoMailCenter and RidsSecyMailCenter. (If appropriate).

Originator Name: Tom Gurdziel Date of Incoming:

Originator Org.: Citizens Document Received by OEDO Date:

Addressee Name: Svinicki K L OEDO POC: Bowen, Jeremy (jsb3)

Addressee Affiliation: NRC/OCM Incoming Task: E-mail

From: Broaddus, Doug Sent: 20 Jun 2017 18:34:44 -0400 To: Guzman, Richard;Kim, James Cc: Banic, Merrilee;Danna, James;Broaddus, Doug;Benner, Eric

Subject:

FW: Quick Turnaround Request for OGC Review Importance: High Jim/Rich, (b)(5)

Doug From: Lemoncelli, Mauri Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 6:21 PM To: Broaddus, Doug <Doug.Broaddus@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Quick Turnaround Request for OGC Review Hi Doug, (b)(5)

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss.

Mauri Mauri T. Lemoncelli Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Materials Litigation & Enforcement Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission OWFN-15(07 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 New Telephone Number: 301.287.9242 Mauri.Lemoncelli@nrc.gov U.S. RC u....s.-. ........ a.p1- , c . -

From : Broaddus, Doug Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 5:35 PM To: Lemoncelli, Mauri <Mauri.Lemoncelli@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Quick Turnaround Request for OGC Review

Mauri, Lee Banic is out and I have to apologize but I am not sure of her normal process for requesting OGG support for 2.206 actions, so I asked Jim (her backup) to make the request that he sent you earlier. We are asking for a quick answer on whether OGG agrees that this does not meet the minimum criteria for review as a 2.206 because the licensee is in the process of restarting, and the incoming request is to keep the licensee in cold shutdown. As such, we are essentially treating the request to keep them shutdown as a request for immediate action. We would like to contact the individual by phone before the licensee restarts to inform him that the action does not meet the criteria for review, as well as that we do not have a safety basis to prevent restart.

Please let me know ASAP if we need to follow a different process to request OGG review for this action.

Thanks, Doug From : Kim, James Se nt: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 2:18 PM To: Lemoncelli, Mauri <Mauri.Lemoncelli@nrc.gov>

Cc: Danna, James <James.Danna@nrc.gov>; Banic, Merrilee

<Merri lee.Banic@nrc.gov>; Broaddus, Doug <Doug.Broaddus@nrc.gov>; Guzman, Richard <Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Ticket LTR-17-0235 Please review the attached whether it meets 2.206 petition criteria.

Thanks, Jim Kim NRR/DORL Backup 2.206 Coordinator 301 -415-4125 From : Broaddus, Doug Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 1:26 PM To: Guzman, Richard <Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov>; Kim, James <James.Kim@nrc.gov>

Cc: Jordan, Natreon <Natreon.Jordan@nrc.gov>; Tobin, Jennifer

<Jennifer.Tobin@nrc.gov>; Danna, James <James.Danna@nrc.gov>; Banic, M errilee

<Merrilee.Banic@nrc.gov>; Walker, Sandra <Sandra.Walker@nrc.gov>; Setzer, Thomas

<Thomas.Setzer@nrc.gov>; Benner, Eric <Eric .Benner@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Ticket LTR-17-0235 Importance: High

Rich, Thanks for the assessment and recommendation. I will ask Jim Kim (backing up Lee Banic as the 2.206 coordinator) to send your assessment and recommendation to OGC to ensure they are in agreement that this does not meet the basis criteria to be considered under the 2.206 process. Please do not convey your preliminary determination to Mr. Gurdziel, until we get a response from OGC.

Jim (Kim),

Please coordinate with OGC to get a quick read on Rich's assessment and recommendation. I understand that the licensee is in the process of restarting, so we need an answer from OGC quickly so we can (ideally) get back to Mr.

Gurdziel prior to the plant going back on line. Although his request to keep the plant in cold shutdown is not indicated as an immediate action, it essentially has become an immediate action due to the ongoing plant restart.

Thanks Doug From: Guzman, Richard Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 12:34 PM To: Broaddus, Doug <Doug.Broaddus@nrc.gov>; Setzer, Thomas

Cc: Jor dan, Natreon <Natreon.Jordan@nrc.gov>; Tobin, Jennifer

<Jennifer.Tobin@nrc.gov>; Danna, James <James.Danna@nrc.gov>; Banic, Merrilee <Merrilee.Banic@nrc.gov>; Walker, Sandra

Subject:

RE: Ticket LTR-17-0235 Doug, I've completed my initial review of the incoming e-mail from Mr. Gurdziel and recommend that we treat it as routine correspondence on the basis that the request does not meet the screening criteria for review under 2.206. Specifically, while Mr. Gurdziel cites 10 CFR 2.206 and requests an enforcement-related action, he fails to provide sufficient facts to support the petition and simply asserts that Indian Point, Unit 3 is unsafe.

Per the MD 8.11 criteria for rejection, the NRC will not treat a general assertion of a safety problem, without supporting facts, as a formal petition under 2.206. In such cases, the staff handles these general requests as routine correspondence.

Therefore, I recommend we provide the above input as our 2.206 rejection basis to Region/Br-2; Tom Setzer will respond to Mr. Gurdziel as appropriate via e-mail, routine/general correspondence. I've spoken to Theresa Clark and she is ok with this approach. Once the transferred "for

appropriate action" ticket comes down from NRR, we can close it withe e-mail reply sent to Mr. Gurdziel.

Tom S. - as we discussed, please use the underlined 2.206 rejection basis above in your reply to Gurdziel and cc: or forward me a copy so that we can close the associated ticket.

Thanks, Rich Rich Guzman Sr. PM , Division Operator Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: 0-9C7 I Phone: (301) 415-1030 Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov From: Broaddus, Doug Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 7:19 AM To: Banic, Merrilee <Merrilee.Banic@nrc.gov>; Guzman, Richard

<Richard .Guzman@nrc.gov>; Kim, James <James.Kim@nrc.gov>; Danna, James

<James.Danna@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Re: Ticket LTR-17-0235 Jim/Rich, Please advise if this meets the minimum screening criteria for review as a petition request. I am not sure that Lee had a chance to assess this before she left, bl.It this determination needs to be made before we assemble a PRB. Rich's indication that it is not an allegation provides a portion of the screening assessment.

Thanks Doug On: 16 June 2017 09:47, "Banic, Merrilee" <Merrilee.Banic@nrc.gov> wrote:

As discussed in line for a chair: Shana Helton, Louise Lund; Mar. Gavrilas From: Guzman, Richard Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 9:21 AM To: Kim, James <James.Kim@nrc.gov>; Danna, James <James.Danna@nrc.gov>

Cc: Banic, Merrilee <Merrilee.Banic@nrc.gov>; Broaddus, Doug

<Doug.Broaddus@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Ticket LTR-17-0235

Thanks, Jim.

Lee - I'll take for action as petition manager; the petition (email) does not appear to contain allegation or sensitive information. Please let me know once we have a chair and OGC rep and I'll start arranging for our initial PRB discussion (i.e., recommendation on immediate action aspects).

Rich From: Kim, James Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 8:55 AM To: Guzman, Richard <Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov>; Danna, James

<James.Danna@nrc.gov>

Cc: Banic, Merrilee <Merrilee.Banic@nrc.gov>; Broaddus, Doug

<Doug.Broaddus@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Ticket LTR-17-0235 This is a heads-up.

Tom Gurdziel has requested 2.206 petition to cold shutdown Indian Point 3.

From: Banic, Merrilee Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 8:29 AM To: Br oaddus, Doug <Doug.Broaddus@nrc.gov>

Cc: Kim, James <James.Kim@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Ticket LTR-17-0235 Head up.

From: Clark, Theresa Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 8:13 AM To: Greives, Jonat han <Jonathan.Greives@nrc.gov>; Inverso, Tara

<Tara.lnverso@nrc.gov>

Cc: Bowen, Jeremy <Jeremy.Bowen@nrc.gov>; Setzer, Thomas

<Thomas.Setzer@nrc.gov>; Banic, M errilee <Merrilee.Banic@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Re: Ticket LTR-17-0235 Yes, this one should go to NRR to see *if* it meets the 2.206 process requirements. Please request a transfer in STAR.

Lee, heads up for you.

Thanks!

On: 16 June 2017 08:02, "Greives, Jonathan" <Jonathan.Greives@nrc.gov>

wrote:

Theresa and/or Tara, Forwarding the below email since Jeremy is out of office through Monday.

Thanks, Jon Jonathan Greives Regional State Liaison Officer U.S. Nuclear Regu latory Commission- Region 1 610-337-5337 {W)

Hb)(6) l{Cl jonathan.greives@nrc.gov From: Greives, Jonathan Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 7:59 AM To: Bowen, Jeremy <Jeremy.Bowen@nrc.gov>

Cc: Thomas Setzer (Thomas.Setzer@ruc.gov) <Thomas.Setzer@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Ticket LTR-17-0235

Jeremy, We were assigned ticket LTR-17-0235 this week which requests us to determine if a response is required to an email from a concerned citizen to Chairman Svinicki. The email requests the NRC to prevent a restart of Indian Point 3 due to the repetitive nature of reactor vessel head o-ring leaks and states that it constitutes a 2.206 petition. Given that the requester has specified his preference to enter the petition process, should the ticket be assigned to NRR instead of R1?

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks, Jonathan Greives Regional State Liaison Officer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission- Region 1 610-337-5337 (W) l(b )(6) !(C) jonathan.greives@nrc.gov

From: Rudland, David Sent: 22 Jun 2017 13:24:25 +0000 To: Lubinski, John;Ross-Lee, MaryJane Cc: Coyne, Kevin

Subject:

FW: ACTION: 2.206 Immediate Action Request re: Indian Point Unit 3 Rx Head 0-rings and Restart (LTR-17-0235)

Attachments: SR1-3118K5017061606420.pdf, FW: Quick Turnaround Request for OGC Review, RE: Ticket LTR-17-0235 FYI David L. Rudland, Ph.D.

Chief, Vessels and Internals Integrity Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulat ion U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: OWFN-llFOl 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Office: (301) 415-1896 Cell: !(b)(6) I Email : david.rud land@nrc.gov From: Guzman, Richard Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 9:10 AM To: Helton, Shana <Shana.Helton@nrc.gov>; Cylkowski, David <David.Cylkowski@nrc.gov>; Setzer, Thomas <Thomas.Setzer@nrc.gov>; Banic, Merrilee <Merrilee.Banic@nrc.gov>

Cc: Rudland, David <David.Rudland@nrc.gov>; Greives, Jonathan <Jonathan.Greives@nrc.gov>;

Haagensen, Brian <Brian.Haagensen@nrc.gov>; Siwy, Andrew <Andrew.Siwy@nrc.gov>; Rich, Sarah

<Sara h.Rich@nrc.gov>; Broaddus, Doug <Doug.Broaddus@nrc.gov>; Danna, James

<James.Danna@nrc.gov>; Kim, James <James.Kim@nrc.gov>; Benner, Eric <Eric.Benner@nrc.gov>;

M ikula, Olivia <Olivia.Mikula@nrc.gov>

Subject:

ACTION : 2.206 Immediate Action Request re: Indian Point Unit 3 Rx Head 0 -rings and Resta rt (LTR-17-0235)

All ,

Good morning. We've received a 2.206 petition from Tom Gurdziel concerning the reactor vessel head o-rings at Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 (IP3). He requests that NRC prevent restart of IP3 until they essentially determine a root cause. Because of the timing of their startup, we are treating the petitioner's request to ke,ep IP3 shutdown as a request for immediate action. While the licensee has already synchronized to the grid (completed ahead of schedule earlier this a.m.), we intend to follow the process per MD 8.11, to the extent possible and 'promptly' notify the petitioner of the pending staff action (i.e., per MD 8.11 , when the staff plans to take an action contrary to the requested action in the petition (i.e., permitting restart of a facility when the petitioner has requested that restart not be permitted).

To expedite this step in the process, I would like to forego a PRB F2F meeting and get your concurrence and/or comments via e-mail today by 12 pm, if possible.

ACTION by 1200 6/22: Please review the petition request (1 -page email attached) and let me know if you have any objections or concerns with the proposed path to reject the petitioner's request for immediate action (i.e., to prevent the restart of IP3), based on the PRB determination that there are no immediate safety significant concerns which would adversely impact the public's health and safety. Also, provide comments/mark-ups, if any on the proposed e-mail response to the petitioner (draft e-mail below). Also, note that as stated in today's 0800 RI call, the Region does not have any immediate safety concerns with licensee's decision to startup as the reactor vessel head outer o-ring is currently holding RCS pressure.

Forthcoming steps for addressing petitioner's request for immediate action:

1. 1. PRB members to concur on determination to deny petitioner's immediate action request -

respond to PM via email today by 1200

2. 2. Obtain NRR concurrence on the PRB recommendation for addressing the petitioner's requests for immediate action

3. Inform petitioner of staffs decision or pending actions regarding the petitioner's immediate action requests (NOTE: per MD 8.11, if the staff plans to take an action that is contrary to an immediate action requested in the petition (permitting restart of a facility when the petitioner has requested that restart not be permitted), the petitioner must promptly be notified of the pending staff action).

3.

4. Follow-on steps:

5. 1. A follow-on PRB meeting will be scheduled on a later date to make an initial recommendation as to whether or not the petition meets the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206

6. 2. Inform petitioner of staff's initial recommendation (whether to accept or reject the petition for review).

7. 3. Offer a meeting or teleconference for the petitioner to address the PRB in light of its initial recommendation.

4. Issue an acknowledgement (or closure) letter to the petitioner Proposed PRB/Contacts:

Chair: Shana Helton Petition Manager: Rich Guzman 2.206 Coordinator: Lee Banic / Jim Kim DE: Dave Rudland RI: Tom Setzer OE: TBD OGC: David Cylkowski / Olivia Mikula Other key points (from Region I)

1. The outer o-ring is currently holding RCS pressure. The system was designed to operate on just the outer o-ring. There is no engineering or licensing basis for not performing a plant startup.

2. There was no root cause completed as a result of the double o-ring leak. The apparent cause determination may not bound the problem (i.e. there may be another cause).

3. Corrective actions that could be taken to fix o-ring leakage problems beyond what was done during the last outage require a minimum of 2-3 months lead time.

4 . The unidentified leak rate was just determined to be 0.1 gpm wh ich is lower than the UIL of 1.4 gpm at the time of the shutdown.

Current IP3 startup status (0800 6/22)

Reactor went critical at 4:34 pm on 6/21

Mode 1 at 11 :36 pm on 6/21

Synched to the grid at 2:26 am on 6/22

100% expected -1 :30 on 6/23 I appreciate your help on this short-fuse request. Standing by for any questions/concerns.

Thanks, Rich Rich Guzman Sr. PM , Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: 0-9C07 I Phone: 301-415-1030

DRAFT-----------------------------------------------

Good Afternoon, I have been assigned as a Petition Manager for the 10 CFR 2.206 petition you submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on June 11, 2017, regarding your concerns with the reactor vessel head o-rings at Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3.

Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations describes the petition process -

the primary mechanism for the public to request enforcement action by the NRC in a public process. This process permits anyone to petition NRC to take enforcement-type action related to NRC licensees or licensed activities. Depending on the results of its evaluation, NRC could modify, suspend or revoke an NRG-issued license or take any other appropriate enforcement action to resolve a problem. The NRC staffs guidance for the disposition of 2.206 petition requests is in Management Directive 8.11 , which is publicly available.

The 2.206 process provides a mechanism for any member of the public to request enforcement action against NRC licensees. The 2.206 process is separate from the allegations process which affords individuals who raise safety concerns a degree of protection of their identity. In the 2.206 process, all of the information in your letter will lbe made public, including your identity.

You specifically requested in your letter for the NRC to keep Indian Point, Unit 3 (IP3) in cold shutdown until the condition of the reactor vessel head upper and lower surfaces are "proved to be identical to the as-purchased condition". The NRC considers your request as a short-term, immediate action given that IP3 is in the process of restarting from its refueling outage. On June 22, 2017, your request for immediate action was reviewed by members of the Petition Review Board (PRB}, which includes staff from the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and Region I. After its review and discussion, the PRB determined that there were no immediate safety significant concerns which would adversely impact the public's health and safety; therefore, the PRB denied your request for immediate action in the restart of IP3.

In accordance with NRC Management Directive 8.11, you have the opportunity to address the PRB, either in person at the NRC Headquarters in Rockville, MD, or by telephone conference.

The purpose of this interaction is so that the petitioner can discuss the petition and verbally supplement the petition with any new information. During the meeting , the PRB is in listening mode and will not make any decisions regarding your petition.

I would appreciate if you could advise me by Friday, June 30 , 2017 , if you agree to the NRC's processing your request under the 2.206 process. In addition, please advise me if you would like to address the PRB. If you wou ld like to meet in person, I will need to schedule a formal public meeting at the NRG Headquarters. If you would prefer to address the PRB via phone, I will also work with you to coordinate a date/time during the upcoming weeks .

If you have other questions on the 2.206 process, or regarding the role as petition manager, please contact me at 301-415-1030.

Thank you,

DRAFT-----------------------------------------------

From: Rudland, David Sent: 22 Jun 2017 19:10:44 +0000 To: Lubinski, John;Ross-Lee, MaryJane

Subject:

FW: ACTION: 2.206 Immediate Action Request re: Indian Point Unit 3 Rx Head 0-rings and Restart (LTR-17-0235)

Attachments: RE: ACTION : 2.206 Immediate Action Request re: Indian Point Unit 3 Rx Head 0-rings and Restart (LTR-17-0235)

Another FYI ... the group decided that there is no immediate safety concern for plant restart, and NRR (Michelle) concurred .

David L. Rudland, Ph.D.

Chief, Vessels and Internals Integrity Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: OWFN-llFOl 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Office: (301) 415-1896 Cell: !(b)(6) I Email: david.rudland@nrc.gov From: Guzman, Richard Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 2:35 PM To: Setzer, Thomas <Thomas.Setzer@nrc.gov>; Mikula, Olivia <Olivia.Mikula@nrc.gov>; Rudland, David

<David.Rudland@nrc.gov>; Helton, Shana <Shana.Helton@nrc.gov>; Cylkowski, David

<David.Cyl kowski@nrc.gov>; Banic, Merrilee <Merrilee.Banic@nrc.gov>

Cc: Greives, Jonathan <Jonathan.Greives@nrc.gov>; Haagensen, Brian <Brian.Haagensen@nrc.gov>;

Siwy, Andrew <Andrew.Siwy@nrc.gov>; Rich, Sarah <Sarah.Rich@nrc.gov>; Broaddus, Doug

<Doug.Broaddus@nrc.gov>; Danna, James <James. Danna@nr c.gov>; Kim, James

<James.Kim@nrc.gov>; Benner, Eric <Eric.Benner@nrc.gov>; Arrighi, Russell

<Russell.Arrighi@nrc.gov>; Jordan, Natreon <Natreon.Jordan@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: ACTION : 2.206 Immediate Action Request re: Indian Point Unit 3 Rx Head 0 -rings and Restart (LTR-17-0235)

All, Keeping everyone in the loop .. .we've got NRR concurrence. I will proceed with contacting Mr.

Gurdziel by telephone and follow it up with an e-mail. Per MD 8.1 1, I will also offer him the opportunity to address the PRB (via meeting or teleconference) and provide additional explanation and support for his petition request before we formally review the petition. Our next PRB action is to make an "initial determination" on whether his request meets the criteria for review under 2.206 as outlined below. Will keep you posted.

4. Follow-on steps:

5. 1. A follow-on PRB meeting will be scheduled on a later date to make an initial recommendation as to whether or not the petition meets the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206

6. 2. Inform petitioner of staffs initial recommendation {whether to accept or reject the petition for review).

7. 3. Offer a meeting or teleconference for the petitioner to address the PRB in light of its initial recommendation.

4. Issue an acknowledgement (or closure) letter to the petitioner Thanks again, Rich Rich Guzman Sr. PM , Division Operator Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: 0-9C7 I Phone: (301) 415-1030 Richard .Guzman@nrc.gov From: Helton, Shana Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 12:09 PM To: Guzman, Richard <Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Re: ACTION: 2.206 Immediate Action Request re: Indian Point Unit 3 Rx Head 0-rings and Restart (LTR-17-0235)

I concur on denying immediate action request, Shana On : 22 June 201711:52, "Guzman, Richard" <Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov> wrote:

I believe we have a consensus (step 1 complete) and can move forward with getting Michele Evan's concurrence on our recommendation. I will update the response appropriately to include the additional technical basis provided by EVIB and the Region (Tom and Jon - I will run these by you as well).

Forthcoming steps for addressing petitioner's request for immediate action:

1. 1. PRB members to concur on determination to deny petitioner's immediate action request -

respond to PM via email today by 1200

2. 2. Obtain NRR concurrence on the PRB recommendation for addressing the petitioner's requests for immediate action

3. Inform petitioner of staff's decision or pending actions regarding the petitioner's immediate action requests (NOTE : per MD 8.11, if the staff plans to take an action that is contrary to an immediate action requested in the petition (permitting restart of a facility when the petitioner has requested that restart not be permitted), the petitioner must promptly be notified of the pending staff action).

Shana - please let me know if you need anything additional to get Michele's okay. I'd like to respond to Mr. Gurdziel by 3p today (so I can get to my son's baseball game ©) Thanks to all for the quick-turn!

Rich Rich Guzman Sr. PM , Division Operator Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: 0-9C7 I Phone: (301) 415-1030 Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov From: Helton, Shana Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 11:33 AM To: Guzman, Richard <Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov>; Greives, Jonathan <Jonathan.Greives@nrc.gov>;

Setzer, Thomas <Thomas.Setzer@nrc.gov>; Cylkowski, David < David.Cylkowski@nrc.gov>; Banic, Merri lee <Merri lee. Ban ic@nrc.gov>

Cc: Rudland, David <David .Rudland@nrc.gov>; Haagensen, Brian <Brian.Haagensen@nrc.gov>; Siwy, Andrew <Andrew.Siwy@nrc.gov>; Rich, Sarah <Sarah .Rich@nrc.gov>; Broaddus, Doug

<Doug.Broaddus@nrc.gov>; Danna, James <James.Danna@nrc.gov>; Kim, James <James.Kim@nrc.gov>;

Benner, Eric <Eric.Benner@nrc.gov>; Mikula, Olivia <Olivia.Mikula@nrc.gov>; Jordan, Natreon

<Natreon.Jordan@nrc.gov>; Tobin, Jennifer <Jennifer.Tobin@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Re: ACTION: 2.206 Immediate Action Request re: Indian Point Unit 3 Rx Head 0-rings and Restart (LTR-17-0235)

I'm ok as long as safety is assured and the discussion below is very helpful with that. I see no need to stop IP from starting back up.

On: 22 June 201711:10, "Guzman, Richard" <Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov> wrote:

Shana - I will defer to you as our PRB chair, if you would like to have a conference call before making a determination, I can set up a bridgeline and get a conference room for 1200 today.

From: Greives, Jonathan Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 10:36 AM To: Guzman, Richard <Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov>; Setzer, Thomas <Thomas.Setzer@nrc.gov>; Helton, Shana <Shana.Helton@nrc.gov>; Cylkowski, David <David.Cylkowski@nrc.gov>; Banic, Merrilee

<Merrilee.Banic@nrc.gov>

Cc: Rudland, David <David.Rudland@nrc.gov>; Haagensen, Brian <Brian.Haagensen@nrc.gov>; Siwy, Andrew <Andrew.Siwy@nrc.gov>; Rich, Sarah <Sarah.Rich@nrc.gov>; Broaddus, Doug

<Doug.Broaddus@nrc.gov>; Danna, James <James.Danna@nrc.gov>; Kim, James <James.Kim@nrc.gov>;

Benner, Eric <Eric.Benner@nrc .gov>; Mikula, Olivia <Olivia.Mikula@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: ACTION: 2.206 Immediate Action Request re: Indian Point Unit 3 Rx Head 0-rings and Restart (LTR-17-0235)

Rich,

Should be put together a quick call this morning to get everyone on the page? This important action/communication appears difficult via email.

I agree with all that the licensee needs to understand the cause of the repeat leaks and then we need to follow-up on their assessment. However, I don't believe a small amount of leakage from this joint (even if both o-rings were to leak) presents a safety concern that would jeopardize the ability of the plant to safely shut down or respond to any accident. Their TSs dictate requirements for monitoring unidentified leakage in containment and have limits that ensure they shut down the plant with adequate margin to safety. Historically, they have identified the leakage at a very low level (as Rich said, less than 10% of the TS limit) and have taken prudent, conservative action to shut down the plant to repair.

Thanks, Jon From: Guzman, Richard Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 10:29 AM To: Setzer, Thomas <Thomas.Setzer@nrc.gov>; Helton, Shana <Shana .Helton@nrc.gov>; Cylkowski, David <David .Cylkowski@nrc.gov>; Banic, Merrilee <Merrilee.Banic@nrc.gov>

Cc: Rudland, David <David.Rudland@nrc.gov>; Greives, Jonathan <Jonathan.Greives@nrc.gov>;

Haagensen, Brian <Brian.Haagensen@nrc.gov>; Siwy, Andrew <Andrew.Siwy@nrc.gov>; Rich, Sarah

<Sarah.Rich@nrc.gov>; Broaddus, Doug <Doug.Broaddus@nrc.gov>; Danna, James

<James.Danna@nrc.gov>; Kim, James <James.Kim@nrc.gov>; Benner, Eric <Eric.Benner@nrc.gov>;

Mikula, Olivia <Olivia.Mikula@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: ACTION: 2.206 Immediate Action Request re: Indian Point Unit 3 Rx Head 0-rings and Restart (LTR-17-0235)

Also please note the highlighted error in my original message. The unidentified leakage at time of shutdown was 0.14 (vice 1.4 gpm). The current 0.1 O gpm UIL rate is 1/10 the TS limit for UIL.

Thanks, Rich From: Setzer, Thomas Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 10:17 AM To: Helton, Shana <Shana.Helton@nrc.gov>; Guzman, Richard <Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov>; Cylkowski, David <David.Cylkowski@nrc.gov>; Banic, Merrilee <Merrilee.Banic@nrc.gov>

Cc: Rudland, David <David.Rudland@nrc.gov>; Greives, Jonathan <Jonathan.Greives@nrc.gov>;

Haagensen, Brian <Brian.Haagensen@nrc.gov>; Siwy, Andrew <Andrew.Siwy@nrc.gov>; Rich, Sarah

<Sarah .Rich@nrc.gov>; Broaddus, Doug <Doug.Broaddus@nrc.gov>; Danna, James

<James.Danna@nrc.gov>; Kim, James <James.Kim@nrc.gov>; Ben ner, Eric <Eric. Benner@nrc.gov>;

Mikula, Olivia <Olivia.Mikula@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Re: ACTION: 2.206 Immediate Action Request re: Indian Point Unit 3 Rx Head 0 -rings and Restart (LTR-17-0235)

Thats a great point Shana. l guess l would need the definition of "adequate protection" to understand this better. The fact is that Indian Point has had numerous oring leaks, and h as yet to identify the smoking gun or root cause as to why this plagues Unit 3. Incidentally, Unit 2 has I

of its 2 orings leaking at this moment.

We do not have a safety concern with the current condition at Unit 3 (the inner oring isleakong but theouter is holding). Theouter ring is a fully qualified I 00% pressure seal, so it is designed to provide adequate sealing on its own.

I would not fee l an enforcement action to prevent startup would be warranted. The situation begs more inspection and review but both the NRC and licensee, but it is not a safety concern at this point.

VR, Tom

Original Message --------

From: "Helton, Shana" <Shana.Helton@nrc.gov>

Date: Thu, June 22, 2017 9:38 AM-0400 To: "Guzman, Richard" <Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov>, "Cylkowski, David"

<David.Cylkowski@nrc.gov>, "Setzer, Thomas" <Thomas.Setzer@nrc.gov>, "Banic, Merrilee"

<Merrilee.Banic@nrc.gov>

CC: "Rudland, David" < David.Rudland@ nrc.gov>, "Greives, Jonathan"

<Jonathan.Gre ives@nrc.gov>, "Haagensen, Brian" <Brian.Haagensen@nrc.gov>, "Siwy, Andrew" <Andrew.Siwy@ nrc.gov>, "Rich, Sarah" <Sarah.Rich@nrc.gov>, "Broaddus, Doug"

<Doug.Broaddus@nrc.gov>, "Danna, James" <James.Danna@nrc.gov>, "Kim, James"

<Jamcs.Kim@nrc.gov>, "Benner, Eric" <Eric.Bcnncr@nrc.gov>, "Mikula, Olivia"

<01 ivia. Miku la@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Re: ACTION: 2.206 Immediate Action Request re: Indian Point Unit 3 Rx Head 0-rings and Restart (LTR-17-0235)

I would like to understand why we have confidence that this o-ring repair provides adequate protection, given it's a repair that allegedly (per the petitio ner) had been made repeatedly. I need this before concurring - thanks.

From : Setzer, Thomas Se nt: Thursday, June 22, 2017 10:51 AM To: Mikula, Olivia <Olivia.M ikula@nrc.gov>; Rudland, David <David.Rudland@n rc.gov>; Helton, Shana

<Shana.Helton@nrc.gov>; Guzman, Richard <Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov>; Cylkowski, David

<David.Cylkowski@nrc.gov>; Banic, Merrilee <Merrilee.Banic@nrc.gov>

Cc: Greives, Jonathan <Jonathan .Greives@nrc.gov>; Haagensen, Brian <Brian. Haagensen@nrc.gov>;

Siwy, Andrew <Andrew.Siwy@nrc.gov>; Rich, Sarah <Sarah.Rich@nrc.gov>; Broaddus, Doug

<Doug.Broaddus@nrc.gov>; Danna, James <James.Danna@nrc.gov>; Kim, James

<James.Kim @nrc.gov>; Benner, Eric <Eric.Benner @nrc.gov>

Subje ct: RE: ACTION : 2.206 Immediate Action Request re: Indian Point Unit 3 Rx Head 0 -rings and Restart (LTR-17-0235)

There is no requirement for the oring functionality. If they leak by, unidentified leakage is the tech requirement that comes into play. The tech spec limit on that is l gpm.

If the outer oring holds, they wont leak and would not challenge that tech spec requirement. In this most recent event at Unit 3 where both orings leaked, the unidentified leakage was approx 0.15 gpm.

Original Message --------

From: "Mikula, Olivia" <Olivia.Mikula@nrc.gov>

Date: Thu, June 22, 20 l 7 10:28 AM -0400 To: "Rudland, David" <David.Rudland@nrc.gov>, "Setzer, Thomas"

<Thomas.Setzer@nrc.gov>, "Helton, Shana" <Shana.Helton@nrc.gov>, "Guzman, Richard"

<Richard.Guzrnan@nrc.gov>, "Cylkowski, David" <David.Cylkowski@nrc.gov>, "Banic, Merrilee" < Merrilee.Banic@ nrc.gov>

CC: "Greives, Jonathan" <Jonathan.Greives@nrc.gov>, "Haagensen, Brian"

<Brian.Haagensen@ nrc.gov>, "Siwy, Andrew" <Andrew.Siwy@nrc.gov>, "Rich, Sarah"

<Sarah.Rich@nrc.gov>, "Broaddus, Doug" <Doug.Broaddus@nrc.gov>, "Danna, James"

<Jamcs.Danna@ nrc.gov>, "Kim, James" <James.Kim@ nrc.gov>, "Benner, Eric"

<Eric.Benner@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: ACTION: 2.206 Immediate Action Request re: Indian Point Unit 3 Rx Head 0-rings and Restart (LTR-17-0235)

Good morning, Thank you for that additional information. Is there a binding requirement for this inner oring to be fully functional? In other words, is there something in their technical specifications or in our regulations that makes this issue they are facing problematic? Or does the functionality of the outer ring leave them in full compliance with requirements?

Thank you, Olivia From : Rudland, David Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 10:26 AM To: Setzer, Thomas <Thomas.Setzer@nrc.gov>; Helton, Shana <Shana.Helton@nrc.gov>; Guzman, Richard <Richard.Guzman@nr,c.gov>; Cylkowski, David <David.Cylkowski@nrc.gov>; Banic, Merrilee

<Merrilee.Banic@nrc.gov>

Cc: Greives, Jonathan <Jonathan.Greives@nrc.gov>; Haagensen, Brian <Brian.Haagensen@nrc.gov>;

Siwy, Andrew <Andrew.Siwy@nrc.gov>; Rich, Sarah <Sarah.Rich@nrc.gov>; Broaddus, Doug

<Doug.Broaddus@nrc.gov>; Danna, James <James.Danna@nrc.gov>; Kim, James

<James.Kim@nrc.gov>; Benner, Eric <Eric.Benner@nrc.gov>; M ikula, Olivia <Olivia.Mikula@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: ACTION: 2.206 Im mediate Action Request re: Indian Point Unit 3 Rx Head 0-rings and Restart (LTR-17-0235)

Tom and Shana

I see Tom's point. The safety concern comes from both o-rings leaking, but it is worrisome that this keeps happening and moving forward we need to take a very close look at the root cause.

Since the one o-ring is holding at pressure, there does not appear to be an immediate safety concern that requires enforcement action. In fact, the leak detection and tech spec limits were sufficient to catch the issue before it caused a large concern.

Did they replace both o-rings during this outage, or just one? If they replaced both and now one is leaking, that may be a different story Thanks Dave David L. Rudland, Ph.D.

Chief, Vessels and Internals Integrity Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: OWFN-llFOl 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Office: (301) 415-1896 Cell: !(b)(6) I Email: david.rud land@nrc.gov From : Setzer, Thomas Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 10:17 AM To: Helton, Shana <Shana.Helton@nrc.gov>; Guzman, Richard <Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov>; Cylkowski, David <David.Cylkowski@nrc.gov>; Banic, Merrilee <Merrilee.Ban ic@nrc.gov>

Cc: Rudland, David <David .Rudland@nrc.gov>; Greives, Jonathan <Jonathan.Greives@nrc.gov>;

Haagensen, Brian <Brian .Haagensen@nrc.gov>; Siwy, Andrew <Andrew.Siwy@nrc.gov>; Rich, Sarah

<Sarah.Rich@nrc.gov>; Broaddus, Doug <Doug.Broaddus@nrc.gov>; Danna, James

<James.Danna@nrc.gov>; Kim, James <James.Kim@nrc.gov>; Benner, Eric <Eric.Benner@nrc.gov>;

M ikula, Olivia <0livia.Mikula@nrc.gov>

Subje ct: Re: ACTION: 2.206 Immediate Action Request re: Indian Point Unit 3 Rx Head 0 -rings and Restart (LTR-17-0235)

Thats a great point Shana. 1 guess l would need the definition of "adequate protection" to understand this better. T he fact is that Ind ian Point has had numerous oring leaks, and has yet to identify the smoking gun or root cause as to why this plagues Unit 3. Incidentally, Unit 2 has I of its 2 orings leaking at this moment.

We do not have a safety concern with the current condition at Unit 3 (the inner oring isleakong but theouter is holding). Theouter ring is a fu lly qualified 100% pressure seal, so it is designed

to provide adequate sealing on its own.

I would not feel an enforcement action to prevent startup would be warranted. The situation begs more inspection and review but both the NRC and licensee, but it is not a safety concern at this point.

VR, Tom

Original Message --------

From: "Helton, Shana" <Shana.Helton@nrc.gov>

Date: Thu, June 22, 2017 9:38 AM -0400 To: "Guzman, Richard" <Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov>, "Cylkowski, David"

<David.Cylkowski@nrc.gov>, "Setzer, Thomas" <Thomas.Setzer@nrc.gov>, "Banic, Merrilee"

<Merrilee.Banic@nrc.gov>

CC: "Rudland, David" <David.Rudland@nrc.gov>, "Greives, Jonathan"

<Jonathan.Grcivcs@nrc.gov>, "Haagensen, Brian" <Brian.Haagcnscn@nrc.gov>, "Siwy, Andrew" <Andrew.Siwy@nrc.gov>, "Rich, Sarah" <Sarah.Rich@nrc.gov>, "Broaddus, Doug"

<Doug.Broaddus@nrc.gov>, "Danna, James" <James.Danna@nrc.gov>, "Kim, James"

<Jamcs.Kim@nrc.gov>, "Benner, Eric" <Eric.Bcnncr@nrc.gov>, "Mikula, Olivia"

Subject:

Re: ACTION: 2.206 Immediate Action Request re: Indian Point Unit 3 Rx Head 0 -

rings and Restart (LTR-17-0235)

I would like to understand why we have confidence that this o-ring repair provides adequate protection, given it's a repair that allegedly (per the petitioner) had been made repeatedly. I need this before concurring - thanks.

On: 22 June 2017 09:09, "Guzman, Richard" <Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov> wrote:

All, Good morning. We've received a 2.206 petition from Tom Gurdziel concerning the reactor vessel head o-rings at Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 (IP3). He requests that NRC prevent restart of IP3 until they essentially determine a root cause. Because of the timing of their startup, we are treating the petitioner's request to ke,ep IP3 shutdown as a request for immediate action. While the licensee has already synchronized to the grid (completed ahead of schedule earlier this a.m.), we intend to follow the process per MD 8.11, to the extent possible and 'promptly' notify the petitioner of the pending staff action (i.e., per MD 8.11, when the staff plans to take an action contrary to the requested action in the petition (i.e., permitting restart of a facility when the petitioner has requested that restart not be permitted).

To expedite this step in the process, I would like to forego a PRB F2F meeting and get your concurrence and/or comments via e-mail today by 12 pm, if possible.

ACTION by 1200 6/22: Please review the petition request (1-page email attached) and let me know if you have any objections or concerns with the proposed path to reject the petitioner's req uest for immediate action (i.e., to prevent the restart of IP3), based on the PRB

determination that there are no immediate safety significant concerns which would adversely impact the public's health and safety. Also, provide comments/mark-ups, if any on the proposed e-mail response to the petitioner (draft e-mail below). Also, note that as stated in today's 0800 RI call , the Region does not have any immediate safety concerns with licensee's decision to startup as the reactor vessel head outer o-ring is currently holding RCS pressure.

Forthcoming steps for addressing petitioner's request for immediate action:

1. 1. PRB members to concur on determination to deny petitioner's immediate action request -

respond to PM via email today by 1200

2. 2. Obtain NRR concurrence on the PRB recommendation for addressing the petitioner's requests for immediate action

3. Inform petitioner of staff's decision or pending actions regarding the petitioner's immediate action requests (NOTE: per MD 8.11, if the staff plans to take an action that is contrary to an immediate action requested in the petition (permitting restart of a facility when the petitioner has requested that restart not be permitted), the petitioner must promptly be notified of the pending staff action).