ML12305A436

G20120253/EDATS: OEDO-2012-0208 - C. Jordan Weaver Ltr. 2.206-Passive Autocatalytic Recombiner System at Indian Point

ML12305A436
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	11/16/2012
From:	Leeds E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Weaver C Natural Resources Defense Council
Pickett D, NRR/DORL, 415-1364
Shared Package
ML12305A411	List: ML12305A436 ML12305A458
References
EDATS: OEDO-2012-0208, G20120253, TAC ME8439, TAC ME8440, 2.206
Download: ML12305A436 (72)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 November 16, 2012 Mr. C. Jordan Weaver Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

1152 15th Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Weaver:

Your April 16, 2012, petition to R. William Borchardt, Executive Director for Operations (EDO),

has been referred to me pursuant to Section 2.206, "Requests for Action under this Subpart," of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) of the Commission's regulations. You requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) order Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the licensee for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No.2 (Indian POint>> to remove the passive autocatalytic recombiners (PARs) because the PAR system could have unintended ignitions in the event of a severe accident, which, in turn, could cause a hydrogen detonation.

As the basis for your request, you asserted, in part, the following:

• Indian Point is located close to the Ramapo seismic zone. The facility is constructed to withstand a magnitude 6.0 earthquake but the site may be susceptible to a magnitude 7.0 earthquake. A major earthquake could result in a severe reactor accident that exceeds the design basis.

• The PAR systems are simple devices consisting of catalyst surfaces where spontaneous catalytic reactions occur in the presence of hydrogen. PARs do not need external power or operator action to function. In addition, control room operators cannot deactivate them.

• It is reasonable to assume one or two hydrogen recombiners could remove hydrogen produced during a design basis accident. Hydrogen generation during a design basis accident is estimated at 0.001 to 0.05 kg/sec and the hydrogen removal capacity per PAR unit is several grams per second of H2 *

• The petition cites reports of hydrogen generation of 0.1 to 10 kg per second during a severe reactor accident. Pressurized-water reactors would need 30 to 60 hydrogen recombiners in containment to mitigate these levels of hydrogen production.

• The petition references experimental data where PARs malfunction by having unintended ignitions when elevated hydrogen concentrations (8-10 percent and higher) were present.

• The petition cites a number of studies describing the risks and difficulties of using igniters for hydrogen control in containment. The petition links the risks of igniters with PARs.

• PARs could be overwhelmed by the production of hydrogen in a severe accident and a detonation could occur.

• The Indian Point containment deSign pressure is 47 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) and a probabilistic risk assessment study predicts containment failure at 126 psig. The petition references studies of 75 percent and 100 percent core metal-water reaction with peak containment pressures approaching the failure limits.

• The petition links local elevated concentrations of hydrogen gas, unintended ignitions by PARs, and predicted detonations.

C. Weaver -2 On June 14, 2012, you, along with Mr. Mark Leyse, addressed the Petition Review Board (PRB). You provided additional clarification that your concerns focus on severe reactor accidents and not on the NRC's design basis accident. The transcript of that meeting is publicly available in Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML12300A412.

On June 22,2012, the PRB met to consider whether to accept or reject your petition based on the criteria in NRC Management Directive (MD) 8.11, "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions," ADAMS Accession No. ML041770328. The PRB's initial recommendation was to reject your petition.

On July 30,2012, the NRC informed you that the PRB's initial recommendation was to reject the petition based on the following: (1) the NRC staff has previously reviewed and resolved the issues raised in the petition, and (2) the petitioner identified deficiencies within NRC regulations.

On September 12, 2012, you, along with Mr. Mark Leyse, addressed the PRB a second time.

You objected to the PRB's initial recommendation because the PRB did not address the petition's research regarding PARs malfunctioning by having ignitions during testing under elevated hydrogen concentration. You noted that the PRB did not reference any document indicating that the NRC had reviewed and evaluated this scenario. You also referenced a July 2011 International Atomic Energy Agency report indicating that the PAR ignition problem has not been resolved. The transcript of that meeting is publicly available at ADAMS Accession No. ML12300A428.

On October 10,2012, the PRB met internally to make its final recommendation. Based on the additional information provided in your second presentation before the PRB, the PRB has reconsidered its initial recommendation and has accepted your petition for review under 10 CFR 2.206. While evaluating the petition, the staff will take into consideration long-term actions taken or planned by the NRC's task force responding to the events of March 2011 at the Fukushima Dai-chi nuclear power plant in Japan.

As provided by 10 CFR 2.206, the NRC will take action on your request within a reasonable time. I have assigned Mr. Douglas Pickett to be the petition manager for your petition. You can reach Mr. Pickett by phone at 301-415-1364 or by email at Douglas.Pickett@nrc.gov.

Enclosed for your information is a copy of the notice that the NRC is filing with the Office of the Federal Register for publication. I have also enclosed for your information a copy of MD 8.11 and the associated brochure NUREG/BR-0200, "Public Petition Process," prepared by the NRC's Office of Public Affairs.

C. Weaver - 3 I would like to express my appreciation for your effort in bringing these matters to the attention of the NRC.

Eric eeds, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Federal Register Notice

2. Management Directive 8.11

3. NUREG/BR-0200 cc: Vice President, Operations Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, GSB P.O. Box 249 Buchanan, NY 10511-0249 Additional cc via Listserv

ENCLOSURE 1 Federal Register Notice ADAMS Accession No. ML12305A458

7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docket No. 50-247; NRC-20YV-XXXX Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No.2 Request for Action AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Request for Action; receipt.

SUMMARY

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is giving notice that by petition dated April 16, 2012, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (the petitioner) has requested that the NRC take action with regard to Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No.2. The petitioner's requests are included in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID <NRC-20YY-XXXX> when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, using the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID <NRC-20YY-XXXX>. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-3668; e-mail: CaroI.Galiagher@nrc.gov.

- 2

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS):

You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select "ADAMS Public Documents" and then select "Begin Web-based ADAMS Search." For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or bye-mail to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this notice (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced.

• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room 01-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On April 16, 2012, the petitioner requested that the NRC take action with regard to Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit NO.2. The petitioner requests that the NRC order the licensee of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No.2 to remove the passive autocatalytic recombiners (PARs) because the PAR system could have unintended ignitions in the event of a severe accident, which, in turn, could cause a hydrogen detonation. As the basis for this request, the petitioner references experimental data where PARs malfunction in environments containing high concentrations of combustible gases by having ignitions. The petitioner asserts that the PARs could be overwhelmed by the production of hydrogen following a severe reactor accident and a resulting ignition could lead to a detonation that challenges the structural integrity of the containment structure.

-3 The request is being treated pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 2.206, "Requests for Action Under this Subpart," of the Commission's regulations.

The request has been referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). As provided by 10 CFR 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this petition within a reasonable time. The petitioner met with the NRR petition review board on June 14 (transcript at ADAMS Accession No. ML12300A412) and September 12,2012 (transcript at ADAMS Accession No. ML12300A428), to discuss the petition. The results of that discussion were considered in the board's determination regarding the petitioner's request for action and in establishing the schedule for the review of the petition. A copy of the petition is available for inspection under ADAMS Accession No. ML12108A052.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this I r; day of November 2012.

For the Nuclear Re latory Commission.

Eric J. eds, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

ENCLOSURE 2 Management Directive 8.11, "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions" ADAMS Accession No. ML041770328

u.s. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1N: DT-00-20 To: NRC Management Directives Custodians Subject* Transmittal of Directive 8.11, "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions"

Purpose:

Directive and Handbook 8.11 are being revised to address stakeholder feedback and to improve clarity *and make the" handbook easier to use. There are three major changes to the handbook: (1) the addition ofan opportunity for petitioners to address the Petition Review Board after it discusses the petition; (2) the deletion of criteria for technical meetings with the petitioners; and (3) the addition of a requirement to request comments from the petitioner(s) and affected licensee(s) on the proposed director's decision, with associated steps to resolve, and document the resolution of, those comments.

Office and Division of Origin: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Contact:

Andrew J. Kugler, (301) 415-2828 or Donna Skay, (301) 415-1322 Date Approved: July 1,1999 (Revised: October 25,2000)

Volume: 8 Licensee Oversight Programs Directive: 8.11 Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Availability: Rules and Directives Branch Office of Administration .

David L Meyer, (301) 415-7162 or Doris Mendiola, (301) 415-6297 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION

TN: DT-00-20 Significant Changes to the Management Directive 8.11 Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions The entire document has been revised to improve clarity and make it easier to use. In particular, the handbook is now written with actions in chronological order. In addition to those general changes, the following significant changes have been made:

• Addition of an opportunity for the petitioner to address the Petition Review Board (PRB) after the PRB has developed its recommendations on the petition. This meeting or teleconference is similar to those already offered to petitioners before the PRB meets.

• Removal ofspecific restrictions on the amount of time allowed for petitioners to address the PRB and also .allow petitioners to be assisted by a reasonable number of representatives.

U

• Deletion of the criteria for meetings between the petitioner and the staff. The staff will hold these meetings whenever the staff feels it will be beneficial to its review.

• Addition of a process by which the staff requests and resolves comments from the petitioner and the licensee on the proposed director's decision (i.e., before it is signed).

The comments and the stairs resolution become part of the director's decision.

'. Revisio~ of the timeliness goal to 120 days from the date of the acknowledgment letter until the date the proposed director's decision is sent outfor comment. Add a new goal of 45 days from the end of the comment period until the director's decision is signed.

• Addition ofa process flow chart and a petition manager's checklist to assist staff persons involved with petitions.

'2

\J Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Directive 8.11

\....J C::::I

.. ==.,.::::::::::::::

...==.=================:=========

.. ::::::... ==.==:

.. ====:=:::JI .

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions

'Directive 8.11 Contents Policy . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 1 Objectives ............................................................................................................ 1 Organizational Responsibilities and Delegations of Authority .......... 2 Executive Director for Operations (EDO) *..**.........*.*.*......*....... 2 General Counsel (GC) ..**....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Office Directors ............................................................................................................... 2 Regional Administrators ...............*..........*........*............ 3 2206 PRB Otairperson ....................................... ~ .. .. .. . . . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. . .. .. . .. . . 3 Associate Directors - Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) ....*..**... 4 Division Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . * . . . . . . . . . . 4 Director, Division of licensing Project Management (DLPM),

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) ........................... 4 V Applicability ......................'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . .. 4 Handbook ........................................................................................................... 4 Definitions .................. . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . 4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Approved: July 1,1999 (Revised: October 2~; 2000) iii

U. S. Nuclear RegiIlatory . .

Commission

~ .

.Volume:

~ .. 8 Licensee. Oversight

., ~ ~ . Programs

- . NRR Review Process for 10 *CFR 2.206 Petitions Directive 8.11 Policy (8.11-01)

It is the policy of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to provide members of the public with the means to request that the Commission take enforcement~related action (Le., to modify, suspend, or revoke a l~cense~ or for other. appropriate. enforcement*related action, as distinguished from actions such as licensing or rulemaking). This policy is codified at Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Codeo!FederalRegulations (10 CFR 2.206). The Commission may grant a request for action, in whole or in part, take other action that satisfies the concerns raised by the requester, or deny the request. Requests that raise health and safety and other concerns without requesting enforcement-related action will be revie~ed by means other than the 10 CfR 2.206 process.

Objectives (8.11..:...02) .

• .To e~~~ the p'~bii~ health an~ safetY, through the prompt and thorough evaluation of any potential problem addressed by a petition filed under 10 CFR 2.206. (021)

• !'O pf.ovide.for appropriate participation by a petitioner in, and observation by the pu~lic, of, :NRC's ,.decisionmaking activities related to a 10 CFR 2.206 petition. (022)

• To ensure effective, c,o.mmu~ication with the petitioner and other stakeholders on the status of the petition, including providing relevant documents and notification of interactions between the NRC staff and a licensee or certificate holder relevant to the petition. (023) ,

Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) 1

Volume 8, Licens~e Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 eFR 2.206 Petitions Directive 8.11 Organizational Responsibilities and Delegations of Authority (8.11-03)

Executive Director for Operations (EDO)

(031)

Receives and assigns action for all petitions filed under 10 CFR 2.206.

General Counsel (GC)

(032)

• Conducts legal reviews and provides advice on 10 CFR 2.206 petitions and, upon specific request from the staff in special cases or where the petition raises legal issues, reviews drafts of director's decisions. (a)

• Provides legal advice to the Commission, EDO, office directors, and staff on other matters related to the 10 CFR 2.206 process. (b) '-...-I Office Directors (033)

• Have overall responsibility for assigned petitions. Because 10 CFR 2.206 petitions request enforcemerit-related action, petitions are assigned to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, the Office' of Enforcement, or the Office of the General Counsel. Therefore, inost of the actions described in this directive and the associated handbook apply only to those. offices. (a)

• Approve or deny a petitioner's request for immediate action. (b)

• Sign acknowledgment letters,FederalRegirternotices and director's decisions. (c)

• Provide up-to-date infonnation for the monthly status report on all assigned petitions. (d)

• Appoint a petition review board (PRB) chairperson. (e)

• . Designate a petition manager for each petition~ (f)

Approved: July 1, 1999.

2 (Revised: October 25,2000)

Volume ,8, Licensee Oversight Programs

, Review Process for 10 CFR 2.2Q6 retitions

. Directive 8.11' Office Directors (033) (continued)

• Promptly notify (1) the Office ofInvestigations of any allegation of wrongdoing by a licensee or certificate holder, applicant for a license or certificate, their Contractors, or their vendors or (2) the Office of the Inspector General of any allegation of wrongdoing by an NRC staff person or NRC contractor, that is contained in a petition they may receive. (g)

• Provide a draft of. each director's decisions to the Office of Enforcement for review. (h)

• Designate an office coordinatorfor2.206 petitions, if applicable. (i)

Regional Administrators (034)

• As needed, provide support and inform~tion for the preparation of an acknowledgment letter and/or a director's decision on a 2.206 petition. (a) ,

• Make the petition manager aware ofinformation that is received or that is the subject of any correspondence relating to a pending petition. (b)

• Participate, as necessary, in meetings with the peti tioner and public, in technical review of petitions and in deliberations ofthe PRB. (c) 2.206 PRB Chairperson (035)

Each office that is assigned a petition will appoint a PRB chairperson, generally a Senior Executive SeIVice manager, who will- .. - . '

• Convene

'.. . PRB. me~tings

.. . ..<a) ..

~ "

• Ensure appropriate review of all new petitions in a timely manner. (b)

• Ensure appropriate documentation ofPRB meetings. (c)

• Convene periodic PRB meetings with the petition managers to discuss the status of open petitions and to provide guidance for timely resolut~on. ( d ) ' . .

Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) 3

Volume 8, Licen~ee Oyersight Programs Review Process for 10 eFR 2.206 Petitions Directive 8.11

'\.J Associate Directors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)

(036)

Concur in each extension request from petition managers in their organization and forward the extensio~ request to the Office of the EDO for approval.

Division Directors (037)

Concur in each extension request from petition managers in their organization and forward the extension request to the Office of the EDO (Associate Director for NRR) for approval.

Director, Division of Licensing Project Management (DLPM),

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)

(038)

Appoints the Agency 2.206 Petition Coordinator, normally a DLPM staff person. \......./

Applicability (8.11-04)

The policy and guidance in this directive and handbook apply to all NRC employees.

Handbook (8.11-05)

Handbook 8.11 details the procedures for staff review and disposition of petitions submitted under Section 2.206.

Definitions' (8.11-06)

A 10 CFR2.206 Petition. A written request filed by any person that the Commission modify, suspend, or revoke a license, or take any other enforcement-related action that may be proper. The request must meet the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206 '(see Part III of Handbook 8.11).

Licensee. Throughout the handbook, any references to a licensee shall be interpreted to include certificate holders; applicants for licenses or certificates, or other affected parties.' . . -...J Approved: July 1, 1999 4 (Revised: October 25, 2000) .

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206' Petitions Directive 8.11 References (8.11-07)

Code ofFederal Regulations 10 CFR 2.206, "R~quests for Action Under This Subpart."

10 CFR 2.790, "Public Inspections, Exemptions, Requests for Withholding."

10 CFR 2.1205, "Request for a hearing; petition for leave to intervene."

Management Directives

- 3.5, "Public Attendance at Certain Meetings Involving the NRC Staff."

- 8.8, C'Management of Allegations."

- 12.6, "NRC Sensitive Unclas~ified Information Security Program."

Memorandum of Understanding Between the NRC and the Department of Justice, December 12,1988.

"Nuclear Regulatoty Commission Issuances,",published quarterly as NUREG-0750.

Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) 5

Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11

\..J I .', -. , ' '. "" ' ... , ", - ' '. .,,' ,'.,. " I

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 eFR 2.206 Petitions .

Handbook 8.11 Parts I-IV Contents Part I Introduction 1 Title 10 of the Code ofFederal Regulations, Section 2.206 (10 CPR 2.206) (A).......*................................. ~ . . . . . . . 1 General Cautions (B) .... . . . * . . . . . . . . . . .. * .. . . . . . . . * .. . . . .. . * . . * * . . . . . . * . .

• 1 Partn*

Initial Staff Actions 3 NRC's Receipt of,a Petition (A) o. 0 0 **** 0 ***** 0

• 0

• 0

• 0

• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ** 0 0 0 ** 0 *  ; 0 0 3 Process Summary (1) . . * * * . . . . * . * * . *~. . .~ * * * . * . * * * * * * * * * . * * . * * . * * * .. .. ..

• 3 Assignment of Staff Action (2) 0

• 0

• 0 0 0 ******** 0 ** 0 ******* 0

• 0

• 0 0 ** 0

• 0 *

• 3 Office Action (B) ........................................................................... 4 Petition Manager Action (C) . 0 ******* 0

• 0 *** 0 0 0

• 0

• 0 ******************* 0 *

• 4 PartIn" Petition Review Board (PRB) 0 0 0 *************************** '.' ********** 0 7 General (A) ..... . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . * * * .. . . . .. . . . . . * .. .. .. .. . . . . .. 7

.~chedule (1) .............................................................................. 7 Board Composition (2) .... 0 ********** ~ ************ 0 ********* ~ *** 0 0

• 7 Preparation for the PRB Meeting (B) ...........".**........... 0 ** 0 0 * ~ * * *

• 8 Criteria for Petition Evaluation (C). 0 *** ~~ ** 0 ** 0

• 0 ****** 0

• 0 ******** 0

• 0 0 0 0 0 11 Criteria for R~viewing ~eti.tions Ynder 10.CFR 2.206 (1) ........ .; .... 0... 11 Criteria for Rejecting Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206 (2) .... 000 ** 0.0..... 11 Criteria for Consolidating Petitions (3) 0 0 0 0 *** 0 0 ** 0 0 0 0

• 0 0 0 0 0 *** 0 * * * * * *

• 12

• _ * ' '

• f PRB Meeting (D) ...................... :.;; .... 0* * * * * ~~ * * * * * * * * * * *  ! ~ * * * :: *

• 13 Informing the Petitioner of the Results (E) .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. ~ 0

• 0 * '0 0 0  : ~ ~ 0 0 0 ******* 0 0 14

. Meeting With the Petitiorier (F) .... ~.o . . "; ** *.: ** 0 0 0 ~ 000 .: . . . . ~. ~ ** 0  :*0'.0.0.

• 14 Response to the Petitioner (G) .*.. 0 0 ........... : 0

• 0 ~ 0

• 0 0 0" ~,~ .'~' ~

'0 0 0 0 0 , , : ' * *' *

• 15 Requests That Do Not Meet the Criteria (1) .... : .. ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 o. o * * '. * * * * * * *

• 15 Requests That Meet the Criteria (2) .: *.. ~ 0; ** 000:.; .'.0 0 .:"~;~ * * * '. ~,~.... 16 Sending Documents to the Petitioner (Hl' 00.0 *** 0 0 o *** ~. ~. 0" 0 0 0 0 ~'. ~'.:. ~~.. 16 Supplements to the Petition (1) ******* ~ ~ ~ 0 ** ** 0 * ** 0  : *** '~'. ' ** 0  : 0 * ~ **** ~ ~ *

• 0

• 17 Approved: July 1,1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) iii

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Parts I -' IV .

Contents (continued)

Part IV Petition Review Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19' Reviewing the Petition (A) . . . . . * * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Interoffice Coordination (1) *. . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Request for Licensee Input (2) .*.............................*...... : 20 Technical Review Meeting With the Petitioner (3) .................**... 20 Additional Petition Review Board (PRB) Meetings (4) ........*......... 20 Schedule (B) .... ., ... ., .. ~ .. ., ............ : .* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ., * ., * *

• 20 Keeping the Petitioner Informed (C) ..................................... 22 Updates to Management and the Public (D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . * . * . . . . . . . 22 Part V The Director's Decision 24 Content and Format (A) ............................*......*......... ~ . 24 Final Versus Partial Director's Decisions (B) .*..*.*.**...*....*.......*..* 2S Granting the Petition (C) *.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S Denying the Petition (D) ...*.*...............*..*.*...............*..** 26 Issuing the Proposed Director's Decision for Comment (E) ...........*...... 26 Comment Disposition (F) ....*..................*......... :............ 27 Issuing the Director's Decision (G) .......... ;............................. 27 Administrative Issues (H) .....*........................................ 28 Commission Actions (1) . ~ . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Exhibits 1 Simplified 2.206 Process Flow Chart . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2 Petition Manager Checklist *............*....*.. ~ ** ~ * . . . . . . . . . . . . .

• 33

• 3 Sample Oosure Letter for Requests That Are Not 2206 Petitions **..... 36

• 4 Sample Ac~o'?lledgment Letter * . * . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . 37

• 5 Sample Federal Register Notice *...*.......*... : * . . . . . * . . . . . . * . . . . . . . 38

• 6 . Sample I?~rector's Decision and Cover Letter ....*..... . . . . * . * * . . * . . .

• 39

• 7' Sample Fe~eraJ.Register.Notice for Director's Decision.. .. . . .* .*.*. ... .. 43 8 Sample u;t~e~ Requesting Comments on the Proposed Director's Decision .............*..*.......................*...**. 45 Approved: .July 1, 1999 iv. (Revised: October 25, 2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review.Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions

., 'Handbook8.1!"' Part I Part'I Introduction Title 10 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations, Section 2.206 (10 CFR 2.206) (A)

This section of the regulations has been a part of the Commission's regulatory framework since the 'Commission was established in 1975.

Section 2.206 permits any person to file a petition to request that the Commission take enforcement-related action., i.e., to modify, suspend, or revoke a license or to take other appropriate action. (1)

Section 2.206 requires that the petition be submitted in writing and provide the grounds for takiilg the proposed action. The NRC staffwill not treat general opposition to nuclear power or a general assertion of a safety problem, without supporting facts, as a formal petition under 10 CFR 2.206. The staff will treat general requests as allegations or routine correspondence. Petitioners are encouraged to pr~vide a telephone number or e-mail address through which the staff may make contact. (2)

General Ca"Q.tions (B)

Management Directive (MD) 8.8, "Management of Allegations,"

provides NRC policy with regard to notifying the Office of Investigations (01) and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of wrongdoing matters, as well as initiating, prioritizing, and terminating investigations. Each petition manager should become familiar with the current version ofMD 8.11 and this handbook and follow the policy and procedures included in them when dealing with issues requiring 01 or OIG investigations. (1)

Any mention outside NRC ofan ongoing 01 or 010 investigation, for example, as an explanation for schedule changes, requires the approval of the Director, 01, or the 10, respectively. (2)

Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: October ~5, 2000) 1

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part I '

General Cautions (B) (continued)

If the petition contains infonnation on alleged wrongdoing on the part of a licensee or certificate holder, an applicant for a license or certificate, their contractors, or their vendors, treat the petition, or the relevant part of the petition, as an allegation and promptly notify 01. If the petition contains infonnation on alleged wrongdoing involving an NRC employee, NRC contractors, or NRC vendors, promptly notify OIG. (3)

Approved: July 1, 1999 2 (Revised: October 25, 2000)

Volume 8; Licensee Oversight Programs Review Pro~ess for. 10 eFR 2.206 Petitions

.., .. , , . Handbook 8.11 Part II Part'II Initial'-Staff'Actions NRC's Receipt of a *Petition (A)

Process SumlI1~ry (1) .

After NRC receives a petition, the Executive Director for Operations (ED 0 ) assigns it to the director of the appropriate office for evaluation and response. The original incoming petition is sent to the office and a

.. copyofthe petition is sent.to the Office of the'General Counsel (OGq.

The official response is the office director's written decision addressing the issues raised in the petition: The office director can grant, partially grant, or deny the petition. The Commission may, on its own initiative, review the director's decision within 25 days of the date of the decision, although it will not entertain a request for review of the director's decision. . . . .

AsSignment of Starr Action (2)

PetitionsmaybeintheformofrequestsforNRCactionthatmayormay not cite 10 CFR 2.206 and may initially be directed to staff other than the EDO. In. any of these cases, the staff person who receives the document should make an initial evaluation as to whether the document meets the criteria for review tinder 10,CFR2206 proVided in Part III of this handbook Staff persons who are uncertain whether or not the document meets the criteria should consult their management or office coordinators for further guidance., If a petition meets the criteria but does -n<?t .specifically cite' 10' CFR 2.206, the staff will

. '. attempt to contact ~e petitionerbytelephone to determine if he or she

. wants the request processed pursuant to 10 CPR 2.206. The staff may

.. determine that a request, fOrWar4ed for staff action is not a petition for

. eruorcement-related action but, rather~'a petition for rulemaking, for

'. example. If there is any uncertainty about whether or not a request is a peiition under 10 CPR. 2.206, it should be treated as one so that a petition review' board (PRB) -can inake" its recommendations, as described in Part III of this handbook. (a)

Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 25,2000) 3

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 eFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part II, ,

NRC's Receipt of a Petition (A) (continued)

Assignment of Staff Action (2) (contim;ted)

If the staff receives a request that it believes is a 10 CFR 2.206 petition, .

it will fOIWard the request to the Office of the EDO (OEDO) for assignment of action. Petitions also may be fOIWarded to the OEDO from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel or from a Presiding Officer in 'accordance with 10 CFR 2.1205(1)(2). The EDO will assign each petition to the appropriate office for action. If the document does not cite 10 CFR 2206 and does not meet the criteria for review under that section, the staff will respond to it under some other process (e.g.,

routine correspondence, allegations). (b)

Petitions that cite 10 CFR 2206 and are addressed to the EDO will be added to the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) by OEDO. OEDO will not declare these petitions official agency records nor will it make them publicly available. Those steps will be carried out by the assigned office as described below. (c)

Office Action (B)

Upon receipt, office management will assign the petition to a petition manager. (1)

The Agency 2.206 Petition Coordinator (appointed by the Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR>>, receives copies of aU 2.206 petitions from OEDO

. and will add them to the 2.206 database. (2)

Petition Manager Action (q The petition manager will promptly review the petition and determine whether or not it contains allegations or sensitive information. The timing of this step is particularly important for petitions that are not addressed to the EDO. Normally, these documents have been entered into ADAMS through the Document Control Desk (DCD) and are released to the public after a specified period of time. The delay allows the staff time to review the petition for allegations or other sensitive information. If the

. petition manager detennines that a docUment contains allegations or other sensitive infonnation, he or she should immediately contact the ADAMS Help Desk (301415*1234) to prevent releasing the document to the public. (1)  :

Approved: 'July 1, 1999 4 (Revised:' October 25, 26t!0)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR'2.206 Petitions'

, Handbook 8.11 ,Part II Petition Manager Action (C) (continued)

Before the petition is released to the public, before the PRB meeting, and in any event within 1week ofreceipt ofthe peti tion by the assigned office, the petition manager will inform the petitioner by telephone that the 2.206 petition process is a public process in which the petition and all the information in it will.be made public. If the petitioner requests anonymity and that the petition not. be made public, the.

petition manager will*advise the petitioner that, because of its public nature, the 2.206 process cannot provide protection of the petitioner's identity. In. these cases, the petition manager must obtain the agreementofthe petitioner as to how the matterwill be handled (i.e., as an allegation or not) and document the petitioner's agreement in writing, usually in the form ofa memorandum to file. In cases where the staff identifies certain issues in a petition that it believes are more appropriately addressed using the allegation process, the petition manager will obtain the agreement of the petitioner as to how these issues will be handled (i.e., as an allegation or not) and document the petitioner's agreement in writing. If all or part of the petition is treated as an allegation, this fact will be documented in the allegation acknowledgment letter, (see Management Directive (MD) 8.8, "Management of Allegations"). (2)

Ifthe request clearly does not meet the criteria for review as a 10 CFR 2.206 petition, the petition manager will also discuss this issue with the petitioner. The petitioner may be able to help the petition manager better understand the basis for the petition or the petitioner may realize that a 10 CFR 2.206 petition is not the correct forum for the issues raised in the request. Finally, the petition manager will offer the petitioner an opportunity to have one or more representatives give a presentation to the PRB and cognizant supporting staff either by telephone (or videoconference, if available) or in person. This is an opportunity for the petitioner to provide any relevant additional explanation and support for the .request. This type of meeting is described in more detail in Part II,I of this handbook. (3)

After the initial contact with the petitioner, the petition manager will promptly advise the licensee(s) of the petition, send the appropriate licensee(s) a copy of the petition for information, and ensure that the petition and all subsequent related correspondence are made available to the public. (Note that if the petitioner wishes to have the request handled as an allegation, the request is no longer a 2.206 petition.) Any information related to allegations or other sensitive information that Approved: July 1,1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) 5

_ _ _..._ ..._ _ _ ..._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _L . -_ _ _ __

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs

\ Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part II Petition Manager Action (C) (continued) make tip a part of the petition will be redacted from copies sent to the

. licensee or made available to the public. For allegations, the petition manager should refer to MD 8.8. As discussed in MD 8.8, allegations must be forwarded to the associated Office Allegations Coordinator expeditiously. MD 8.8 also addresses the referral ofwrongdoing issues to the Office of Investigations and the Office of the Inspector General. (4)

See Exhibit 1, Simplified 2.206 Process Flow Chart, and Exhibit 2, Petition Manager Checklist, for further information on petition manager a.ctions. (5)

Approved: July 1,1999 6 (Revised: October 25, 2000)

'-Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs

~e'iew. Process for 10 eFR 2.206 Petitions

, Handbook 8.11' Pari III Part III-

",' ~etition Revi~w ,Boa~d (PRB)

General (A)

Schedule (1)

The assigned office' holds a PRB meeting to review the 2.206 petition.

The PRBmeeting is normally held within 2 weeks of receipt of the petition. The PRB ~ee~ing may b,e held much sooner if staff decisions are required on short-term, immediate actions (e.g.,' a request to shut down an operating facility or prevent restart of a facility that is ready to restart). In unusual.situations, it may not be possible to hold the meeting in time to address any immediate action requests. In these cases, the staffwill deCide how ailyiinmediate actions requested will be addressed and obtain appropriate management concurrence as soon as possible. If the staff plans to take an action'that is contrary to an immediate action requested in, the petition before issuing the acknowledgment letter (such as permitting restart of a facility when the petitioner has requesi~d.that re~tart not.be permitted), the petition manager must promptly notify the petitioner by telephone of the pending staff action. '

Board Composition ..

(2)

The PRB: cOnsists bf~~)

• A PRB challperson (generally a Senior Executive Service manager) (i)

• A petition manager (it) ,

, . * ' . , I. -: ~. * .~. - * : '.. . *

. ~ : ~gmzantmanage~~~t ~d staff, asnecessaI}' (iii)

.* A representative' from1he OffiCe 'of fuVeStigatiom (01), as needed (w)

• A '~e~res~ntati~e ~~~: :the' ~~~. ~f' 'Enfo~ment (OE) ,and, for petitions ':assigned to 'the. Office of NuClear Reactor Regulation (NRR), the NRR Senior Enforcement Coordinator, as needed (v)

Approved: .July 1,1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) 7

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part III '

General (A) (continued)

Board Composition (2) (continued)

In addition, a representative from the Office of the General Counsel (OGq will normally participate. (b) .

Preparation for the PRB Meeting (B)

The petition manager will provide copies of the petition to PRB and assist in schedUling the review board meeting. The petition manager also will arrange for cognizant technical staff members to attend the meeting, as necessary, and prepare a presentation for the review board.

In assigning technical staff members to the petition, management will consider ~ny potential conflict from assigning any staff person who was pre~ouSly involved with the issue that gave rise to the petition. (1)

The petition manager's presentation to PRB should include-(2)

• A recommendation as to whether or not the petition meets the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2206 (a)

.* A discussion of the safety significance of the issues raised (b)

Recommendations for any immediate action (whether requested or ooq~ _ '

• ReconuriendationS on whether or not assistance from 01, OE, or OG~ is necessary (d)'

• A request for confirmation concerning referral to 01 or the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), as appropriate (e)

• The proposed schedule, including the review schedule for the affected technical branches (f)

The peiitlon manager also will offer a meeting or teleconference between the petitioner and the PRB before the board reviews the petition. This meeting or teleconfer~nce, if held, is an opportunity for the -petitioner to' provide any relevant additional explanation and support for the request in advance of the PRB's evaluation. The staff will hold this type of meeting if the petitioner desires it. If a decision. is required- on a petitioner's request for immediate action before the petiti~ner's presentation can be scheduled; that decision will not be delayed. (3) ~

. Approved: July 1, '1999 8 (Revised:' October 25, 2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitioris Handbook 8.11 Part III Preparation for the PRB Meeting, (B) (continued)

, The petition manager' also Will invite the'licensee to participate in the meeting or teleconference to' erisure that i(understands the concerns about its racili ty or' activities. The PRB members may ask any questions needed'to'darify the petitioner's request. The'licensee may also ask questions to clarifythe issues raised by the petitioner. Any member of

. the public may attend (or listen in by telephone for a teleconference) as an observer. 'Meetings between PRB and the petitioner normally will be held at NRC headquarters in Rockville~ Maryland, with provisions for participation by telephone orvideoconference. This public meeting

, or teleco¢erence 'is separate from the (closed) PRB meeting during which the PRB members develop their recommendations with respect to the petition. (4). '"

The petitio'Ii managerwill ensure that all staff persons at the meeting or

. ' teleconferenCe are aware of the' need to protect sensitive information from disclosure. Sensitive information includes safeguards or facility security information", proprietary or confidential commercial

, information, or infonriation relating to' an ongoing investigation of

'wrongdoing. (5) . ' .,' '." ,:' , .

If 'the petitioner' ~hoo'ses, to ,addie'ss PRB by telephone, it is not considered a meeting and no public notice is necessary. The petition manager will establish a mutually agreeable time and date and arrange to conduct the teleconference on a recorded line through the NRC He'adquarters Operations,Center (301-816-5100). The tape recording

, "from ~he 9perati<?ns ,Center. is oonvC?rted to a printed l!anscript that is treat~d as a s~pplem~nt to the petition and is sent to the petitioner and the same distribution as the original petition. The petition manager will make arr~~gements for .transcription ~service, by submitting an NRC Form587,to the Atomic Safety and licensing Board Panel orby sending

, an .-e-riuiilto: "CoUrt Rep()rter," giying the same information as requested on the~o~ 587. (6), ,'.

~ ,. . ~ ~ .~ . ,

If the petitioner chooses to attend in person, the meetingwill take place at NRC headquarters at-a.'mutually agreeable 'time. For the meeting,

, the petition manager !will .folloW the' prior, public notice period and

'other 'provisions: 'of Management: Directive (MD) 3.5, "Public Attendance at Certain Meetings Involving the NRC Staff." However, time constraints associated with this type of meeting will often dictate that the 10-day public notice 'period described in MD 3.5 will not be Approved: July 1,1999 (Re\ised:' October 25, 2000) 9

---

~-------------~

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs ReView Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part In :

Preparation for the PRB Meeting {B) (continued) met. MD 3.5 allows for less than 10 days' public notice, if necessary, with appropriate management concurrence. The meeting should be noticed as a meeting between the ~~ staff, the petitioner, and the licensee (unless the licensee chooses not to participate). The licensee is invited to participate, as in the teleconference described above, and members of the .public may* attend as observers. The meeting is transcribed and the transcript is treated in the same manner as in the case of a telephone briefirig. (7).

The petitiqner may request that a reasonable number of associates be permitted to assist him or her in addressing PRB concerning the petition. The petition manager will (1) discuss this request with the petitioner, (2) determine the number of speakers, and (3) allot a reasonable amount of time for the presentation so that the staff can acquire . the information needed for its review in an efficient manner. (8)

At the m~eting or teleconference, the. chairperson will provide a brief ~

summaiy of the 2206 process, the petition, and the purpose of the discussion that will follow. The NRC staff and the licensee will have an opportunity to ask the petitioner questions for purpose s ofclarification.

PRB may meet in closed session befo.re and/or after the meeting with the petitioner to conduct its normal business. (9)

The requirements for scheduling;: and holding the petitioner presentation may impact the established time goals for holding the regular* PRB meeting and issuing the acknowJc~dgment letter. Any impacts should be kept to' a minimum. (10)

The petition manager will review the transcript" and, where necessary, edit it to ensure it acctirately reflecl;S'\vhat was said in the meeting or teleconference. CorrectionS are only necessary for errors that affect the meaning of the text of the transcript Tlie petition manager is not exp~cted to correct inconsequential errors. (11)

. After editing, the petition manager will ensure that the transcript gets

.. the same. dis~bution (petitioner; licensee, publicly available, etc.) as the original petition. For meetings, this step should be accomplished by attaching* the transcript to a brief *-meeting summary. For

.7 teleconferences; the petition manager may attach the transcript to a memorandum to file. (12) '-.,.J

_. Approved: July 1, 1999 10 (Revi~ed: October 25, 2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for: 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions '

Handbook 8.11 :Part III Criteria for Petition Evaluation (C)

The staff will use the criteria discussed in this section to detennine whether or not a petition should be considered under 10 CFR 2.206 and whether or not similar petitions should be consolidated.

Criteria for RevieWing Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206 (1)

,The staff will review a petition under the requirements of 10 CFR 2.206 if the request meets all of the,following criteria-(a)

• The petition contains a request fore.nfortement-related action such as issuing an, order modifying, sUspending, or revoking a license, issuing a notiCe ofviolation, with orwithout a proposed civil penalty, etc. (i) ,

• The facts that constitute the bases for taking the particular action are specified. TlU! petitioner must provide some element ofsupport bey~n~ the bare assertion: The supporting facts must be credible and sufficient to warr~nt further inquiry. (ii) ,

• There is no NRC proceeding available in which the petitioner is or could be a party and through which the petitioner~s concerns could be addressed.:If there is a proceediilg availab1e, for examp1e, if a petitioner raises an issue that he or she has raised or cou1d raise in an ongoing licensing proceeding, the staffwi11 inform the petitioner of the ongoing proceeding and will not treat the request under 10 CFR 2.20~. (iii), ' '

An 'exception to the first two 'criteria is any petition to intervene and request for hearing in a licensing proceeding that is referred to the 10 CFR 2.206 pro,cess in ,aCcordance 'with 10 CPR 2.1205(1)(2). These referrals may be made when the petition does not satisfy the legal requirements for a hearing or intervention and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel or the Presiding Officer detennines that referra1 to the 10 CFR 2.206 process is appropriate. For these referrals, the

, substantive' issues in'the request for a: hearing 'or intervention will be read as' an implicit 'request foreriforeement-re1ated action, thus

, , ' satisfying the criteria 'for treatnient under the 10 CFR 2.206 review

,process. (b) ," , ,

Criteria for Rejecting Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206 (2)

The, staff will not review a petition under 10 CFR 2.206, whether specifically cited or not, under the feHowing circumstances

.~ . ..

Approved: Ju1y 1,1999 (Revised:' Oct~ber 25,2000) 11

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 eFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook S.ll Part III Criteria for Petition Evaluation (C) (continued)

Criteria Cor Rejecting Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206 (2) (continued)

• The incoming correspondence does not ask for an enforcement*related action or fails to' provide sufficient facts to support the petition but simply alleges wrongdoing, violations of NRC regulations, or existence of safety concerns. The request cannot- be simply a general statement of opposition to nuclear power or a general assertion with~ut supporting facts (e.g., the quality assura~ce at the facility is inadequate). These assertions will be treated as routine correspondence or as allegations that will be referred for appropriate a'ctian in accordance with MD 8.8, "Management of Allegations." (a)

.', The 'petitioner raises issues that have already been the subject of NRC staff review and 'evaluation, either on that facility, other similar facilities, or on a generic basis, for which a resolution has been achieved, the issues have been resolved, and the resolution is applicable to the facility in question. This would include requests to \.....J.

reconsider or reopen a previous enforcement action (including a decision not to initiate an enforcement action) or a director's decision. These requests will not be treated as a 2206 petition unless they present significant new information. (b)

• The request is to deny a license application or amendment. This type of request should initially be addressed in the context of the relevant licensing action, not under 10 CFR 2.206. (c)

• The request addresses deficiencies within existing NRC rules. This type ~frequestshould be addressed as a petition for rulemaking. (d)

Criteria for Consolidating Petitions (3) ,

Generally, all requests submitted by different individuals will be treated and evaluated separately. When two or more petitions request action against the same licensee, specify essentially the same bases, provide adequate supporting information, and are submitted at about the same time, PRB will consider the benefits of consolidating the petitions against the potential ofdiluting the importance ofany petition and recommend whether or not co~olidation is appropriate. The assigned office director will determine whether or not to consolidate the petitions. ~

Approved: July 1,1999 12 (Revised: October 25, 2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Processfor 10 -eFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook8.11 Part III '

u PRB Meeting (D)

PRB ensures that an appropriate petition review process is followed.

The purposes of the PRB process are to--(1) ,

• Detennine whether or not the -petitioner's request meets the criteria for review as a 10 CFR~206 petition (see Part III(C) ofthis handbooky(a)

• Detennine whether pr not the petitioner ,should be offered or informed of an alternative process (e.g., consideration of issues as allegations, consideration ofissues in a pending license proceeding, .

or rulemaking) (b)

• Determine whether' there.is a need for any immediate actions (whether requested or'~ot) (c). . '

.' Establish--a schedule for responding' to the petitioner so that a commitment is made bym~agement and the technical review staff to respond to the petition in-a timely inanner (see Part IV of this handbook for guidance regarding schedules) (d)

,", ~ ' .'

,. Address the possi~ility. of issuing a partial directors decision (e)

• De'termine whether ornot the petition should be consolidated with another petition(f) _ . r-.. _ .

• Determine whether or not. referral to 01 or OIG is appropriate (g)

~

• Detennine whether or not there is a need for OGC to participate in the review (h) ..

. ~ ' . ," J",. ,. .

• Determine whether 6i n6t the lic~nsee ~hould be requested to respond.to the pe~~on

~ ":'

(i). '. . .' _' "." , .

• Detennine whether or riot th~ petition,is sufficiently complex that additional review board 'm~etings shoUld be scheduled to ensure that suital:>Ie progress'is being made(j) :",

l * ~, . ' _. .~. ~ * : : * ~ _ * * =. ,"

, _' _The PRB meeting is a closed,meeting, separate from any meeting with

-, _ the. petitioner: and the, licensee, .during' which the PRB members develop their recommendations with respect to the petition. At the

" ,meeting, -the petition manager briefs PRB on the petitioner's

. request(s), any background information, the need for an independent technical review, and a proposed plan for resolution, including target completion dates. The petition manager, with the assistance of the Approved: JulY,I, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) 13

Volume 8, Licensee, Oversight Programs Review Process' for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions

. Handbook 8.11 .Part III '

PRB Meeting (D) (continued)

Agency 2.206 Petition Coordinator, ensures appropriate documentation of all PRB recommendations in the summary of the PRB meeting. (2)

The aGe representative provides legal review and advice on 10 CFR 2.206 petitions. aGe may be assigned as the responsible office for the

. review~, if appropriate. (3) .

,Informing the Petitioner of the Results (~)

After PRB meets, and before issuing the acknowledgment letter, the petition manager will ensure that appropriate levels of management (as determined by the assigned office) are informed of the board's recommendations and that they concur. The petition managerwill then inform the petitioner by telephone as to whether or not the petition

. meets the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2206, of the disposition of any reques~for immediate action, of how the review will proceed, and that 'an acknowledgment letter is forthcoming. If the staff plans to take ~

an action that is contrary to an irilmediate action requested in the petition before issuing the acknowledgment letter, the petition manager must notify the petitioner promptly by telephone of the pending staff action. An example of a contrary action would be if NRC permitted restart of a facility when the. petitioner had requested that restart not be permitted. The petitioner will not be advised of any wrongdoing investigation being conducted by or or OIG.

Meeting With t~e ~etitioner (F)

After informing the petitioner ofthe pertinent PRB recommendations,

,the petition manager will offer the petitioner an opportunity to comment on the recommendations., This opportunity will be in the form of a meeting or teleconference, between the petitioner and the PRB. If the petitioner accepts this offer, the petition manager will establish a mutually agreeable date for the meeting or teleconference with the petitioner. The petition manager also will invite the licensee to participate' and will. coordinate the. schedules and dates with the licensee. The meeting or teleconference should be scheduled ~o as not to adversely affect the established petition review schedule. (1)

, Approved: July 1,1999 14 (ReVised: October 25, 2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight *Programs Review Process for to eFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part]II Meeting With the Petitioner (F) (continued)

This meeting or teleconference, if held, is an opportunity for the petitioner to provide any relevant additional explanation and support for the request in light ofPRB's recommendations. The PRB members may ask .questions to clarify the petitioner's request. If staff decisions on any of the petitioner's immediate action' requests are required before the petitioner's presentation can be scheduled, those decisions

.w;ill not be delayed .. :n~ forinat of the meeting ,or teleconference, application of MD 3.5, transcription, etc., and the requirements to edit

. ,and distribute the transcript, are the same as for a ~eeting or teleconference held prior to the PRB's review of the petition. (2)

After this discussion, PRB will consider the need to modify any of its recommendations. The final recommendationS will be included in the acknowledgment letter. The acknowledgment letter will address any

',comments the petitioner made conceniing' the initial PRS

'recommendations and the sta.fPs response. The petitioner will be notified promptly of staff decisions on any immediate action requests.

If the petition~r presents significant new information to the staff, PRB may determine that this new information cOnstitutes a new petition that will be treated separately from the initial petition. (3)

,The requirements for scheduling and holding the petitioner presentation may impact the established time goals for issuing the acknowledgment letter. These impacts should be kept to a minimum. (4)

Response,.to t~e Petitioner (q)

After PRB finalizes its recommendations, the petition manager prepares a written response to the petitioner.

Requests That Do Not ~eet th~ Criteria (1)

If PRB, with office-level wagement ooncu!rence, determines that the petition does not meet the Criteria for revieW 'as a 10 CFR 2206 petition, the petition manager then prep~es a letter that (1) ,explains why, the request is not being reViewed under 10 CPR 2206; (2) responds~ to the extent possible at ,that ~me, to the issu~s in the petitioners request; and (3) explains what further'aCtions,:'if any, the staff intends to take in response to the request (e.g;; -treat it as an allegation or routine correspondence). See Exhibi,t 3 for an example. (a)

The, petition manager will attach, the original petition and any

, enclosure(s) to the Reading File copy of the letter. (b)

Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: Oct<?ber 25, 2000) 15

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Reyiew Process. for 10 eFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part III Response to the Petitioner (G) (continued)

. Requests That Meet the Criteria (2)

If the PRB finds that the petition meets the criteria for review as a 10 eFR 2.206 petition, the petition manager prepares an acknowledgment letter and associated Federal Register notice (see ExhibitS' 4 and 5). The letter should acknowledge the petitioner's in efforts bringing issues to the staff's attention. If the petition contains a request for immediate action by' the .NRC, such as a request for imme~ate suspens~on offacility operation until final action is taken on the request, the acknowledgment letter must explain the staff's response to the immediate action requested and the basis for that respons~. (a)

The petition manager ensures that a copy of this management directive and of the pamphlet "Public Petition Process," prepared by the Office of Public Affairs, are included with the acknowledgment letter. The acknowledgment letter also should include the name and telephone number. of the petition manager, identify the technical staff organizational units that will participate in the review, and provide the planned schedule for the staff's review. A copy of the acknowledgment letter must be sent to the appropriate licensee and the docket service list(s). (b)

The petition manager will attach the original 2206 petition and any enclosure(s) to the Reading File copy ofthe acknowledgment letter. (c)

In rare cases the staff may be prepared to respond to the merits of the petition immediately. In this case, the staff can combine the functions of the ackilowledgment letter and the director'S decision into one document. A similar approach. would be taken in combining the

~soci~t~d Federal Register notices. (d) .

Se~ding Documents.to the Petitioner (H)

If the PRB determines that the request is a 2.206 petition, then the petition manager will-(l)

• Add the petitioner to the service Iist(s) for the topic (if one exists).

Add the petitioner to the headquarters and regional service lists for the licensee(s) that is(are) the subject ofthe petition. (a)

Approved: July 1, 1999:

16 (Revised: October 25, 2000)

Volume 8; Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process':for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11' Part III

,Sending Documents to the Petitioner ,(H) (continued)

• Request the licensee to send copies of any future correspondence related to the petition' to the petitioner~' with due regard for proprietary, safeguards,' and other sensitive information. (b)

, :

• To the extent that the petition manager is aware of these documents, ensure that the petitioner is placed on distnbution for other NRC '

correspondence relating to $e issues raised in the petition, including relevant generic letters 'or bulletins that are issued during the pendency of the NRC's consideration of the petition. This does not include NRC correspondence or documentation related to an 01 or OIG investigation, which will not be released outside NRC without the approval of the Director, 01, or the IG, respectively. (c)

These three actions will r~main in effect until 90 days after the director's decision is issued if the petitioner desires it. (2)

Supplements to the Petition (I)

A petitioner will sometimes sub~t a supplement to his or her petition.

The petition manager will review the supplement promptly and determine wheth~r, or" not _it contains allegations or sensitive

, information. If the supplement appears to cOntain information of this nature, the petition manager must obtain the agreement of the pe~tioner as to how these issues will be handled (i.e., as an allegation or not) and document the petitioner's agreement in writing, usually in the form of a m~mor~lDdum to file. Ifall or partofthe supplement is treated as an allegation, thi~, fact will ,be documented in the allegation aclmowledgment letter (see_ MD 8.8, "Management of Allegations").

See Part IJ(C) of this handbook for more detailed information. (1)

The petition manager: will 'also ens~e' the supplement receives 'the same ~stributionas ,the petition' and ,will forward a copy of the supplement to the PRB members. 'The PRB members will review the suppleinent and deteinllne whether they' need to meet formally to discuss it and, ifso;whether or not to offer the petitioner an opportunity to discuss the' supplement with the PRB members before the board reviews the supplement (see Part III(B) ofthis handbOOk). In deciding whether' a'formal.PRB..meeting is needed, 'the PRB members will

'conS,ider the sarety'sigrufic~lIice,and c~inplexity of the information in the supplement. 'Qarific:ations of previous infonnation will generally not require a new PRB meeting. Ifa new PRB meeting is not convened, the petition manager will include the supplement in the ongoing petition review and no further action is necessary. (2)

Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) 17;

---

~----------~------------~

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 . Part III .

Supplements to the Petition (I) (continued).

If a new PRB meeting is convened, the PRB members will determine whether or not--(3)

• There is a need for any immediate actions (whether requested or not) (a)

• The supplement should be consolidated with the existing petiti~n (b)

• To issue.a pa~ial director's decision (c)

I

• Referral to 01 or OIG is appropriate (d)

• To revise the review schedule for the petition based on the supplement (see Part IV of this handbook for guidance regarding schedules) (e)

• To send an acknowledgment letter for the supplement. (An acknowledgment letter should be sent if the supplement provides significant new information, causes the staff to reconsider a previous* detennination, or requires a schedule change beyond the original 120--day goal. See Part III(G) of this handbook for information on acknowledgment letters.) (f)

• To offer the petitioner a meeting or teleconference with PRB to discuss itS recommendations with respect to the supplement. (See Part III(F) of this handbook for information on this type ofmeeting or teleconference.) (g)

If the staff determines that the schedule for the petition must be extended beyond the original 120-day goal as a result of the supplement, the assigned office should send ali'acknowledgment letter

. to' the petitioner, reset the 120-day* clock to the date of the new acknowledgment letter, and inform the Office of the Executive Director for Operations (OEDO). (4) ifPRBdet~rminesthatthesuppleme~twillbetreatedasanewpetition (i.e., not consolidated wi~ the existing petition), the assigned office

. must contact OEDO and6btain a new tracking number in the Work Item Tracking System. (5)

. Approved: July 1,1999 18 (Revised: October 25, 2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions' v 'Handbook 8.11 Part IV

'Part:IV

'Petition ReView ActiVities

~eviewi:Qg t~~ retition (A)

,Interoffice Coordination

, '" ..(1)

The petition manager coordinates 'all infonnation required for the petition review." The petition manager also advises his or her management of the need for review and advice from the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) regarding a petition in special cases. When

\, : appropriate, an Associate Director in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, a Division Director in the Office of Nuclear Material

, 'Safety and Safeguards,' or the'Director Ot the Office of Enforcement

requests OGCinvolvement through the OGqspecial counsel assigned to 2.206 matterS. (a) , , '

All information related to a Wrongdoing investigation by the Office of

. Investigations (01) or the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), or

even the .fact that, an investigation is being conducted, will receive limited distribution within NRC and will not be released outside NRC without the approval of the Director, 01, or the IG, respectively (see Management Directive (MD) :8.8). 'Within NRC, access to this infonnation is limited to those having a need-to-know. Regarding a

, 2.206 petition~ the assigried office 'director, or his designee, maintains

., !' , copies, of any documents: reqUired and ensures that no copies of documents related to 'an 01 or 'OIG investigation are placed in the docket file or the AgencYwide Documents :Access and Management System (ADAMS) without the approval of the Director, 01, or the IG, '

respectively. (b) ,

, . ~. .. ..

i.'j . 'If Approved:' July 1, 1999' ;',

(Revised: October 25, 2000) 19'

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Pari IV Reviewing the Petition (A) (continued)

Request for Licensee Input (2)

If appropriate, the petition manager will request the licensee to provide a voluntary response to the NRC on the issues specified in the petition, usually within 30 days. This staff request will usually be made in writing. The petition manager will advise the licensee that the NRC will make the licensee's response publicly available and remind the licensee to p~ovide a copy of the response to the petitioner. The licensee may voluntarily submit information relative to the petition, even if the NRC staff has not requested any such information. ( a)

Unless necessary for NRC's proper evaluation of the petition, the*

licensee should avoid. using proprietary, . or personal privacy infonnation that requires protection from public disclosure. H such information is necessary to respond to the petition completely, the petition manager ensures the information is protected in accordance with 10 CFR2.790. (b)

Technical Review Meeting With the Petitioner (3) .

A technical review meeti~g with the* petitioner will be held whenever the staff believes that such a meeting (whether requested by the petitioner, the licensee, or the, staff) would be beneficial to the staff's review of the petition. Meeting guidance is provided in MD 3.5. The petition manager will ensure that the meeting does not compromise the protection of sensitive information. A meeting Will not be held simply

'because the petitioner claims to have additional information and will not present it in any other forum. .

Additional Petition Review Board (PRB) Meetings (4)

~ .'. .

Additional. PRB meetings may be scheduled for complex issues.

Additional meetings also may be appropriate if the petition manager finds that significant changes must be made to the original plan for the resolution of the petition.

Schedule (B)

The first goal is to issue the proposed director's decision for comment within 120 days after issuing the acknowledgment letter. The proposed director's decision for uncomplicated petitions should be issued in less than 120 days. The second goal is to issue the director's decision within 45 days of the* end of the comment period for the proposed Approved: July 1,1999 20 (~vised: October 25, 2000)

Volume 8; Licensee Oversight Programs RevieW Process for 10 ern 2.206 Petitions

HaIidbook 8~11 Part IV '

u Schedule (B) (continued) director's decision. The actual schedule should be shorter if the

, ,number arid compl~~ty of ~e cOmments allow. The Office of the Executive Director for Ope~ations (OEDO) tracks the frrst target date, and any cha~ge ofthe dat~ r~quire~ approval by the EDO. The petition manager monitors the progress of any 91 investigation and related enforcement actions. ~orcement,actions that are prerequisites to a director's decision should be,expedited and completed in time to meet the 120-day goal.' Investigations by 01 and DIG associated with petitions should be expedited to the extent practicable. However, the goal ofissuing the proposed director's decision for comment within 120 days after issuing the acknowledgment letter applies only to petitions whose review schedules are' within the staff's control. If issues in a petition are the subject ofan investigation by 01 or 01G, or a referral to the Department of Justice (DOl), or if NRC decides to await a DepartmentofLabor decision, the clock for the 120-daygoal is stopped for the portion of' the' petition awaiting disposition by those organizations. The clock will start again when the staff receives the results ofthe investigation. Ifthe staff can respond to some portions of the petition without the results of the inveStigation, then a'proposed partial. directo(s decision, should be issued for comment within the original 120, days..When the ,staff receives the results of the investigation, it will promptly deyelop and issue a proposed final director's decision for comment. ,See Part V of this handbook for a discussion: of partial director's decisions. (1)

Jf the proposed director's decision cannot be issued in 120 days for

'other reasons (e.g., very 'comp~ex issues); the appropriate level of management in ,the assigned, office, ,detennines the need for an extension ofthe schedule and requests the extension from the EDO. In

, " addition, the petition manager will contact the petitioner promptly to explain the reason(s) for the delay and will maintain a record of the contact. (2)

After the comment period closes '~n' a proposed director's decision, the

'asSigned office ' V?ill ,review t~e' comments reCeived and provide the

, schedule to issue 'the director's deCision to the Agency 2206 Petition

'. 'COordinator for i~~lusion' in the ne:'t status report. (3)

Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: ' October 25, 2000) 21

w, Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part IV Keeping the Petitioner Informed (C)

The petition manager ensures that the petitioner is notified at least every '60 dayS of the status of the petition, or more frequently if a slgnifican~ action occurs. If a significant action will be reported in the monthly "status report prepared by' the Agency 2.206 Petition Coordinator, the petition manager will inform the petitioner before the status report is issued. The petition maiuiger makes the status reports to the"petitioner by telephone: The petition manager should speak directly to the petitioner if reasonably possible~ The petition manager keeps up*to-date on the status of the petition so that reasonable detail can be provided with the' status reports~ However, the status report to the pe~ti~ner will not indicate

• An ongoing 01 or OIG investigation, unless, approved by the Director, OIt or the IG (1)

• The re~erral of the matter to DOJ (~)

• Enforcement action under consideration (3)

Updates to Management and the Public (D)

On a monthly basis, the Agency~206 Petition Coordinator will contact all petition managers reminding them' to prepare a status report regarding 2.206 petitions in their offices~ The petition managers should e-mail the status report for each open petition; with the exception of sensitive information as described belowt to "Petition." The Agency 2.206 Petition Coordinator combines all the status reports, including staff performance metrics for petitions processed under 10 CFR 2206 for the current year, in a monthly report to the EDO from the Associate Director, Project Licensing and Technical Analysis. The Agency 2.206 Petition Coordinator also ensures the document is added to ADAMS and made publicly available and e-mails a 'copy to "NRCWEB" for placement on the NRC's Web site. (1) ,

If the status ofthe petition includes sensitive information that may need to be protected from disclosure, the petition manager will so indicate in the e-mail and in the status report itself. Sensitive information includes

, safeguards or facility security information, proprietary or confidential "commercial information, information" relating to an ongoing investigation of wrongdoing or enforcement ,actions under development, or information about referral ofmatters to the DOJ and should be handled in accordance with MD 126, "NRC Sensitive Unclassified Information Security Program." The Agency 2.206 . '-../

," - Approved: July 1; 199~f 22 (Revised: ' October 25, 2000)

I * ~

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions

. Handbook 8.11 Part IV u

Updates to Management and the Public (D) (continued)

Petition Coordinator will protect this .information from disclosure by placing the affected status report(s) in a separate enclosure to the status report, clearly marking the status report .to the EDO, and redacting the s,ensitive information from the version of the report that is made public. (2)

The NRC's. Web site proyides the up*to-date status of pending 2.206 petitions, director's' deCisions issued, and other related information.

The NRC external Web site (http://www.nrc.gov) is accessible via the World Wide Web, and documents related to petitions may be found on the "Public Involvement" page under the section on Petitions.

Director's decisions . are also' published .in NRC Issuances (NUREG-0750). (3) u Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) 23

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part V Part V The, Director's Decision Content and Format (A)

The petition manager prepares the proposed director's decision on the petition and the associated Federal. Register notice for the office director's consideration, including coordination with the appropriate staff supporting the review. See Exhibits 6 and 7 for a sample director's decision with cover letter and the associated Federal Register notice, " J respectively. The petition manager will also prepare letters to the ~

petitioner and the licensee that will enclose the proposed director's decision and request comments on it (see Exhibit 8). These letters will be routed with the director's decision for concurrence. (1)

The director's decision will clearly describe the issues raised by the petitioner, provide a discussion of the safety significance of the issues, and clearly explain the staff's disposition for each issue. The petition manager will bear in mind the broader audience (i.e., the public) when preparing the explanation of technical issues. Refer to the NRC Plain Language Action Plan, available on the internal Web site, for further guidance. In addition, the petition manager will ensure that any documents referenced in the decision are available to the public. If a partial director's decision was issued previously, the final director's decision will refer to, but does not have to repeat the content of, the partial director's decision. After management's review, the petition manager incorporates any proposed revisions in the decision. (2)

If appropriate, the decision and the transmittal letter for the director's decision or partial director's decision should. acknowledge that the petitioner identified valid issues and should specify the corrective .

actions that have been or will be taken to address these issues, notwitbstandingthat some or all ofthe petitioner's specific requests for action have not been granted. (3)

Approved: July 1,1999 24 (Revised: October 25, 2000)

Volume 8, Licensee OversightProgram~

Review Process' for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part V Content and Format (A) (continued) .

If the Office ofInves~gations (OI) has completed its investigation of a

. potential wrongdoing issue* and the* matter,has been referred to the Department ofJustice (DOJ); ~e petiti~n managerwill contact OI and the Office of 'Enf~rcement' (OE) to oooidiiiate NRC's actions. For petitions assigned to the Office ofNuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR),

the petition manager also'will contact theNRR Senior Enforcement Coordinator. The staff may need tp withhold action on the petition in keeping with the Memorandum of Understanding with DOJ. (4)

• I .*

If the !esults of a ,wrongdoing investigation by 01 in relation to the petition are available, the staffwill consid~r these results in completing the, action on the ,petition. ,01 must concur in the accuracy and characterization ofthe 01 findings and conclusions that are used in the decision. (5)

The petition manager will obtain OE's revie'Y ofthe director's decision for potential enforcement implications. Forpetitions assigned to NRR, the petition manager also will provide a copy ofthe director's decision to the NRR Senior Enforcement Coordinator. (6)

Final Versus.,~artial Director's D~cisioD:s (Bj .

. The staff will consider preparing a partial director's decision when some of the issues associated with the 2.206 petition are resolved in advance of other issues* and' if significant schedule delays are anticipated before resolution of the entire peti~on. (1) :

The format, con~ent, !lDd method of processing a partial director's decision are the same.* as. th,!( of a' director's decision (as descn'bed above) and an acCompanying ,Fe4eral Register notice would still be prepared (see~ExhiDit.7)._"However, the partial director's decision should cIearlyindi#t~ th~se portions,I:?f the. pe~tion that remain open, explain the reasonsfor the ~elay to the extent practical, and provide the staff's schedule forthe final director's decision. If all ofthe issues in the petition can be resolved together, then the director's decision will

, address all of the issues. (2): . .

Granting the retition (C) .:' . ".

Once the staff has determined that the petition Will be granted, in whole or in part, the petition manager will prepare a "Director's Decision

. Under, 10 CFR 2206'~ for the office director's signature. The decision will explain the.bases *upon which the petition has been granted and identify the actions that NRC staff has taken or will take to grant all or that portion of the petition.* The decision alsO should desCribe any

. Approved: July 1,1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) 25

_..... -~.-- .. -------------~------

Volume 8,Lic~nsee Oversight Programs Review. Process

.' ~ . for 10 eFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 PartV Granting the Petition (C) (continued) actions the . licensee took vOluntaIily that address aspects of the petition. The Commission may grant a request for enforcement-related action, in whole or in part, and also may take other action to satisfy the concerns raised by the petition. A petition is characterized as being granted. in part when the NRC grants only some of the actions reque~ted and/or takes actions other than those requested to address the underlying problem. If the petition is granted in full, the director's decision will explain the bases for granting the petition and state that the Commission's action resulting from the director's decision is outlined in the Colnmission's' order . or other appropriate communication. If the petition is grimtedin part, the director's decision will clearly indicate the portions of the petition that are being denied and the staff's bases for the denial. .

Denying the Pet~tion (D)

Once the staff h~s determined that the petition will be denied, the petition manager will prepare a "Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206" for the office director's signature. The decision will explain the bases for the denial and discuss all matters raised by the petitioner in support. of the request.

Issuing the Proposed Director's Decision for Comment (E)

After the assigned office director has concurred in the proposed director's decision, the petition' manager will issue the letters to the petitioner and the licensee enclosing ~e proposed director's decision and requesting comments on it. The letters, with the enclosure, will be made available to the public through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). (1)

The intent of this step is to give the petitioner and the licensee an opportunity to identify errors in the de~sion. The letters will request a response within a set period oftime, nominally 2 weeks. The .amount of

time. allowed for the response may be adjusted depending on circumsta.nces. For example, for very complex technical issues it maybe appropriate to allow more time for the petitioner and licensee to develop theircomments~ The letters, including the proposed director's decision, should be transmitted to the recipients electronically or by fax, if possible. (2)

Approved: July 1, 1999 26 (Revised: October 25, 2000)

Volume 8, Licensee' Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 eFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part'V' v

Com~ent Disposition (F)

After the comment period closes on the proposed director's decision, the assigned office will review the comments received and provide the schedule to issue the director's decision to the Agency 2.206 Petition Coordinator for inclusion in, the next status report. The petition manager will then evaluate any comments received on the proposed decision, obtaining the assistance ofthe techniCal staff, as appropriate.

Although the staff requested cornrilents from only the petiti~ner and the licensee~' comments from other sources (e.g., other members ofthe public) may be received. 'These additional comments should be addressed in the same mamier as the comments from the petitioner and licensee. A copy of the cOmments received and the associated staff responses will be included iri the director's decision. An attachment to the decision will generally ~e used for -this purpose. (1) .

If no comments are 'received on the proposed decision, the petition managerwi11 include in the 'director's decision a reference to the letters that requested comments .and a statement that no comments were received. (2) .

If the comments from the petitioner include new information, the peti~ion review board will be reconvened to determine whether to treat the new information as part of the current petition or as a new petition. ( 3 ) ' . ,

Issuing the Director's Decision (G)

A de,cision under 10 CFR 2206 consi~ts of a letter to the petitioner, the director's decision" and' the' Federal Register notice. The petition manager will obtain.a director's decision number (i.e., DD-YY.XX) from the Offic~ ofthe Secretary (SECY). A director's decision number is assigned to each director's'decision in numerical sequence. This number is included on the letter to the petitioner, the director's decision; and the Federal Rigister .notice. Note that the director's deCision itself is not published in the'FederalRegister, only the notice of its availability, containing a summary ofthe substance ofthe decision, is published{see Exhibits 6 and 7). (1)

The petition manager will prepare a letter to transmit the director's decision to the petitioner and'will also prepare the associated Federal Register notice. If the staff's response to the petition involves issuing an order, the petition'maJiagerwill prepare a letter to transmit the orderto the licensee. The petition manager also will inClude a copy of the order Approved:" July 1; i999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) 27

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part V Issuing the Director's Decision (G) (continued) in the letter to the petitioner. When the director's decision has been signed, the petition manager will promptly send a copy of the decision, electronically or by fax if possible, to'the petitioner. Copies of the db:ector's decision and Federal Register notice that are sent to the licensee and individuals on the service list(s) are dispatched simultan~ously with the petitioner's' copy. Before dispatching the director's decision (or partial decision), the petition manager will infonn the petitioner of the imminent iss~ai1ce of the decision and the substance of the decisio~. The petition 'manager will also ask the petitioner whether he or she wishes to continue receiving documents related t!l the petition. (2)

The assigned office director will sign the cover letter, the director's decision, and the Federal Register notice. After the notice is signed, the staff forwards it to the Rules, and Directives Branch, Office of Admimstration (ADMIDASIRDB), for trailsmittal to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. The staff shall NOT include a copy of the director's decision in the package that is sent to RDB. RDB only '\....J forwards the Federal Register notice to be published. (3)

Administrative Issu~s (H)

The administrative staff of the assigned office will review the 10 CPR

• 2206 package before it is dispatched and determine appropriate distribution. The administrative staff also will immediately (same day) hand -cany the listed,material to the following offices (in the case ofthe petitioner, promptly dispatch the copies. )-(1)

• Rulemakings and Adjudications staff, SECY (a)

• Five copies of the director's decision (i)

• Two courtesy copies ofthe entire decision package including the distribution and service lists (ii)

• Two copies of the incoming petition and any supplement(s) (Iii)

• Petitioner (b)

• Signed original letter (i)

• Signed director's decision (ii),

• A copy of the Federal Register notice (iii)

. Approved: July 1, 1999 28 (Revised:

October 25, 2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part V v

Administrative Issues (H) (continued)

• Chief, Rules and Directives Branch (c)

• Original signed Federal Register notice only (do not include the director's decision) (i)

• ' Five paper copies of the notice (ii)

• A disk with a WordPerlect file that contains the Federal Register ilotke (iii) ,

The staff must fulfill these requirements promptly because the Commission has 25 calendar days from the date of the decision to determine whether or not the director's decision should be reviewed. (2)

The staff will use the following guidelines when distributing copies internally and externally-(3)

• When action on a 2.206 petition is completed, the petition manager will ensure that all publiclyre}(~asable documentation is available to the public in ADAMS. (a)

• The assigned office will determine 'the appropriate individuals and

, (b) offices to inClude,on the' distribution list.

The administrative staff of the assigned office will complete the following actions within 2 working days of issuance of the director's decision: (4)

• Provide one paper copy of the director's decision to the special counsel in the Office of the General Counsel assigned to 2.206 matters. (a)

• E-inail the final version of the director's decision to the NRC Issuances (NRC!) Project Officer, Publishing Services Branch (PSB),

Office ofthe Chief Information Officer (000). H other information (opinions, partial information (such as errata), or footnotes) is included in the e-mail, clearly identify the director's decision number at the beginning of each file to avoid administrative delays and' improve the technical production schedule for proofreading, editing" and composing the documents. In addition, send two paper copies of the signed director's decision to the NRa Project Offi~r. (b)

Approved: July 1~ 1999

, (Revised: October 25, 2000) 29

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 eFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part V Administrative Issues (H) (continued)

• E-mail a signed, dated, and numbered copy of the director's decision to "NRCWEB" for posting on the NRC's Web site. (c) ,

The petition ~anager will prepare headnotes, which are a summary of the petition, consisting of no more than a few paragraphs describing what the petition requested and how the director's decision resolved or closed out the petition. The petition manager will e-mail the headnotes to the NRCI Project Officer, PSB, OCIO, for monthly publication in the NRC Issuances, NUREG-0750. The headnotes should reach PSB*

before the 5th day of the month following the issuance of the director's decision. (5)

Finally, 90 days after issuance of the director's decision, the petition manager will remove the petitioner's name from distribution andlor the service list(s) and inform the licensee that it may also stop sending documents associated with the petition to the petitioner. (6)

Commission Actions (I)

SECY will infonn the Commission of the availability of the director's '

decision. The Commission, at its'discretion, may determine to review the director's decision within 25 days of the date of the decision and may direct the staffto take some other action than that in the director's decision. If the. Commission does not act on the director's decision

, within 25 days (unless the Commission extends the review time), the director's decision becomes the final agency action and SECY sends a letter to the petitioner informing the petitioner that the Commission has taken no further action on the petition.

Approved: July 1, 1999 30 (Re~ed: October 25,2000)

c c Ie

~~~>tl Treat as Allegation

S*. J.cllcrwith tn I-i 0 Jssu~Concems

) .. I Or Routine

~ -< Corresp. (IIA.2) p'-OI o ...c;l.

n C-c

-goo<= At PRB Iddr~s:

~!'""" 2.2067 Schedule?

Contact Petitioner,

.1 ...,.

00 I *<

t-.)I-'

til \0 . Letter that ~ Immediate Adlons?

... \0 t-.)\O References 2.206 OfTerMtgor cleeon (1I.C.2k3),

2 Partial DO? Future 9 C> PRBs? (111.0) "CS 3 ...,.

c:1

('1)

~

Infonn Petitioner, Copy ofleHer to OfTerMtgor N Petitioner Address

• licensee (JJ.CA) PRB (111.0.4*9) Telecon OIl.E&:F) N

,.,o ~

~.

~ ...

~ ...,. .~ ~

I:r

...,. '. ;s. 0

,;~ =

Petitioner Address f")'

('1). """"

!--ol

..!'"'CI_.8 PRB (JII.F.2) I.. ( en , "'1 '0' en 000 t") ..

~ ~t"'4

,til

• til t")

~. is' ~

=1"'1 ~

(i. =,~~

c:s'O~

~

) '-1 Treat as Allegation or Routine =.

c.-O c:::r'~ ~ ~

o ~~

Corrcsp. (l1I.OJ) o*~"'1

"""" ~:N ~.

?O'NC§.

1-&0"""

Rerer to Another I-&,;~

Process (c.g., ~~o I. I'IrentllcllCIIlnronnatlon Is lISoclalcd Ibndboolc pangnph number. Rulemalcing) So ~~

-.-.~

(111.0.1) c:::ro

• • c:s

~

I-' liS til S til

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 eFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8al Exhibits: .'

Exhibit 1 Simplified 2.206 Process Flow Chart (continued) .

~

>-----I~ !;1

§ cr J

g "G:r g-=rI-r...... ~~t--...... ] i Q ~~

sO .,rE Q- I :fj'*** o~

I I

I I

I I

I _ *

~ 0' : I

..=

.,8 "9s >' **

- 4! a;!"'" .J

w::Its a~:

~-------..!

Approved: July 1, i999,',

32 (Revised: October 25, 2000)

Volume 8; Licensee Oversight Programs Review'Process' for 10CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 -Exhibits' v

Exhibit 2 Petition Manager Checklist o Review the petition for allegations and sensitive material. If sensitive, prevent releasing the document to the public. Also determine whether or not any immediate actions requested require expedited staff response.

o a Contact the petitioner and discuss the public natUre of the process. Offer pre-PRB meeting or telecon to the petitioner. . ,

o Send a copy of the incoming petition to the licensee and Document Control Desk (PubliC), with redactions as appropriate. .

o If a pre-PRB meeting or telecon is held, notice it (meeting only) and arrange for it to be recorded and transcribed (meeting or telecon). Arrange the meeting and the PRB meeting which will follow it.

o Prepare a PRB presentation. Include the following information:

Does the request meet the criteria for review under 2.2061 What are the issues and their significance?

u' Is there a need for immediate action (whether requested or not)?

Is there a need for OE, 01, OIG, or OGC involvement?

What is your reco~ended approach to th~ response?

What schedule is proposed?

o Hold the pre-PRB meeting or telecon.

o Address the PRB at its meeting.

o Ensure assigned office management agrees with the PRB recommen&tions.

o Inform the petitioner of the PRB recomme~dations. Offer a post-PRB meeting.

o If a post-PRB meeting or telecon is held, notice it (meeting oIily) and arrange for it to be recorded and transcribed. Arrange the meeting and the PRB meeting which Will follow it o Hold the post-PRB meeting or teleron.

o Address the PRB at itS meeting.

o Plepare a meeting summarY f~iihi pre~:a~d post-PRs ~eetings, if heid. Thi~ step i~ ~ot r~q~red for a telecon. '

o Ensure the transcripts of the pre- ~nd PC;~t.PR.i3' meetIngs or telerons, if beld, are added to ADAMS and made publicly available. For meetings, this step can be ~one using the meeting summary. '"

Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 25~ 2000) 33 "

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight. Programs Review Process for 10 CFR*2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Exhibits:

Exhibit 2 (continued) o Ensure assigned office management agrees with the PRB final recOmmendations.

o If the assigned office's management agrees with tbe PRB that tbe request is not a 2.206 petition, send a letter to the petitioner, treat any open issues under the appropriate process (e.g., rulemaking). Stop here.

o If the assigned office's management agrees with the PRB tbat the request is a 2.206 petition, continue with this checklist. .

o Add petitioner to appropriate service Iist(s).

o Issue acknowledgment letter and associated Federal Register notice.

o If licensee input is needed, send a written request.

o If furtber petitioner input is needed, arrange for a technical review meeting.

o Make periodic status updates to the petitioner.

o Prepare the director's decision, addressing:

\.J Each of the petitioners' issues The safety significance of each issue The stafrs evaluation of each issue and actions taken o Ensure all referenced documents are added to ADAMS and made publicly available.

o Send the proposed director's decision to the petitioner and licensee for comment.

o After the comment period closes, give the schedule for the director's decision to the Agency 2.206 Petition Coordinator for inclusion in the next status report.

o Include comments received and their resolution in the director's decision.

o .Prepare the Federal Register notice for the director's decision.

o As soon as the director's decision is signed:

Inform the petitioner of the substance of the decision and that issuance is imminent.

Hand*carry two full copies ofthe package (including the incoming(s) and distribution and service lists) and five additional copies to the Rulemakings and Adjudication Staff in SECY Hand*cany the original signed Federal Regirternotice (ONLY), flYe copies of the notice, and a disk with the notice on it, to the Rules and Directives Branch. Do NOT include the director's decision in this package.

Approved: July 1,1999*

34 (Revised: October 25, 2000f

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review'Process for 10 eFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11' Exhibits Exhibit 2 (continued)

- Immediately dispatcb tbe signed original letter and decision and a copy of tbe Federal Register notice to tbe petitioner. '

o Within 2 working days of issuing tbe DireCtors decision:

Provide a copy of the directors decision to the OGC special counsel assigned to 2.206 matters.

E-mail and send two paper copies of the directors decision to tbe NRC Issuances Project Officer in OCIO. .

E-mail a signed, dated, and numbered copy of tbe directors decision to "NRCWEB."

- E mail headnotes on the petition to the NRClssuances Project Officer in OCIO.

6 Approved: July 1,1999_

(Revised: October 25, 2000) 35 .

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Exhibits Exhibit 3 Sample Closure Letter for Requests That Are Not 2.206 Petitions

[Petitioner's Name]

[Petitioner's Address]

Dear Mr.:

Your petition dated [insert date] and addressed to the [insert addressee] has been referred to the Office of [insert} pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. You request [state petitionerts requests]. As the basis for your request, you state that [insert basis for request]. .

[You met with our petition review board (PRB) on [insert date] to discuss your petition.

The results of that discussion have been considered in the PRB's detennination regarding your request for immediate action and whether or not the petition meets the criteria for consideration under 10 CFR 2.206}. OR [Our petition review board has reviewed your submittal]. The staff has concluded that your submittal does not meet the criteria for '~

. consideration under 10 CFR 2.206 because [explain our basis, addressing all aspects of the submittal and making reference to the appropriate criteria in this .MD].

[provide the staff's response, if available, to the issues raised]. AND/OR [Explain what further actions, if any, the staff intends to take in response to the request (e.g., treat it as an aUegation or routine correspondence)].

Thank you for bringing these issues to the attention of the NRC.

Sincerely,

[Insert Division Director's Name]

[Office of [insert Office Name]

Docket Nos. [ ]

cc: [Licensee (w/copy of incoming 2.206 request) & Service List]

Approved: July 1, 1999 36 (Revised: October 25, 2000)

Volume 8; Licensee Oversight Programs Review Proce'ss for 10' CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 'Exhibits

'U Exhibit 4 Sample Acknowledgment Letter

[petitioner's Name]

[petitioner's Address]

Dear Mr. :

Your petition dated [insert date] and addr?ssed to the [insert addressee] has been referred to me pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. You request [state petitioners requests]. As the basis for your request, you state that [insert basis for request]. I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your effort in bringing these matters to the attention of the NRC.

[You met with our Petition ~view Board (PRB) on [insert date] to discuss your petition.

The results of that discussion have been considered in the PRB's determination regarding

[your request for immediate action and in establishing] the schedule for the review ofyour petition]. Your request to [insert request for immediate action] at [insert facility name] is

[granted or denied] because [staff to provide explanation].

As provided by Section 2.206, we will take action on your request within a reasonable time.

I have assigned [first and last name of petition manager1 to be the petition manager for your petition. Mr. [last name of petition manager1 can be reached at [301-41S-extension of

. petition manager] Your petition is being reviewed by [organizational units1 within the Office of [name of appropriate Office1. [If necessary, add: I have referred to the NRC ,;

Office of the Inspector General (DIG) those 311egations, of NRC Wrongdoing contained in" your petition]. I have enclosed for your information a *copy. of the notice' that is being filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication. I have' also enclosed foryoiir information a 'copy of Management Directive 8~11 "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions," and the associated brochure NUREG/BR-0200, "Public'Petition Process,"

prepared by the NRC Office of Public Affairs.' .' . , '

Sincerely,

.. -, [Office ~irector]

Enclosures:

Federal Register Notice Management Directive 8.11 NUREGIBR-0200 cc: [Licensee (w/copy of incoming 2.206 request) & Service List]

Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) 37

. Vol~me 8, Licensee; Oversight Programs Review. Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 *.Exhibits Exhibit 5

[7590-01-P]

Sample Federal Register Notice u.s. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM1vflSSION Docket No(s).

License No(s).

[Name of Licensee]

RECEIPT OF REQUEST FOR ACTION UNDER 10 CPR 2.206 Notice is hereby given that by petition dated [insert date]; [insert petitioner's name]

(petitioner) has requested that the NRC take action with regard to [insert facility or licensee name]. The petitioner requests [~tate petitioner's requests].

As the basis for this request, the petitioner states that [state petitioner's basis for "'-../

request].

The request is being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2206 of the Commission's regulations. The request has been referred to the Director of the Office of [insert action office]. As provided by Section 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this petition' .'

within a reasonable time. [The petitioner met with the [insert action office] petition review board on [insert date] to discuss.the petition. The results of that discussion were considered in the board's determination regarding [the petitioner's request for immediate action and in estabUshing] the schedule for the review of the petition]. [If necessary, add] By letter '1 ,

dated , ~e. Director (granted or denied) petitioner's request for [insert request*

for immediate action] at [insert facility/licensee name]. A copy of the petition is available

. in ADAMS for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One .

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and from the .

ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC's Web site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM1vflSSION

[Office Director]

Dated at Rockville, Maryland This _ _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _-', 200X.

Approved: July 1,1999 38 (ReVised: October 25, 2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Exhibits*

Exhibit 6

Sample Director's Decision* and Cover Letter

[Insert petitioner's. name & address]

Dear [insert petitioner's name]:

This letter responds to the petition you filed With [EDO or other addressee of peiition]

pursuant to Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the'Code ofFe4.eral Reii!ltitions (10 CFR 2.206) on

[date of petition] as supplemented on [dates of any supplements]. In your petition you '

requested that the NRC [list requested actions]. '

On [date of acknowledgment letter] the NRC staff acknowledged receiving your petition and stated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 that your petition was being referred to me for ac~iC?n and that it would be acted upon within a reasonable time. You,were. also told that'[stalT response to any request for immediate action]. '

[You met with the petition review board on Idate(s) of the p~e- and/or post-PM, '

meeting(s)] to clarify the bases for your'petition. TJ;te transcript(s) of this/these nieeting(s) was/were treated as (a) supplement(s) to the petition and are available inADAMS for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC's Web site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Public Electronic Reading Room)].

[By letter dated [insert date], the NRC staff requested [name of licensee] to provide information related to the petition. [Name ofUcensee] responded on [insert date] and the information provided was considered by the staff in its evaluation of the petition].

In your petition you stated that [summarize the issues raised]. [Briefly summarize the safety significance of the issues and the staWs response]. '.: ,. ., ..

[The NRC issued a Partial Director's Decision (DD-YY-XX) dated [insert] which [explain what aspects of the petition were addressed]. [Explain which i~sues remained to be addressed in this director's decision and briefly explain the reason for the delay on these issues)).

The staff sent a copy of the proposed director's decision to you and to [licensee(s)] for comment on {date]. [You responded with comments on [date] and the licensee responded on [date]. The comments and the staff's response to them are included in the director's decision]. OR The staff did not receive any comments on the proposed director's decision].

Approved: July 1,1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) 39

____________________________________________________________________ AL V9IUJl1C; 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 *Exhibits Exhibit 6 (continued)

[Summarize the issues addressed in this dired~r's decision and the staWs response].

A copy of the Director's Decision (DD-YY*XX) will be filed with the Secretary*ofthe Commission for the Commission to review in accordance with 10 CPR 2206(c). As provided for by this regulation, the decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days after the date of the decision unless the Commission, on its own

. motion, institutes a review of the decision within that time. [The documents cited in the enclosed decision are available in ADAMS for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Rooin, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),

Rockville, Maryland, and from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC's Web site; http://www.nrc.gov (the Public Electronic Reading Room) (cite any exceptions involving*

proprietary or other protected information)].

I have also enclosed a copy of the notice of "Issuance of the Di~ectors Decision Under 10 CPR 2206" that has been filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.

[If appropriate, acknowledge the efforts of the petitioner in bringing the issues to the attention of the NRq. PleaSe f~el free to contact [petition manager name and number] to \ J discuss any questions related to this petition. '-...-/

Sincerely,

[Insert Office Director's Name]

Docket Nos. [ 1

Enclosures:

Directors Decision YY-XX Federal Register Notice Approved: July 1, 1999 40 (Revised: *October 25, 2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Exhibits DD-YY-XX UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFI~E OF .[INSERT]

[Office Director Name], Director In the Matter of ) Docket No(s). [Insert]

[LICENSEE NAME]

~) License No(s). [Insert]

)

)

([plant.or facility name(s)]) ), (10 CFR 2.206)

DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 U 1. Introduction By letter dated [insert date], as supplemented on [dates of supplements], [petitioner names and, if applicaJ:Jle, represented organizations) filed a Petition purSuant to Title 10 of the Code ofFederal Regulations, Section 2.206. The petitioner(s) requ~sted that the U.S.

Nuclear Regula~oxy ~mmission (NRC) take 'the following actions: [list reques~s). The bases for the requests were Tdescribe]. '

In a letter dated [insert], the NRC infonned the Petitioners that their request for [list immediate actions requested] was approved/denied and that the issues in the Petition were being referred to the Office of [insert] for appropriate action.

[The Petitioner(s) ,~et with ,the (assigned o~ce abb~viation) petition review, board on

[date(s) ofthe pre- and!orpost-PRB meeting(s)] to' clarify the bases for the Petition. The transcript(s) of this/these meeting(s) was/were treated as (a) supplement(s) to the petition and are available in ADAMS for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at 'One ~te Flint North, 11555R~c::kville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maxyland, and from the ADAMS Public Lib~axy:co~ponent on the NRC~s Web site, http://www.

nrc.gov (the Public Electronic Reading Room)].

[By letter dated [insert date], the NRC staff requested [name of licensee] to provide .

infonnation related to the petition. [Name of licensee] responded on [insert date] and the infonnation provided was considered by the staff in its evaluation of the petition].

[The NRC issued a Partial Director's Decision (DD-YY-XX) dated [insert] which [explain what aspects of the petition were addressed]. [Explain which issues remained to be Approved: July 1, 1999' (Revised: October 25,2000) 41

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process ro'r 10 eFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Exhibits addressed in this director's decision and briefly explain the reason for the delay on these

, issues)).

The NRC sent a copy of the proposed director's decision to the Petitioner and to

[Iicensee(s)] for comment on [date]. [The Petitioner responded With comments on [date]

and the licensee(s) responded on [date]. The comments and the NRC staff's response to them are included in the director's decision]. OR [The staff did not receive any comments on the proposed director's decision].

II. Discussion

[Discuss the issues raised, the significance of the iss,ues (or lack thereof)t and the stall's response with supporting bases. Acknowledge any validated issues, even if the staff or the licensee decided to take corrective actions other than those requested by the petitioner.

Clearly explain all actions taken by the staff or the licensee to address the issues, even if these actions were under way or completed before the petition was received. This discussion must clearly present the staff response to all of the valid issues so that it Is clear that they have been addressed].

m. Conclusion

[Summarize the staff's conclusions with respect to the issues raised and how they have been, orwill be, addressed].

As provided in 10 CFR 2206(c), a copy of this Director's Decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission to review. As provided for by this regulation, the decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 2S days after the date of the decision unless the Commission; on its own motion, institutes a review of the decision within that time.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this [insert date] day of [insert month, year].

[Office director's name], Director Office of [insert] ,

Approved: July 1, 1999 42 (Revised:: October 25, 2000)

Volume'S, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Exhibits'

Exhibit 7

[7~90-01"';P]

Sampl~ Federal Register Notice for ,Director's ,Decision" u.s. NUCLEAR-REGULATORY COMMISSION Docket No(s).

License No(s)..

[Name of Licensee]

NOTICE

. OF ISSUANCE OF DIRECI'OR'S. DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 Notice is hereby given that the Director, [name of office], has iSsued a directots decision with regard to a petition dated [insert date], filed by [insert petitioners name],

hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner." [1be petition wS's' supplemented on [insert date,'

include transcripts from meeting(s) with thePRB)). The petition concerns the operation of the [insert facility or licensee name].

The petition requested that [insert facility or licensee name] should be [insert request for enCorcement-related action1. [lrnecess~rY;add] The petitioner also requested that a public meeting be held to discuss this matter in the 'Washington; DC, area.

, . . . ('" . '. , ' . .' .* ~ ~. . t,; .; , . #

As the basis for the [insert date] 'request, the petitioner raised concerris'steinming from [insert ~etitioner's sUpporting ba~is' for the' requestj~ The fins~rt peiiiione~s' n~me1 .

considers such operation to be potenti~lly riDs~e iri(i to:be' in Violation of 'FeaeraI '

regu1adons~.Iri'thepetition, a'number' of references to"[inseri..ere~e~ceS1 ~ere Cit~ci that the petitioner believes prohibit operation of the facility with [insert the ci~se' for the requested enforcement-related

' .. ' ... ' ." action].

The petition of [insert date] raises concerns originating from [insert summary information on more bases/rational~~iscussion ~D:d S,upporti~g facts used in the disposition of' the petition and the development oC the' director's decision] .

Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) 43

Volume 8, Licensee. Oversight Programs Revie~ ~rocess for 10.CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 .Exhibits Exhibit 7 (continued)

[On [insert date], the petitioner [and the licensee) met with the staff's petition review board]. [On [insert date of public meeting], the NRC conducted a meeting regarding [insert

- facility or licensee name]. The(se) meeting(s) gave the petitioner and the licensee an opportunity to provide additional information and to clarify issues raised in the petition).

The NRC sent a copy of the proposed Director's Decision to the Petitioner and to

[licensee(s)] for comment on [date]. [The Petitioner responded with comments on [date] and

. the licensee(s) responded on [date]. The comments and the NRC staff's response to them are included in the Director's Decision]. OR ((he staff did not reCeive any comments on the .

proposed Director's Decision].

The Director of the Office of [name of oJlice] has determined. that the request(s), to require [insert facility or licensee name] to be [insert request for enforcement-related action], be [granted/denied]. The reasons for this decision are explained in the director's decision pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 [Insert DD No.], the complete text of which is available .~

in ADAMS for inspe~tion at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and via the NRC's Web site (http:Uwww.nrc.~ov) on the World Wide Web, under the "Public Involvement" icon.

[Briefly summarize the statTs findings and conclUSions].

A copy of the director's decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the

~

Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. As provided for . by this..

regulation, the directots decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days after the date of the decision, unless

. the Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the director's decision in that time.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this [insert date] day of [insert month, year].

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Original Signed By

[Insert Office Director's Name] .

Office of [insert Office Name] .

Approved: July 1, 1999 44 (Revised: October 25, 2000) .

Volume 8, 'Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 eFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 . Exhibits Exhibit 8' Sample Letters Requesting Comments 9n the Proposed Director's Decision '

(Note: For clarity, separate letters will need to be sent to the petitioner and the licensee.

This sample provides guidance for both letters.)

(Insert petitioner's address]

Dear (Insert petitioner's name]

Your petition dated [insert date] and addressed to the [insert addressee] has been reviewed by the NRC staff pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. The staff's proposed director's decision on the petition is enclosed. I request that you provide comments to me o.n any portions of the decision that you believe involve errors or any issues in the petition that you believe have not been fully addressed. The staff is making a similar request of the licensee. The staffwill then review any commentS provided by you and the licensee and consider them in the final version of the director's decision with no further opportunity to comment.

Please provide your comments by [insert date, nominally 2 weeks from the date of this letter].

Sincerely,

[Signed by Division Director]

Docket Nos. 0 cc w/o enc!: [Service List]

[Insert licensee's address]

Dear [Insert licensee's name]

By letter dated [insert date], [insert name of petitioner] submitted a petition pursuant to

, 10 CFR 2206 of the Commission's regulations with respect to [insert name(s) of affected facilities]. The petition has been reviewed by the NRC staff and the staff's proposed director's decision on the petition is enclosed. I request that you provide comments to me on any portions of the decision tha~ you believe involve, errors or any issues in the petition that you believe have not been fully addressed. The staff is making a similar request of the petitioner.

The staff will then review any comments provided by you and the petitioner and consider them in the final version of the director's decision with no further opportunity to comment Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000)

• _. __ ~ _ _ .. _ .._ ... ~~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- ' - -_ _ _ _ _ _ 1lL..

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Exhibits Exhibit 8 (continued)

Please provide your comments by [insert date, nominally 2 weeks from the date ofthis letter].

Sincerely,

[Signed by Division Director]

Docket Nos. [ ]

cc w/enel: [Service Listl Approved: July 1, 1999 46 (Revised: October 25, 2000) .

ENCLOSURE 3 NUREG-/BR-0200, Rev. 5, "Public Petition Process" ADAMS Accession No. ML050900248

resolution of the entire petition. A final applies not only to the initial licensing director's decision is issued at the actions but also to license amendments conclu~ion of the effort. and other activities such as decom missioning and license rencvva)s.

The Commission will not entertain requests for review or a director's decision. However.

• For major regulatory actions involving on its own, it may revicw:.l decision within 25 preparation of environmental impact calendar Jays. statements. NRC offers separate opportunities for public participation in its NRC ~1anagemenl Direclive x.ll. "Review enrirol1mellfa/ pn1ceuiings.

Process f,lI' 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions:' contains 1ll0rt.': detai led information on citizen pet i lions.

• The puhlie can attend a number of For a free copy of the directive. writL, to the matings including open Commission and Superintendent of Documents. U.S. ~tatT meetings. periodic media briefings Government Printing Office. P.O. Box .nOX2. by Regional Administrators. and special

\Vashington. DC 20013-70R2. or call 202 meetings held near affected facilities to 512-1800. Inf\)fIll local communities and respond to their questions.

More information on thc~e activities can be Electronic Access found in NRCs pamphlet entitled. "Public Those parts of the monthly status report on Involvement in the Nuclear Regulatory 2.206 petitions that are nut ui a sellsitive Proces::.:* NUREG!B R -0215.

nature. ns well as recently is...ucd director's decisions. and Management Directi ve 8.11. are placed on the NRC's web site at http://

~.)\:w .nrc .go vI read i ll£- rmltJoc-cllll ect ion sl petitiolls-2-206/index.html and in the agency's Public Document Room.

pIller Proce:;"~es rQ[ Pllblic Invol wment In addition to the 2.206 petition process. NRC has several other ways that permit the public 10 express concerns on matters related to the NRC's regulatory acti\ ities.

• The NRC's alfegll1ion process affords individuals who raise safety concerns it degree of protection of thei~ identity,

• Under the provisions of 10 CFR ::.802.

NRC provide~ an opportunity for the public to petition the agency for a rII/ell/akillg.

• The NRC':-, licensing process offcrs members or the pUblic, who are specifically affected by a licensing <Ietion.

an opportunity to formally prulicipatc in licensing proceedings. This process

Office of Public Affairs U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-000 I Telephone 301-415-8200 or 1-800-368-564 2 NUREG/BR-0200, Rc\', 5 Fcbruary 2003

C. Jordan Weaver - 3 I would like to express my appreciation for your effort in bringing these matters to the attention of the NRC.

Sincerely, IRA!

Eric J. Leeds, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Federal Register Notice

2. Management Directive 8.11

3. NUREG/BR-0200 cc: Vice President, Operations Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, GSB P.O. Box 249 Buchanan, NY 10511-0249 Additional cc via Listserv DISTRIBUTION: G20120253/EDATS: OEDO-2012-0208 PUBLIC LPL 1-1 rlf RidsOcaMailCenter RidsAcrsAcnwMailCenter RidsNrrDorlLpl1-1 RidsNrrLAKGoldstein RidsRgn1 MailCenter LBanic SBurnell RidsNrrPMlndianPoint RidsNrrDorl RidsNrrOd RidsOgcMailCenter RidsEdoMailCenter RidsOeMailCenter RidsNrrMailCenter RidsAdmMailCenter ASaliman, NRR RidsSecyMailCenter RidsOpaMail CHair,OGC RidsNrrDpr LDoerflein, R1 MGray, R1 DScrenci, R1 NSheehan, R1 FFarzam, NRR RDudley, NRR RidsNrrDlr BBickett, R1 ADAMS Accession Nos.

M L12305A411 (Package) ML12108A052 (Incoming petition)

ML12305A436 (Acknowledgement Letter) ML12305A458 (Federal Register Notice)

ML050900248 (NUREG/BR-0200) ML041770328 (Management Directive 8.11)

• via e-mail LPL1-1 LAlLPL1-1 PM/DPR Tech Editor* BC/LPL 1-1 KGoldstein ARussell CHsu GWilson 11/01/12 11/06/12 11/02 112 11/06/12 D/DORL D/DLR NAME MEvans JLubinski ELeeds DATE 11 109/12 11/13/12 11/16/12 OFFICIAL RECORD COpy