ML13092A248
| ML13092A248 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 05/23/2013 |
| From: | Leeds E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Taylor W Sierra Club |
| Wilkins L, NRR/DORL 415-1377 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13092A254 | List: |
| References | |
| G20120458, OEDO-2012-0390, TAC ME8973 | |
| Download: ML13092A248 (74) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555*0001 May 23,2013 Mr. Wallace Taylor Sierra Club Iowa Chapter 3839 Merle Hay Road, Suite 280 Des Moines, IA 50310
Dear Mr. Taylor:
On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am responding to the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club petition dated June 21, 2012 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML12180A124). The petition requested enforcement action against Fort Calhoun Station (FCS). Specifically, the petition submitted under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206, Requests for Action under this Subpart, requested that the NRC revoke Omaha Public Power District's (OPPD's) license to operate FCS.
The NRC accepts the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club petition in part and rejects the petition in part. The NRC details the reasons for accepting and rejecting particular issues below.
The petition stated OPPD has been unable and unwilling to operate FCS properly and safely since 1992, OPPD has failed to correct problems identified years ago, and has resisted NRC directives to correct safety violations. The petition also asserted it is unlikely OPPD will ever be able or willing to operate FCS properly and safely.
The petition also stated that "The NRC's own guidelines regarding enforcement sanctions would categorize the events at Fort Calhoun over the past 20 years at Severity Levell. the highest level, because those events involve (1) 'situations involving particularly poor licensee performance, or involving willfulness'; (2) 'situations when the violation results in a substantial increase in risk, including cases in which the duration of the violation has contributed to the substantial increase'; and (3) 'situations when the licensee made a conscious decision to be in noncompliance in order to obtain an economic benefit'" (63 FR 26630-01, 26642; May 13, 1998). The petition also stated that "[t]he NRC considers these violations to be of significant concern, and may apply its full enforcement action to remedy these violations, including issuing appropriate orders." Id.
The petition did not request immediate action.
The NRC processed the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club letter under 10 CFR 2.206 and assigned the petition to the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, in accordance with procedures in Management Directive 8.11, Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions (ADAMS Accession No. ML041770328, October 25, 2000).
W, Taylor - 2 On July 12, 2012, the NRC petition manager, Ms. Lynnea Wilkins, acknowledged receipt of the petition. The Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club representatives (Mr. Wallace Taylor and Ms. Lynn Moorer) asked to address the Petition Review Board (PRB) before the PRB met to make its initial recommendation to accept or reject the petition for review. The petitioner provided supplemental written material on August 22,2012, which can be found under ADAMS Accession No. ML12240A162. On August 27, 2012, Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club representatives addressed the PRB by teleconference and provided additional information in support of the petition. The transcript of the August 27, 2012, teleconference is available under ADAMS Accession No. ML12250A714.
On September 19, 2012, the PRB met internally to discuss the supplemented petition. The PRB initially rejected the petition because it did not raise new safety concerns. The issues raised in the petition, as supplemented, referred to events and violations already reviewed and resolved by the NRC over the past 20 years. Therefore, the PRB's initial recommendation was to reject the petition since the issues raised in it have already been the subject of NRC staff's review and evaluation at FCS for which resolutions have been achieved, as documented in inspection and licensee event reports.
Additionally, the PRB did not conclude OPPD willfully operated FCS in an improper and unsafe manner or that it has done so for 20 years. SpeCifically, the PRB recognized that the NRC Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) assesses the ongoing capability of a licensee to operate a nuclear power plant safely. The NRC has a statutory responsibility for regulatory oversight to ensure that safety is maintained. NRC regulatory oversight of licensee activities for ensuring that each licensee meets its primary responsibility for the safety of a nuclear facility include (1) inspections, (2) performance assessments, and (3) enforcement.
On October 5, 2012, the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club representatives were informed of the PRB's initial recommendation to reject the original petition and the August 27,2012, supplements. On the same day, the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club representatives requested a second opportunity to address the PRB, which was granted.
The Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club's second presentation to the PRB was held on November 19, 2012, at which time the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club representatives provided new information to the NRC. The transcript from the second teleconference is available under ADAMS Accession No. ML12352A279. The petitioner provided supplemental written materials on December 16, 17, and 20,2012, which can be found under ADAMS Accession Nos. ML12352A221 and ML13109A240, respectively. The new information provided by the petitioner is as follows:
- Licensee event report (ADAMS Accession No. ML12255A038) on September 10,2012, which indicated that a support beam was found that was not within allowable limits for stress and loading.
- Exelon's long history of deliberate misconduct and willful violations at its various nuclear plants around the United States. Day-to-day management of Fort Calhoun Station by Exelon is likely to worsen Fort Calhoun's performance rather than improve it.
W. Taylor -3
- The flooding hazard at Fort Calhoun greatly exceeds its flooding protection measures at this time. It is a high-risk danger now.
- Fort Calhoun's risk of flooding from each of the six upstream dams has not been evaluated or resolved.
- The identification of 614 primary reactor containment electrical penetration seals containing Teflon that could degrade during design-basis accident conditions.
On January 10, 2013, the PRB met internally to make a final recommendation on whether to accept or reject the petition for review. The PRB discussed the issues raised in the supplemental information. The NRC technical staff advised the PRB that containment internal structures (support beams), containment electrical penetrations, and upstream dam failures are currently under NRC staff review.
Specifically, earlier this year, the NRC staff identified containment internal structures and containment electrical penetrations as safety issues that must be resolved before the NRC wi" authorize the restart of the FCS. These issues were included in the NRC confirmatory action letter dated February 26, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13057A287).
The NRC staff is also evaluating the effect of multiple upstream dam failures on FCS, as a part of the reviews of the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident in Japan. These issues are being reviewed as part of the, "Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century," presented by the NRC's Near-Term Task Force review of the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident in Japan, dated July 12, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML112510271). The Task Force recommends that the NRC require licensees to reevaluate and upgrade as necessary the design-basis seismic and flooding protection of structures, systems, and components for each operating reactor (see Section 4.1.1). In addition, the Task Force recommends, as part of the longer-term review, that the NRC evaluate potential enhancements to the capability to prevent or mitigate seismically induced fires and floods (see Section 4.1.2).
The potential flooding issues wi" also be reviewed in light of the Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY-11-0137, "Prioritization of Recommended Actions to be Taken in Response to Fukushima Lessons Learned," dated December 15, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML113490055).
Therefore, the PRB accepts the petition in part and wi" focus its review on the following issues raised in the petition:
- Licensee event report submitted September 10, 2012, indicated a support beam was not within a"owable limits for stress and loading (ADAMS Accession No. ML12255A038).
- Flood protection measures at FCS are inadequate and create an on-going, high-risk danger to public safety.
- The flood risks of the six dams upstream of FCS are either unevaluated or unresolved.
W. Taylor -4
- The 614 primary reactor containment electrical penetration seals containing Teflon, a property that could degrade during design-basis accident conditions, have been identified at FCS.
The PRB rejects the assertion that the operational record at all Exelon owned or operated plants indicates that Exelon is unable to operate FCS properly and safely. The NRC acknowledges there have been willful violations of NRC regulations at Exelon plants; however, these violations have been resolved through the NRC enforcement process. Furthermore, as part of the enforcement process, the staff required corrective actions to be taken by the licensees. Safe operation of Exelon plants continues to be monitored through the ROP and the NRC inspection program. The NRC's Office of Investigation, the Office of Enforcement, and the NRR office allegation coordinator have reviewed the petitioner's assertions that past willful violations and deliberate misconduct at Exelon facilities could undermine safe operations at FCS and concluded the number and types of violations do not indicate systemic management problems.
The PRB concludes that the petitioner has not provided information that supports a finding that Exelon willfully operated its nuclear plants in an improper and unsafe manner or will be unable to operate FCS safely.
The PRB intends to use the results of these on-going inspection, oversight, and enforcement activities in making its final decision on whether to implement the enforcement actions requested in your petition. On March 27,2013, the petition manager, bye-mail, conveyed the PRB's acceptance of the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club petition for review regarding the issues specified above.
As required by 10 CFR 2.206, the NRC will act on your petitions within a reasonable timeframe and will provide updates on the actions in accordance with MD 8.11. The petition manager, Ms. Lynnea Wilkins, can be reached by phone at 301-415-1377.
W. Taylor - 5 I have enclosed for your information a copy of the notice that the NRC is filing with the Office of the Federal Registerfor publication. I have also enclosed for your information a copy of Management Directive 8.11 and the associated brochure NUREG/BR-0200, "Public Petition Process," Revision 5, issued February 2003, prepared by the NRC's Office of Public Affairs.
'c J. Leeds, Director ffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
- 1. Federal Register Notice
- 3. NUREG/BR-0200 cc: Listserv
ENCLOSURE 1 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE ADAMS Accession No. ML13092A264
[7590-01-P]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Receipt of Request for Action
[NRC-2013-XXXX]
Notice is hereby given that by petition dated June 21, 2012, Mr. Wallace Taylor (petitioner) has requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) take enforcement action against Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1 (FCS).
As a basis for the request, the petitioner states that the NRC's own guidelines regarding enforcement sanctions would categorize the events at Fort Calhoun over the past 20 years at Severity Levell, the highest level, because those events involve (1) situations involving particularly poor licensee performance, or involving willfulness, (2) situations when the violation results in a substantial increase in risk, including cases in which the duration of the violation has contributed to the substantial increase, and (3) situations in which the licensee made a conscious decision to be in noncompliance to obtain an economic benefit (63 FR 26630-01, 26642; May 13, 1998)). The petitioner states that the NRC considers these violations to be of significant concern, and it may apply its full enforcement action to remedy these violations, including issuing appropriate orders. Id. The petitioner provided supplemental information in support of the petition and states that (1) a support beam was found that was not within allowable limits for stress and loading, (2) given Exelon's long history of deliberate misconduct and willful violations at its various nuclear plants around the United States, day-to-day management of Fort Calhoun Station by Exelon is likely to worsen Fort Calhoun's performance rather than improve it, (3) the flooding hazard at Fort Calhoun greatly exceeds its flooding protection measures at this time, (4) Fort Calhoun's risk of flooding from each of the six
- 2 upstream dams has not been evaluated or resolved, and (5) the identification of 614 primary reactor containment electrical penetration seals containing Teflon that could degrade during design-basis accident conditions.
The request is being treated pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 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 Section 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this petition within a reasonable time. The petitioner requested an opportunity to address the NRR Petition Review Board (PRB). The PRB held recorded teleconferences with the petitioner on August 27 and November 19,2012, during which the petitioner supplemented and clarified the petition. The PRB considered results of those discussions in its determination regarding the petitioner's request. As a result, the PRB acknowledged the petitioner's concerns about containment internal structures, electrical penetrations, and upstream dam failures. The NRC is currently reviewing the issues above related to containment internal structures, electrical penetrations, and upstream dam failures. Both the containment internal structures and electrical penetrations issues have been identified as issues that must be resolved before restart of the facility and have been added to the confirmatory action letter (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML13057A287). Additionally, the PRB noted that natural disasters, such as flooding, are undergoing NRC review as part of the lessons learned from the Fukushima event in Japan. The NRC staff is evaluating the effect of multiple upstream dam failures as a part of the Fukushima reViews, as well as other processes. The PRB intends to use the results of the aforementioned reviews to inform its final decision on whether to implement the requested actions.
-3 A copy of the petition (ADAMS Accession No. ML11174A228) is available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of May 2013.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
e nifer L. Uhle, Deputy Director, eactor Safety Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
ENCLOSURE 2 MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 8.11 ADAMS Accession No. ML041770328
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSION
.r
. DIRECTIVE TRANSMITTAL .
TN: 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 of an opportunity for petitioners to address the Petition Review Board after it discusses the petition; (2) the deletion ofcriteria for technical meetings with the petitioners; and (3) the addition ofa requirement to request comments from the petitioner(s) and affected licensee(s) on the proposed directors 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
~vailabili~: Rules and Directives Branch Office of Administration _
David L Meyer, (301) 415-7162 or Doris Mendiola, (301) 415-6297 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRA TION
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 of specific 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 staff's 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 out for comment. Add a new goal of 45 days from the end of the comment period until the director's decision is signed.
- Addition of a 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 - .==.============.====
r: : :=1,.==.,. :::::::::. .. ..======.. ::::::::=... =='=:='"====::=11 .
==:.
Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions
'Directive 8.11 Contents PoliC)' . .. . . . . * . . . * . . * . . . . . . . * . . . * * . . . . . * . . . . . . * * . . * . * . . * * . . * * . * .* 1 Objectives ............................*......................... 1 Organizational Responsibilities and Delegations of Authority .......... 2 Executive Director for Operations (EDO) ..***.**.*.*.*..**..*..**.....*.. 2 General Counsel (GC) ..... II * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
- 2 Office Directors ...*.. ,. ...... II * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *' * * * * * * * * * * * * * .. .. 2 Regional Administrators **....*.......**...*.*.....*..*..***..*..*....*. 3 2.206 PRB ChaiI]lerson ...... ., .......................... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- 3 Associate Directors - Office of Nuc1ear Reactor Regulation (NRR) .*..**....** 4 Division Directors . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . * . . * . * . . . * . . . . * . * * . * . * * . . . . . . . * . * . .
- 4 Director, Division of licensing Project Management (DLPM),
Office of Nuc1ear Reactor Regulation (NRR) ........................*.. 4 V Applicability ...................... '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 Handbook ..................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 4 Definitions ................................*............................. 4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 2~; 2000) iii
V-"RfGUL c.-'; -t),
~ 0
.. 'tt.
ge ,j f;;
U. S. Nuclear RegUlatory ~ommission
~ ~
..., ****i'- Y.O . yo~ume: 8 L~cense~ .Qversight 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 (i.e., to modify, suspend, or revoke a I~cense, or for other. appropriate. enforcement-related action, as distinguished from actions such as licensing or rulemaking). This policy is codified at Section 2206 ofTitle 10 ofthe Code ofFederalRegulations (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 denythe request. Requests that raise health and safety and other concerns without requesting enforcement-related action will be reviewed by means other than the 10 CfR 2.206 process.
Objectives (8.11..;..02) ,
- To e~uI~ the public, health an~ safetY through the prompt and I
thorough evaluation of' any potential problem addressed by a petition filed under 10 CFR 2.206. (021)
- To pf.ovide. for appropriate participation by a petitioner in, and observation by the public of, :NRC's. ,decisionmaking activities related to a 10 CFR 2.206 petition. (022)
. I', _' . " ,,' ."
- To ensure effective, co:mmunication 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 CFR 2.206 Petitions Directive 8.11 Organizational Responsibilities and Delegations ofAuthority (8.11-03)
Executive Director for Operations (EDO)
(031)
Receives and assigns action for all petitions filed under 10 CFR 2206.
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 legaJ 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)
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 Offic~ of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, the Office* of Enforcement, or the Office of the General Counsel. Therefore, most of the actions described in this directive and the associated handbook apply only to those. offices. (a)
- Approve or deny a petitioner's requ'est for immediate action. (b)
- Sign acknowledgment letters, FederalRegister noti ces and director's decisions. (c)
- Provide up-to*date information 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 ;petitions
, 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 ofany allegation ofwrongdoing 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 coordinator for 2.206 petitions, if applicable. (i)
Regional Administrators (034)
- As needed, provide support and inform~tion for the preparation of an acknowledgment letter andlor 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 petitioner and public, in technical review ofpetitions and in deliberations of the 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- ', , '
- ~nvene PRB me7tings. ,(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 resolution. (d) , '
Approved: July 1,1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) 3
Volume 8, Licen~ee Oyersight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 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 extensioQ request to the Office of the BOO 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 BOO (Associate Director for NRR) for approval.
Director, Division of Licensing Project Management (DLPM)t 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 CFR 2.206 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 beproper. 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.' . . "'-.../
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, "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 Regulatory 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 C : : : ! . ==========._,,====_.--===::..
====-::==-.==_.=== ===,.-
-=..
.,=
- . -, ==.:==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 CFR 2.206) (A) .................................*...... ~ . . . . . . . 1 Gene~al Cautions (B) .................... ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *
- 1 Part II .
Initial Staff Actions 3 NRC's Receipt of, a Petition (A) ..*...........*......*..............*. ;.. 3 Process Summary (1) ".............. ~ . . "~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Assignment of Staff Action (2) . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Office Action (B) ........*........*......*............**..*.....***... 4 Petition Manager Action (C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . * * . 4 Part III' Petition Review Board (PRB) ............................................ 7 General (A) *.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . 7
.~chedule (1) ................... ".............................. ".... " 7 Board Composition (2) ..................*................**. ~ . * . * * . 7 Preparation for t~e PRB Meeting (B) .................*....*........* ;.... 8 Criteria for Pe.tition Evaluation (C) .... ~ ~ . ~ . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * . . . . . 11 Criteria for R~viewing ~eti.tions Under 10GFR 2.206 (1) ........ .-........ 11 Criteria for Rejecting Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206 (2) ................*. 11 Criteria for Consolidating Petitions (3) .. . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
. PRB Meeting (D) .................... : ~ ~ ~' .....~ ..... ~ ...... ~ **. ~,~ ... ~ . . 13 Informing the Petitioner of the Results (E) .......... ~ ....... : .; .. ~ ...*'. . . . .
- 14
. Meeting With the Petitioner (F) .......... .-; .*. ~ ..... ~ ....:.... : ~ ~ ... :.'.. ... . 14 Response to the Petitioner (G) ................ : ... ~ ..*... ~ '~' ..';.' . ~ ....'~' . .-. . 15 Requests That Do Not Meet the Criteria (1) *** :.-.;. '. ..**..... '... ~ . . . . . 15 Requests That Meet the Criteria (2) . ~ .. : . ; ..... : * ; . '......-.- ~;~ ... '. ~ . . .. . 16 Sending Documents to the Petitioner (H) '............. : ... ~ ..... ~'. ~. : ~ ~ :. . 16 Supplements to the Petition (1) ................. ~ ... : ... ~ i*.* * * ~ * * : * * * * '* * ~ * *
- 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) .............................* 25 Granting the Petition (C) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 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 Closure Letter for Requests That Are Not 2.206 Petitions ....... 36
,4 Sample Ac~owledgment Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
,5 Sample Federal Register Notice ............*... : . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . 38
. 6 . Sample 1?~rector's Decision and Cover Letter ....*.. . . . * . . * . . . * * * . . . * . 39 r 7 ' Sample Federal. Register, Notice for Director's Decision. . . . . . * . . . . . . * . . . . 43 8 Sample u;t~eJ;s 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 eFR 2.206 Petitions
. 'Handbook8.11"Part I Introduction Title 10 of the 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 'Commissionwas established in 1975.
Section 2.206 pennits 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 NRCstaffwill not treat general opposition to nuclear power or a general assertion of a safety problem, without supporting facts, as a fonnal 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~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 (DIG) of wrongdoing matters, as well as initiating, prioritizing, and tenninating 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 DIG investigations. (1)
Any mention outside NRC of an ongoing 01 or DIG investigation, for example, as an explanation for schedule changes, requires the approval of the Director, 01, or the IG, respectively. (2)
Approved: July 1,1999 (Revised: October 25, 2~OO) 1
.t 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 010. (3)
Approved: July 1, 1999 2 (Revised: October 25, 2000)
, Volume 8; Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions
,.' .. .-'Handbook 8.11 Part II Part'II Initial' Staff Actions NRC's Receipt of a ,Petition (A)
Process Summary (1) .
After NRC receives a petition, the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) assigns itto the director ofthe aPPrOpriate office for evaluation and response. The original incoming petition is sent to the office and a
,. copy ofthe petition is sent, to the Office ofthe'General Counsel (OGC).
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 ofthe decision, although it will not entertain a request for review of the director's decision. .
Assignment of Staff Actio~ (2)
Petitions maybe in the form ofrequests for NRC action that may or may not cite 10 CFR 2206 and may initially be direCted to staff other than the EDO~ Inany of these cases, the staff person who receives the document should make an initial evaluation as to whether the document meets the criteria forreview unde'r 10,CFR2~206 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* not* specifically cite' 10' CFR 2.206, the staff will
, '. attempt to contact !he petitioner by telephone to determine ifhe or she
, wants the request processed pursuant to 10 CFR 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 petition under 10 CFR 2.206, it should be treated as one so that a petition review 'board (pRB)can make' 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;led)
If the staff receives a request that it believes is a 10 CFR 2.206 petition, '
it will forward the request to the Office of the EDO (OEDO) for assignment of action. Petitions also may be forwarded 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 win assign the petition to a petition manager. (1)
The Agency 2206 Petition Coordinator (appointed by the Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR>>, receives copies of a112.206 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 importantfor petitions that are not addressed to the EDO. Normally, these documents have been entered into ADAMS through the Document Control Desk (DCO) 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 determines that a docUment contains allegations or other sensitive information, he or she should immediately contact the ADAMS Help Desk (301-415-1234) to prevent releasing the document to the public. (1)
Approved: 'July 1,1999 4 (Revised:' October 25, 2000)
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 1 week ofreceipt ofthe petition 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 agreement ofthe petitioner as to how the matterwill be handled (Le., as an allegation or not) and document the petitioners 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 (Le., as an allegation or not) and document the petitioner's agreement in writing. If all or part ofthe 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)
If the 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,r 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
Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs
\ Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part II Petition Manager Action (C) (continued) make up 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 fonvarded 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 3:ctions. (5)
~
Approved: July 1, 1999 6 (Revised: October 25, 2000)
'-Volume 8, Licensee' Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions
.' . , Handbook 8.11' Part In PartllI' "r' ~etition Revi~w .Boa~d (PRB)
General (A)
Schedule (1)
. The assigned office holds a PRB meeting to review the 2206 petition.
The PRBmeeting is nornially held within 2 weeks of receipt of the petition. The PRB ~ee~ing may be 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 ofa 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 any hnmediate 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 acknowledgmen:t lett~r_ (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) "
- A PRB chaiIperson (generally a Senior Executive Service manager) (i)
- A petition manager . (ii) , .
.. '. , ." 1~'. ~.! ** , *z*.* , : .".' ***
. ~ , O?gmzant managel!1~~t ~d staff, asnecessary (m)
',. Arepresentative'fromthe OffieeoffuVeStlgations (01), as needed (IV)
- * ' . :
- II" .- , ,~ .' ***
- A representative from .the Office' of *Enforcement (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 eFR 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 (OGe) will normally participate. (b) .
Preparation for the PRB Meeting (B)
The petition manager will provide copies hf 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 consid~r ~y 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 recomniendation 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 not) (c) ,
- 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 petition manager also will offer a meeting or teleconference between the petitioner and the PRB before the board reviews the petition. This meeting or teleconferc::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 o{meeting if the petitioner desires it. If a decision,is required on a petitioner's request for immediate action before the petiti,oner's presentation can be scheduled; that decision will not be delayed. (3) '-...J Approved: July 1~ '1999 8 (Revised:' October 25, 2000)
Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions 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 if'understands the concerns about its facility or' activities. The PRB members may ask any questions needed ,to' 'clarify the petitioner's request. The'licensee may also ask questions to clarify the issues raiSed by the petitioner. Any member of
. the public may attend (or liste'n in byielephone 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 or videoconference. This public meeting or teleconference 'is separate from the (closed) PRB meeting during which the PRB members develop their recornmendations with respect to the petition. (4). " ,
The petition ~anagerwill ensur,e 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' ,chooses. to ,addre'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 Conv~rted to a printed t!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 managerwill make arr~~gements for ,transcription :service ,by submitting an NRC Form~8?, to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel or by sending
. an "e-lll~i1'to: "CoUrt Rep()rter," giving the same information as requested on the~o~ 587. (6), "
." 1
- If the petitioner chooses to attend in person, the meeting will 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 (Revised:' October 25, 2000) 9'
__________----------------------------------------~-------------aL 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 (~nless the licensee chooses not to participate). The licensee is inyited ~o participate, as in the teleconference described above, and members of the public may attend as obseIVers. The meeting is transcribed and the transcript is treated in the same manner as in the case of a telephone briefing. (7). .
The petitiC!ner may reques~ that a reasonable number of associates be pennitted 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 ~~eting or teleconference, the chairperson will provide a brief \...J summary of the 2.206 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 purposes of clarification.
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 acknowledgment letter. Any impac;s should be kept to' a minimum. (10)
The petition manager will review the transcript and, where necessary, edit it to ensure it accurately reflects"\vhat was said in the meeting or teleconference. CorrectionS are only"necessatyfor errors that affect the meaning of the text of the transcript The petition manager is not exp~cted to correct inconsequential errors. (11)
After editing, the petition manager will ensure that the transcript gets
".the same. distz:ibution (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
": teleconferences; the petition manager may attach the transcript to a memorandum to file. (12) ~
, Approyed: 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 v
Criteria for Petition Evaluation (C)
The staff will use the criteria discussed in this section to determine 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 staffwill review a petition under the requirements of10 CFR 2.206 if the request meets all of theJollowing criteria-(a)
- The petition contains a request for enforCement-related action such as issuing an oider 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. The petitioner must provide some element ofsupport beyon~ 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 proceeding availab1e, for example, if a petitioner raises an issue that he or she has raised or could raise in an ongoing licensing proceeding, the staff will infonn the petitioner of the ongoing proceeding and will not treat the request under 10 CFR 2.20~. (~ii) ,
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 pr~cess in ,aCcordance\~ith 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 determines that referral to the 10 CFR 2.206 process is appropriate. For these referrals, the a
, substantive' issues in'the request for hearing or intervention will be read as' an implicit 'request foreriforcement-related action, thus
, satisfying the criteria Ior 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 follOwing circumstances Approved: July 1,1999 (Revised: Oct~ber 25, 2000) 11
Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 eFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part III Criteria for Petition Evaluation (C) (continued)
Criteria for 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 refe'rred for appropriate action in accordance with MD 8.8, "Management of Allegations." (a)
- The 'p~titioner 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 ad:iieved, 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 CPR 2.206. (c)
- The request addresses deficiencies within existing NRC rules. This type ~f request should 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 of any 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 Oversighi Programs Review Process",for 10 'CFR 2.206 Petitions' Handbook8.11 Part HI .
PRB Meeting (D)
PRB ensures that an appropriate petition review process is followed.
The purposes of t~e PRB p~ocessare to-{l)
- Determine whether or not the' petitioner's request meets the criteria for review as a 10 CFR2.206 petition (see Part III(C) ofthis handbook)'(a)
- Determine whether ,or not the petitioner .should be offered or informed of an alternative process (e.g., consider~tion of issues as allegations, consideration ofissues in a pending license proceeding, .
or rule making) (b)
- Determine whether' there.is a need for any immediate actions (whether requested or'~ot)' (c), . '
- Esiablish'a schedule for responding to the petitioner so that a commitment is made by man'agement arid the technical review staff to respond to the pe.tition iIi-a timely manner (see Part IV of this handbook for guidance regarding schedules) (d)
- Address the possibility. of issuing a partial director's decision (e)
- De'termine whether ornot 'the petition should be consolidated with another petition (f) '. . I*.. , '
- Determine whether or not referral to 01 or OIG is appropriate (g)
.- . ~".'" . . -. . :.
- Determine whether or not there is a need for OGCto participate in the review (h) .
- Determine whether tit ri6t ili~ li~ensee ~hould be requested to respond to ~e pe~t,ion ~i). : .
- Determine whether or riot th~ peiitionjs sufficiently complex that additional ,review b~ard *meetings shoUld be scheduled to ensure that suita~le progress'is being made(j): ". J j ' : ' , ' , ,N' # .:: ; \ * =. ..'
,..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 Infoimation, 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.1,1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) 13
Volume 8, Licensee. Oversight Programs Re~E;w 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 OGC representative provides legal review and advice on 10 CFR 2.206 petitions. OGC 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 manager will 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 requests 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 irimtediate 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 01 or OIG.
Meeting With t~e ~etitioner (F)
After informing the petitioner of the 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 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 ParfIlI 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 askquestioris 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 will not be delayed. The format of the meeting .or teleconference, application ofMD 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 recominendations will be included in the acknowledgment letter. The acknowledgment letter will address any
',comments the petitioner made conceniing* the initial PRB
'recommendations and the staff's 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 informationcOnstitutes 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 the Petitioner '(<;t)
After PRB finalizes its recommendations, the petition manager prepares a written response to the petitioner.
Requests That Do Not Meet th~:Criteria (1)
If PRB, with office-level mmagement ,Con~ence, determines that the petition does not meet the Criteria for review 'as a 10 CFR 2206 petition, the petition manager then prepares a letter that (1) .explains whY,the request is not being reviewed under 10 CFR 2.206; (2) responds, to the extent possible at ~at ~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 Exhibit 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 Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Hal1db'ook 8.1f 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 CFR 2206 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 efforts in bringing issues to the staff's attention. If the petition contains a request for immediate action by' the .NRC, such as a request for immed~ate suspension offacility operation ~ntil 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 response. (a) .
The petition manager ensures that a copy ofthis 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 2.206 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 ackitowledgment letter and the director's decision into one document. A similar approach. would be taken in combining the a~soci~t~d Federal Register notices. (d) .
SeD: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 of the petition. (a) ~
Approved: July 1, 1999:
16 (Revised: October 25, 2000)
, Volume 8; Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process',for 10 eFR 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 infonnation. (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 the issues raised in the petition, including or relevant generic le'tters' bulle~ that are issued during the pendency of the NRC's consideration of the petition. TIlls does not include NRC correspondence or documentation related to an 01 or 010 investigation, whicn will not be released outside NRC without the approval of the Director, 01, or the 10, respectively. (c)
These three actions will remain 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 sUbJD.it a supplement to his or her petition.
The petition manager ,will review the supplement promptly and detennine whether, or not _it contains allegations or sensitive
, information. If the supplement appears to cOntain infonnation 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 fonn ofa meplorandum to file. If all or p~rt of the 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 II(C) of this handbook for more detailed infonnation. (1)
The petition manager: Will also ens~d the supplement receives the same ~stributionas the petition' and :will forward a copy of the supplement to the PRB members. The PRB m.embers will review the supplement and detemune whether they' need to meet fonnally to discuss it and, if so;whether or not to offe'r the petitioner an opportunity to discuss the' supplement with the PRB members before the board reviews the supplement (see Part lII(B) of this handbook). In deciding whether a'fonnal.PRB,meeting is needed, 'the PRB members will
- 'consider the s3!ety' sigruficance,and cOmplexitY of the infonnation in the supplement. 'Qarifieations 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) 17i
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 PRs 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 petition (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 determination, 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 an'acknowledgment letter
. to' the petitioner, reset the 120~day clock to the date of the new acknowhidgment letter; and inform the Office of the Executive Director for Operations (OEDO). (4)
IfPRB determines that the suppleme~twill b'e treated as a new petition !
(i.e., not consolidated witp. the existing petition), the assigned office
, must contact OEDO aIidobtain 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'
, 'Handbook 8.11 Part IV
- Part-'IV
'Petition ReView Activities Reviewing th~ :petition (A)
Interoffice .Coo~inath:~n ,(1)
The petition manager coordinates 'all information 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 (O~C) 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 of 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 information is limited to those having a need-to-know. Regarding a
, 2.206 petition~ the assigried office 'director, or ~s 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 . " .., ' ,
l .. ' j . ',!
Approved:' July 1,1999' .',
(Revised: October 25, 2000)
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 voluntaxy 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 voluntanly submit information relative to the petition, even if the NRC staff has no.t requested any such information. (a)
Unless necessaxy for NRC's proper evaluation of the petition, the' licensee should avoid" using proprietaxy ,. or personal privacy information that requires protection from public disclosure. If such information is necessaxy to respond to the petition completely, the petition manager ensures the information is protected in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790. (b)
Technical Review Meeting With the Petitioner (3) ,
A technical review meeting 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 ofsensitive 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 (Revised: October 25, 2000)
Volume 8; Licensee Oversight Progra~s RevieW Process for 10 ern 2.206 Petitions
- Haridbook 8:11 Part IV Schedule (B) (continued) director's decision.' The actual schedule should be shorter if the number arid complexity of the cdmmentsallow. The Office of the
.. Executive Directorfc;r Operations (OEDO) tracks the first target date, and any cha~ge of the dat~ require~ approval by the EDO. The petition manager monitors the progress of any .01 investigation and related
'enforcement actions. ;Enforcement actiops that are prerequisites to a
.director's decision ~hould be.expedited and completed in time to meet the 120-day goal. Investigations by 01 and OIG associated with petitions should be expedited to ~e extentpracticable. 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 (DOJ), or if NRC decides to await a DepartmentofLabor decision, the clock for the 120-day goal is stopped for the portion of' the' petition awaiting disposition by those organizations. The clock will start again when the staff receives, the results of the investigation. If the 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. d~ys. ,When the .staff receives the results of the investigation, it will promptly dev.elop 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 t;'easons (e.g., very complex issues), the appropriate level of management in *the assigned, office, ,detennines the need for an extension of the 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, 'Yill, review t~e' coinments received and provide the
, schedule toissue'the director's deCision to the Agency 2.206 Petition
- '. 'COordinator for i~clusion' in 'the neXt status' report (3)
Approved: July 1, i999 (Revised: . October 25, 2000) 21
Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs
'Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11. Part IV Keeping the Petitioner Informed (q 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 sfgnificant 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 manager 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 or or oro investigation, unless. approved by the Director, 01, or the 10 (1)
- The re~erral of the matter to DO] (~)
- 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 below, to "Petition." The Agency 2206 Petition Coordinator combines all th~ status reports, including staff performance metrics for petitions processed under 10 CFR 2206 for the current year, in a monthly report t6 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 avaiJable and e-mails a: 'copy to "NRCWEB" for placement on the NRC's Web site. (I)' .
Ifthe status ofthe petition includes sensitive information thatmayneed 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 of matters to the DO] and should be handled in accordance with MD 12.6, "NRC Sensitive Unclassified Information Security Program." The Agency 2.206 . '-.,J Approved: July 1; 199~f 22 (Revised: .October 25, 20?O)
Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions' Handbook 8.11 Part IV Updates to Management and the Public (D) (continued)
Petition Coordinator will protect this ,infonnation from disclosure by placing the affected status report(s) in a separate enclosure to the status report, clearly marking the status report ,to the EDD, and redacting the ~ensitive infonnation from the version ofthe report that is made public. (2)
The NRC's Web site provides the up*to-date status of pending 2.206 petitions, director's' deCisions issued, and other related infonnation.
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)
Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) 23
- I 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)
Ifappropriate, 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, notwithstanding that 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 u
Content and Format (A) (continued)'
If the Office ofInvestigations (01) has completed its investigation of a
, potential wrongdoing issue' and the' matter)ias been referred to the Department ofJustice (DOl); ~e petiti~n managerwill contact 01 and the Office of ,Enforcement (OE) to coordinate NRC's actions. For petitions assigned to the Office ofNuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR),
the petition manager also'will contact the'NRR Senior Enforcement Coordinator. The staff may need t~ withhold action on the petition in keeping with the Memorandum of Understanding with DOl. (4)
If the ,results of a ,wrong40ing 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 review ofthe director's d~cision for potential enforcement implications. For petitions 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 petiti,on. (1) :
The fonnat, con~ent, ~nd method of processing a partial director's decision are the same,' a~, th~~ _of' a' director's, decision (as descnoed above) and an acCompanying .Fei!eral,Register notice would still be prepared (see ~Exhibit. 7).,'However, the partial director's decision should clearly indisat~ th,ose portions .C?f the, pe,tition that remain open, explain the reasonsfor the delay to the extent practical, and provide the staff's schedule fodhe 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 p'etition (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 2.206" 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, Licensee Oversight Programs ReView Process for 10 eFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 PartV Granting the Petition (C) (continued) actions the . licensee took voluntanly 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 directors decision will explain the bases for granting the petition and state that the Commission's action resulting from the directors decision is outlined in the Commission's' order or other appropriate communication. lithe petition is granted in 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 "Directors Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206" for the office director's signat~e. 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)
Mer the assigned office director has concurred in the proposed directors 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, forvexy complex technical issues it may be appropriate to allow more time for the petitioner and licensee to develop their comments~ The letters, including the proposed directors 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 Prpgrams Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 ParfV 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 incl:usion in, the next status report. The petition manager will then evaluate any comments reCeived on the proposed decision, obtaining the assistance of the techniCal staff, as appropriate.
Although the staff requested com.ritents from only the petiti~ner and the licen~ee; comments from other sources'(e.g., other members of the public) may be received. -These additional comments should be addressed in the same manrier 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 managerwill 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 infonnation, the peti~ion reviewb oard will be reconvened to detemlinewhetherto treat the new information as part of the current petition or as a new petition. ( 3 ) ' '
Issuing the Director's Decision' (G)
A decision under 10 CFR 2.~06 consi~ts of a letter to the petitioner, the director's decision" and' the' Federal Register notice. The petition manager will obtaina directors decision number (i.e., DD-YY-XX) from the Offic~ of the 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 directors decisi~n; and ~e Federal. Register notice. Note that the directors decision itself is not published in the'FederalRegister; only the notice of its availability, containing a summary of the substance of the decision, is published'(see' Exhibits 6 and 7). (1)
The petition manager will prepare a letter to transmit the directors decision to the petitioner and'will also prepare the associated Federal Register notice.]fthe staff's response to the petition involves issuing an order, the petition'managerwill prepare a letter to transmit the order to the licensee. The petition manager also will inClude a copy of the order Approved:" July 1; 1999 (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 ~e service list(s) are dispatched simu1tan~ously with the petitioner's' copy. Before dispatching the director's decision (or partial decision), the petition manager will inform the petitioner of the imminent iss~ailce 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~ 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 (ADMIDAS/RDB), fortrailsmittal to the Office ofthe Federal Register for publication. The staff shall NOT incl ude 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 CFR
.. 2.206 package before it is dispatched and determine appropriate distribution. The administrative staff also will immediately (same day) hand -carry 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 distnoution and service lists (ii)
- 1\vo 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 directors decision) (i)
- . Five paper copies of the ~otice (ii)
- A disk with a WordPerlect file that contains the Federal
. Register notiCe (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 distnouting copies internally and externally-(3)
- When action on a 2.206 petition is completed, the petition manager will ensure that all publiclyrehiasable documentation is available to the public in ADAMS. (a) .
- The assigned office will determine the appropriate individuals and offices to indudeon the'distribution list. , (b)
The administrative staff of the assigned office will complete the foUmving actions within 2 working days of issuance of the director's decision: (4) .
- Provide one paper copy of the directors decision to the special counsel in the Office of the General Counsel assigned to 2.206 matters. (a)
- E-mail the final version of the directors decision to the NRC Issuances (NRC!) Project Officer, Publishing Services Branch (PSB),
Office ofthe Chief Information Officer (OCID). If other information (opinions, partial information (such as errata), or footnotes) is included in the e-mail, clearly identify the directors 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 directors decision to the NRCI Project Offi~r. (b)
Approved: July 1, 1999
. (Revised: October 25, 2000) 29
Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 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 o'n the NRC's Web site. (c) "
The petition manager 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 NRO Project Officer, PSB, OCIO, for monthly publication in the NRC Issuances, NUREG-0750. The headnotes should reach PSB*
before the 5th day ofthe 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 and/or 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 inform the Commission of the availability of the director's "
decision. The Commission, at its "discretion, may determine to review of the director's decision within 25 days the date of the decision and may direct the staff to 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~sed: October 25, 2000)
c c ,e
~~ Treat as Allegation
- .~ I.etler wid!
) .. , Or Routine
~ ~ Issues/Concerns CorreS}). (IIA.2)
?-~
.p.
0" n t...j g.~
ttl
~
At PRB address:
2.2061 Schedule? CIl N~
lI'I\O Letter that I .. < ) .1 Immediate Adions?
.... \0 N\O References 2106 I Partial DO? Future 9 o PRSs? (111.0) "'C......
S g ....,.
-- t:I
('D j:l, Inform Petitioner, Copy ofLeHer to OfTerMtgor N LIcensee (1I.C.4)
Petitioner Address
- N PRB (111.0.4*9) Telecon (l1I.E&F)
~.
~
""S.
~
joIoI.
~ ..
.~ ~
..~. 0 CO' Petilloner Address I ~ ~
on f"'f" ,;~ =
('D. ~ :,~e PRB (III.F.2) til . '.., (l) til' 000 n'*
~ (l)t'4
. til
- til n
~. IS' (l) c-.>. =1':"""" ~
=
=,.
=-" =° (l)
(l)
.~ .1 teat as Allegation or Routine Conesp. (111.0.1)
..,. ~,nO o ~
o*~ ..,
t6
'""" P;":tv ~.
Or ~'N~
"""0",,"
,,",,0\
Rerer to Another .-~
Pro<:css (c.,., ~rra I. l'arentlielicalllllbrmallon Is usocilled llandboolc pmgnph number. Rulemaldng)
(111.0.1) ~Sa
~ge V)
Jo-.o\ til til til
Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8~11 Exhibits: .'
Exhibit 1 Simplified 2.206 Process Flow Chart (continued) .
-5 ~ *.
a:E;
-g ~I-,-----""'"
- eo""
0""
~
~ 80' g.a:!
~ f'GS' Q:J>=
~~
- gi J.I~
"ii"';
Q I ,...
"il ~j I
I I
~~
oilZ
- i __
.6 .... 8 I 1!.~
t:r.lJ!
-<j.!1Q l!=
I I
- ~ a:
i:E =:::
I 1i
- ';:J-=.
- .. ~
- ~:a:5:
l- .J t _______ ~
I, Approved: July 1, i999,'
32 (Revised: October 25, 2000)
Volume 8; Licensee Oversight Programs Review'Process' for 10 'CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 'Exhibits' 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 n'ot any immediate actions requested require expedited staff response.
o Contact the petitioner and discuss the public nature of the process. Offer a 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 aM 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 2.206?
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 aGe involvement?
What is your reco~ended approach to the 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 pR..B recommendations.
o Inform the petitioner of the PRB recommendations. Offer a post-PRB meeting.
o If a post-PRB meeting or telecon is held, notice it (meeting only) 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 teIecon.
o Address the PRB at iti meeting.
o Pi:epai:~ a meeting summaI)' foiih~ pre::a~d po~t-PRB ~eetings, if heid. Thi~ ~tep is ~ot r~q~ir~d for a telecon. '
- .~
o Ensure the transcripts of the pre- ~nd post-PRS'meetings or telecO~, if held, are added ADAMS to and made publicly available. For meetings, this step can be ~one using the meeting summaty. ',.
Approved: July 1,1999 (Revised: October 25; 2000) 33*
Volu~e 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 the PRB that the 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.
. 0 If the assigned office's m~nagement agrees with the PRB that the request is a 2.206 petition, continue with this checklist.
o Add petitioner to appropriate service list(s).
o Issue acknowledgment letter and associated Federal Register notice.
o If licensee input is needed, send a written request o If further petition'er input is needed, arrange for a technical review meeting.
o Make periodic status updates to the petitioner.
o Prepare the directors decision, addressing:
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 tbe proposed directors decision to the petitioner and licensee for comment o After the comment period closes, give the schedule for the directors decision to the Agency 2.206 Petition Coordinator for inclusion in the next 'status report o Include comments received and their resolution in the directors decision.
o .Prepare the Federal Register notice for the directors decision.
o As soon as the directors 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-canytbe original signed Federal Register notice (ONLY),f1Ye copies of the notice, and a diskwith the notice on it, to the Rules and Directives Branch. Do NOT include the directors decision in this package.
Approved: July 1, 1999, 34 (Revised: October 25, 2000f
Volume 8, Licensee OversigbfPrograms Review'Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11' Exhibits Exhibit 2 (continued)
- Immediately dispatch tbe signed original letter and decision and a copy oftbe FederalRegister notice to tbe petitioner. .
o Witbin 2 working days of issuing tbe Director's decision:
- Provide a copy of the director's decision to the OGC special counsel assigned to 2206 matters.
E-mail and send two paper copies of the director's decision to tbe NRC Issuances Project Officer in 000. .
E-mail a signed, dated, and numbered copy oftbe director's decision to "NRCWEB."
E-mail beadnotes on the petition to the NRC lssuances Project Officer in oao.
Approved: July 1, 1999.
(Revised: October 25, 2000) 35 '
I' 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
[Petitioners 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 petitioner's 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 2206]. 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 staWs response, ifavailable, 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 allegation 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. [ J cc: [Licensee (w/copy of incoming 2.206 request) & Service List]
Approved: July 1, 1999 36 (Revised: October 25, 2000)
Volume 8; Licensee Oversight Pro~ms Review Process for 10' CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Exbibits
'U Exhibit 4 Sample Acknowledgment Letter
[petitioner's Name]
[petitioners 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 petitioner's 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 manager] to be the petition manager for your petition. Mr. [last name of petition manager] can be reached at [301-41S-extension of
. petition manager] Your petition is being reviewed by (orgariizational units] within the' Office of [name of appropriate Office]. [If necessary, add: I have referred to the NRC .:
Office of the Inspector General (OIG) those 'allegations 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 for yoUr information a 'copy of Management Directive 8~11 "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions", and the associated brochure NUREGIBR-0200, "Public Petition Process,"
prepared by the NRC Office of Public Affairs. . .
Sincerely, ,
.' [Office ~irector]
Enclosures:
Federal Register Notice Management Directive 8.11 NUREG/BR-0200 cc: [Licensee (w/copy of incoming 2.206 request) & Senice 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 COMMISSION Docket No(s).
License No(s).
[Name of Licensee]
RECEIPT OF REQUEST FOR ACTION UNDER 10 CFR 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 [state petitioner's requests].
As the basis for this request, the petitioner states that [state petitioner's basis for ""-J request].
The request is being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. The request has been referred to the Director of the Office of [insert action office]. As provided by Section 2206, 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 establishing] the schedule for the review of the petition]. [1f necessary, add] By letter '1, dated J t.he"Directo~ (granted or denied) petitioner's request for [insert request*
for immediate action] at [insert facilityllicensee 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 COMMISSION
[Office Director]
Dated at Rockville, Maryland This _ _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _" 2ooX.
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 oth~r addressee of petition]
pursuant to Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code ofFe4,eral Recifltitions (10 CFR 2.206) o'n
[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 a~ion and that it ",ould be acted upon within a reasonable time. You,were< also told thaqstatr response to any request for immediate <action].
[You met with the petition review board on [date(s) of the p~e* and/or post-PM. <
meeting(s)] to clarify the bases for your' petition. The 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 of licensee] responded on [insert date] and the infonnation provided was considered by the staff in its evaluation of the petition].
In your petition you stated that [summarize the issues raised]. [Brieny summarize the safety significance of the issues and tlie staWs respoiise]. . <: < < < <. < <
[The NRC issued a Partial Director's Decision (DD-YY-XX) dated [insert] which [explain what aspects ofthe petition were addressed]. [Explain which i~sues remained to be addressed in this director's decision and brieny 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
V~lum~ 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 direct~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 CFR 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 Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, MarYlan~, 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~ector's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206" that has Qeen 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 fC?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. [ ]
Enclosures:
Director's Decision YY*XX Federal Register Notice Approved: July 1, 1999 40 (Revised: 'October 25, 2000)
. .\ 1 .'
Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Exhibits 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 eFR 2.206 U 1. Introduction By letter dated [insert date], as supplemented on [dates of supplements], [petitioner names and, if applica"le, represented organizations] filed a Petition purSuant to Title 10 of the Code a/Federal Regulations, Section 2.206. The petitioner(s) requ~sted that the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory COmmission (NRC) take the following actions: [list recjues~s]. The bases for the requests were "[describe]. .. .
In a letter dated [insert], the NRC informed 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 office abbreviation) petition review, board on
[date(s) ofthe pre- and/or post-PRB meeting(s)] to clarify the bases for the Petition. The transcript(s) of this/these meeting(s) wastwere 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 White Flint North, 11555 R~ckvi1le Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and from the ADAMS Public Lib~ary:cOI~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 .
information related to the petition. [Name oflicensee] responded on [insert date] and the information 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 petiiion 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 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Exhibits
\J 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
[licensee(s)1 for comment on [date1. [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), and the staWs 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 underway or completed before the petition was received. This discussion must clearly present the statTresponse to all of the valid issues so that it is clear that they have been addressed].
- m. Conclusion
[Summarize the staffs conclusions ,lith respect to the issues raised and how they have been, or will be, addressed].
As provided in 10 CFR 2.206(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 name1, Director Office of [insert] ,
Approved: July 1,1999 42 (Revised:: October 25, 2000)
Volume'S, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for io CFR2.206 Petitions Handbook S.11 Exhibits'
- Exhibit 7
.' , [7~90-01"':P]
Sampl~ Federal Register Notice' for 'Director's ,Decision" u.s. NUCLEARREGUlATORY COMMISSION Docket No(s)~
License No(s)..
[Name of Licensee]
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF DIRECI'OR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CPR 2.206 Notice is hereby given that the Director, [name of office], has iSsued a directoi's decision with regard to a petition dated [insert date], filed by [insert petitioner's name],
hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner." [The petition was'suppJemented on [insert date,'
include transcripts from meeting(s) with the'pUl]. 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 enforcement-related action]. [lrnecess~rY; add] The petitioner also requested that a public meeting be held to discuss this matter in the 'Washington; DC, area.
, * ' ~ (... ~... * . ' .* ~ .'
- r I ; . * ; , **
As the basis for the [Insert date1 request, the petitioner raised conceiris'steinming from [insert ~etitioner's supporting ba~is'ror iile' requestj~ The [insert petiticine~s' ~~me] :
considers such operation to be poten'ti~lly ~tiside ~rid to;be' in Violation of 'Fea eraI .
regu1atioDs~.'Iri 'the 'petition, a' ilUIDber' of references to' [inserirefere~c~s] ~ere Cit~ci that the petitioner believes prohibit operation of th~ facility with Ihlsert the ci~se for the requested enforcement-related aCtion].
. . ' .I .* :
The petition of [insert date] raises concerns originating from [insert summary information on more bases/rationale/~iscussion an.d s.upporti~g facts used in the disposition of the petition and the development ofthe'director's decision].
Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) 43
Volume 8, Licensee, Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 ,CFR 2.206 Petitions Handb'ook 8.11 . Exhibits
\ . .J 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 [fhe staff did not reCeive any comments on the .
proposed Director's Decision].
The Director of the Office of [name or office] 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 avaiIable'~
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.n'c.~ov) on the World Wide Web, under the "Public Involvement" icon.
[Briefly summarize the staff's 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 CPR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. As provided for .
by this..
regulation, the director's
. 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 petitioners address]
Dear [Insert petitioners 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 staff will 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 Dirision Director]
Docket Nos. 0 cc w/o encl: [Service List]
[Insert licensee's address]
Dear [Insert licensee's name]
By lette! 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 staffwill 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 (Rerised: October 25, 2000) 45
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 of tbis letter].
Sincerely,
[Signed by Division Director1 Docket Nos. [ ]
cc w/enel: [Service List1 Approved: July 1,1999 46 (Revised: October 2S, 2000) .
ENCLOSURE 3 NUREG/BR-0200 ADAMS Accession No. ML050900248
()O~'Z n -:!! tH,!jru~)p~~U();;'I lIlq JO,t !>pUIWJ~{ lU~11,1)un;.: rL1J~)p:I,II\).1 f',lP.1<.'.ll i~
,'Ill nJ~:r UO!l!l:Jd JlH l.m,\\ p;""\lr!.'O'i~l} ,,~nv'~ lOU ;;ul]' Ui)n.11.~ lU~)tU~:<!jOJU;) tl'upP~)S HII)(III.."1\ ,\'ll"IPljh
,11i1 JIl ,"ltuflS ;).I,)qi\' s,,"\~n,) U! ~nfN ;Hfl ,{q <;;,'ns~,'~ ,{Plr1~ I"l ',nIlH.j JJ::,'}pnu p;.n..;q "~1.{PtH lI\)!q;);)P S.JOP..":IJ!p If:~iJr:d V OJ il\l~,HS:hldo .:,{lJl,lIQ(ud ,\1:l,IH'.,
'~lJJ~'K'UO;' Aj:.,)Jg;;.: p~1U!lUap! )tj) ~."i~\IPPC ~() ~U()~l.l;lS"r:: ";t1Joddn~nrl 'U(l!pr l0.:nU;'l;;'lJoJlf;"I W11l ..;uop:-m U!I~lJ,,1:) ~l\m fJl ~)~)S:lJ~,,~q ,,"")~ln OJ ,)(1:\ .10.1 "purw.r.i l!I~l!~"Ir un..:
'..;p,'J!P JO UO~1.1r. 111;1I1,I;');1.10IU,1 ;'}lr!udo ;1p~.'OJtJ S;'i\'~I,q j~"1I(lP.1l,1J ,1tll \'J;1FQ ~HJl 0) ,J;HIUH!FHI ;:"!tjJ \\O!!f!' I!J J:1qlO S:1'fP.l lnq ", pun 'U;)'1It!;;Iq t"lJ Hi)n:ll~ jtL1H!.1".!tlJ\P r~ll"';1nh~J f~nhU rUO*;llq .\\,"I!."\,1.1 tW!I!l;,d
'1i5 (illtlU S,iPp,~P ;)tl1 ':(l~'\!l:'ll.~ p..1 Sll;','1I ;',~,,"j~),"q p,11,~'.1J+I~ --SIL'SfP
'l.lIld ,,~ 'lWn!h~d u ':'UOllL'J~ldn JnJ .t{H,'):'"'Il(1 ('I ',11 HlIl11JOl..hJi i.1U~.I"JJ()
- VH1'>;?\.1,1 ...
01 ;tl(1I1U:t'I 'JI l\,"Ilih:u \:
~1I!1.l>1\ .\\.ll,all 1P.,)!IHI*Ml um l!!'d ,1111 'V<l.,;"i(ll}{)"L:Z ,)111 l;'IplJ.'l
~)')~)4~ LlhUJ t)H!lP)~0J
~1tI"HI,"'I:\(l.ldtu~ .)!4!.:.;."\dS JP~ tl.'M} :';l~
.~, .'<..:o;::.'q II ;"I'Jt!0,\;\1 .In 'r'll!~'d" Hs nl J;}[Utl tIl': {iu!n"',::-~ ,.n-lN UU!l~l~'d .H{i u~ P;'ll"\,"lllh;'l H()!i.*I1~ :;)i.p
.'1.ji :,ulqd\,1
W.)H\i,,),,~t\} ,':"n1\ .III tu:d '\lqHI~p1J;1 pu~~
lI!l!<.;~.l;~p V :';~.liJ!F'UI~) ':-;'IU.l,\!l,'*'U;) <:\1 ".mcqu;\ III -:-:,"',,1.1(1.ltl
\\\"\)11] ~{l P,'!I!";>~)4. _\f~llt IIP!!I1;1d 90l-'i ,1Ll) s~1,,;';~'\sr.11 \[!P"lf!(lu:>d :")HN
- 'I.lt:i.ll!ttq pUV "DIP! ;)tll ';~,')IIJPUU(','" "!1q!H.l.)\<)[*.hH! (11 l.l;lJP
%~HUd UUH!P',l ..:Jtl.t I)()"i.: ~- ~")!P UCtll ,1,"'Qll\
py(.;,)~ \ * ..J :\rr: ll! !!Pl; pljll*~)<~"U','.ilf ~4l :'I!n {n ,l Jlwq 11,\\ ".~a!-'!
,,~ Wl!£1.1~fl \ lOl:'1,ll~p ~)1.n 'U(l1q:,~"\i' ,1\~f!J Wql "1"~111;)(f P::<,"'I,J,}JJJ :'W~l(UlllO,) ,\un :1,) t UItl\;H~ jU;""I!J1;1.1JOIH,; ~111~~
l~1'lh',r t1()[lll..xiz)j hm Ti1)IJ(, p:~n",~~ ,')"(1:\ <,',~O\~'J pUl~ "uo~L~~"'!d~ll~ .Jl' \\111Wii'\1",',\lll *r':J;)t.b:'il~: '.\ PP,,'Ul PIt1<.'1;"\ ,")HN 'll; \~lf'l'\!r:\,' ~,~q~ 1 JO "1111,,~1j ';:;IIJj"I~~lU ,\ue UfL\I.1 UOiWttl.h'JlH lIj~ilulrU.:Jd.)n ';'~I!,\!I;1!; !\,.... 'P;Hl ..1'\
,"liP l'HIr 1~1UU!l1l:Hf ;Hg .ltl:\(\i
- 1tp pm~
,'~HI 'll ~}~ ~ lH
!U;)t!I!pJ [Iv .10 un~mJ1p~,\,1 ".JV=l" \r:U()i<;s;,/Y\li:! S:<1,1t\fd ~Htt ,:~'>,;~:,,(ud ,~qqnd 1~ II]
... :J;pnF'Ju~ t1()I"[~JP SJ"l):lJlp ,"I ILl. un!!;m It.l;m:...1;lhlHL~ 1!*:,1nb,\t (1\
m~'~m~\p~)HI \,rr.li)~Jd ,1\11 ,}l{1
"*l..I~J:l",1p !90i"';: }1:L) {j i ) ~'Jjt.lJ1U!tI,T"W /U.U!'" I
\\,':,\;.'lj ,)ql .1\11 )d 0 [ ')il!J~ y) t)O;:'~'
,),J11(1,1 ;,ltp RUY,if1p .:'In';.;!
- >tli !-,SI1.'"I"itp Ol iiUP;"\"ll;
-JJE)~ H .I.l.J ;\qHfIlJtldd() liP fi!q,1.'HO
'unn,')' ~'W:p,)\UUll .10) "I1,,~,W[,.!J ,;,Ul:
pup UO!I!l.ld "if) :1(1 ,JJtrr;~;J.\1,)1)
-:w l~ jPpfi0Untll),"!;").1 ". HNd )O,1U I LlIC1J J,}UO~i~l,"'Id ,.'tJl >';,\\illpt pur iJO~)!I"d ;ltp
- "l~J;;l.ll ~l\jl p;J~I,II,)~~P ~UI H}Jd ;11.11 .I~11JT!
\:n,J,IO,1 ,\I!llnpnddo P\H'J~i ..)tl.L 'uo\l!I"d 1I0!Sp~(J S.... O).T,J.J!(J ;HIl ~snJs!p 0\ '~.1;)lU H}-Jd ,JIlP U(I!t.:m.(J0J\Uj
resolution of the entire petition. A final applies not only to the initial licensing director's decision is issued at the actions hut also to license amendments conclusion of the effort. and other activities such as decom missioning and licen~e renewals.
The Commission will not entertain requests I'm review of a director's decision. However,
- For ITInjor regulatory actions involving on its own, it mav review a decision within 25 preparation of environmental impact calendar days. . statements. NRC offers separate opportunities for public participation in its NRC Management Directive 8.1 L "Review enl'ironmemal proc'eedings.
Process for IOCFR 2,206 Petitions," contains more detailed information on citizen petitions,
- The publie can attend a number of For a free copy of the directive, write to the meeting, including open Commission and Superintendent uf Documents, U.S. staff meetings. periodic media briefings G()vernment Printiml Office, P.O. Box 37082, by Regional Administrators. and ~pecial Washington, DC 2(}0I3-7082, or call 202* meetinl!.s held near affected facilities to 512*1 g!50. inform local communities and respond to their que~tions.
More information 011 these activities can be Electronic Access found in NRCs pamphlet entitled. "Public Tbose parts of the monthly status report on Involvemt:nl in the Nuclear Re£'uJatorv 2.206 petitions that are Ilot of a ~ensitive Process," NUREG/BR-0215. ' .,
nature, as well as n:eently issued director's dCI.'isions. and Management Directive 8.11. are placed on the NR'C:'s web site at ll.U.u:li www.nrc.!!\)v{read! nil -rm/doc-co!1eet ions!
petiliollS~2-206/inde'(,html and in the agency's Publie Document Room.
PthcLP.succsses...fpr _public InvoJv.s:n~[ll In addition to the 2,206 petition process. NRC has several mher ways thal permit the puhlic to express concerns on maners related to the NRCs regulatory acllvitil,.'s.
- The NRC's allegation proce.n affords individuals who rai<.;c safety concerns a degrl."L' of prolcdion of {hei~' identity .
- Under lhe provisiuns of 10 eFR 2.802.
NRC provide..; an opportunity for the public to petition the agency for a I'lItenwking .
- The NRC'" lin:lIsillg process offers members of the pUblic, who arc sped fically affected by a licensing action.
an 0PPoI1unity to formally participate in licensing proceedings. This process
Office of Public Affairs U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
\Vashington, DC 20555-0001 Telephone 301-415-8200 or I-HOO-368-5642 0JUREG/BR-0200. Rev. 5 February 20m
W. Taylor -5 I have enclosed for your information 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 Management Directive 8.11 and the associated brochure NUREG/BR-0200, "Public Petition Process," Revision 5, issued February 2003, prepared by the NRC's Office of Public Affairs.
Sincerely, IRA! (Jennifer Uhle for)
Eric J. Leeds, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
- 1. Federal Register Notice
- 3. NUREG/BR-0200 cc: Listserv DISTRIBUTION: G20120458 PUBLIC RidsOcaMailCenter Resource LPL4 Reading File RidsOeMailCenter Resource RidsEdoMailCenter Resource RidsOpaMail Resource RidsNrrDirslpab Resource RidsResOd Resource RidsNrrDirslrib Resource RidsRgn4MailCenter Resource RidsNrrDorl Resource ARussell, NRRIDPR/PGCB RidsNrrDorlLp4 Resource LGibson, NRR/DORLlLPL4 RidsNrrDpr Resource MBalazik, NRR/DIRSIIPAB RidsNrrLAJBurkhardt Resource CCauffman, NRR/DIRSIIRIB RidsNrrMailCenter Resource JKirkland, R-IV/DRP/RPB-F/FCS RidsNrrOd Resource MHay, R-IV/DRP/RPB-F RidsNrrPMFortCalhoun Resource ADAMS Accession Nos.: Package ML13092A254; Incoming ML12180A124; Letter ML13092A248; FR Notice ML13092A264; NUREG/BR-0200 ML050900248 *via email
, OFFICE NRR/DORULPL4/PM NRR/DORULPL4/LA QTE* NRR/DPR*
NAME LWilkins JBurkhardt JDougherty ARussell DATE 04/03113 04/03/13 04/09/13 04/10/13 OFFICE NRRIDSS R-IV/DRP/RPB-F/FCS NRR/DIRSIIRIB NRR/DIRS/tPAB*
ilNAME TMcGinty JKirkland TKobetz RFranovich
~TE 04/16113 04/24113 04/17113 04/18/13 I II I FICE OGCIMLE NRR/DORUD NRR/D PJehle NLO ELeeds (JUhle for)
II NAME I DATE 04/29/2013 105/10/13 05/23/13 OFFICIAL RECORD COpy