Text

G20130561/James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant - Petition Pursuant to Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
	ML14034A028
Person / Time
Site:	FitzPatrick
Issue date:	02/12/2014
From:	Leeds E; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Lochbaum D; Union of Concerned Scientists
	Thadani M
Shared Package
ML13217A059	List: ML14034A028;
References
	2.206, G20130561, TAC MF2521
	Download: ML14034A028 (98)
	v • d • e

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 Mr. David L. Lochbaum, Director Nuclear Safety Project Union of Concerned Scientists PO Box 15316 Chattanooga, TN 37415

Dear Mr. Lochbaum:

February 12, 2014 On July 25, 2013, you filed a petition to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's)

Executive Director for Operations on behalf of the Alliance for Green Economy, Beyond Nuclear, Citizen's Awareness Network, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. The NRC has referred the petition to me under the guidance of Section 2.206, "Requests for Action Under this Subpart," of Title 1 0 of the Code of Federal Regulations ( 1 0 CFR) of the Commission's regulations. In your petition, you requested that the NRC, under 10 CFR 2.206, take enforcement action by imposing a regulatory requirement that all the tubes in the James A FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant's (Fitzpatrick's) condenser be replaced prior to the restart of the plant from its fall 2014 refueling outage. You also stated that the enforcement action you request is needed to protect the public from the owner of the plant opting to defer correcting a potential safety problem.

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

FitzPatrick is experiencing abnormally high occurrences of condenser tube failures.

The condenser tube leaks could cause the normal heat sink to become unavailable which in turn can complicate the operator's response to a reactor shutdown.

The NRC's Reactor Oversight Process also recognizes the elevated risk associated with a reactor shutdown with complications.

Operating experience indicates that condenser tube leaks have contaminated the reactor coolant with impurities from the condenser cooling water and caused extensive damage to nuclear power plant components.

The comparison of historical data of U.S. nuclear power plant condenser tube leaks shows that the James A FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant has experienced over 30 percent of the condenser tube leak events of the entire U.S. fleet in the past decade.

On November 13, 2013, you and your copetitioners met with the NRC's Petition Review Board (PRB) to discuss your petition. The Petition Review Board will consider the results of that discussion in its petition evaluation.

On January 30, 2014, the NRC staff informed you that the agency has accepted your July 25, 2013, request for the NRC to consider enforcement action regarding Fitzpatrick (under 10 CFR 2.206).

Staff members from NRC's Region 1 office and from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (specifically in the Divisions of Operating Reactor Licensing, Engineering, Safety Systems, and Risk Assessment) are evaluating your petition under 10 CFR 2.206.

I have enclosed for your information a copy of the notice that the NRC will file with the Office of the Federal Register for publication (Enclosure 1 ). I have also enclosed for your information a copy of Management Directive 8.11 "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions," (Enclosure 2) and the associated brochure NUREG/BR-0200, "Public Petition Process," (Enclosure 3) prepared by the NRC's Office of Public Affairs. Finally, I have also enclosed the official transcript of proceedings "1 0 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board RE: Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant" (Enclosure 4).

As provided by 10 CFR Section 2.206, the NRC will take action on your request within a reasonable time. I have assigned Mr. Mohan Thadani, Senior Project Manager for James A.

Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant to be the petition manager for your petition. You can reach Mr. Thadani at Mohan.Thadani@nrc.gov or at (301) 415-1476.

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

Enclosures:

1. Federal Register Notice

2. Management Directive 8.11

3. NUREG/BR-0200

4. Petition Review Board Transcript dated November 13, 2013 Docket No 50-333 cc: See next page Eric J.

eds, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

cc:

Listserv Mr. Lawrence M. Coyle Entergy Nuclear Operations P. 0. Box110 Lycoming, NY 13093 Paul Gunter, Director Reactor Watchdog Project Beyond Nuclear 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400 Takoma Park, MD 20912 Ms. Jessica Azulay, Organizer Alliance for Green Economy 2013 E. Genesee Street Syracuse, NY 13210 Tim Judson, President Citizens Awareness Network 599 East ?'h St., #6D Brooklyn, NY 11218 Deb Katz, Executive Director Citizens Awareness Network P.O. Box 83 Shelburne Falls MA 01370

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docket No. 50-333 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, LLC James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Request for Action AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Request for Action; receipt.

[7590-01-P]

SUMMARY

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is giving notice that by petition dated July 25, 2013, David L. Lochbaum, on behalf of the Alliance for Green Economy, Beyond Nuclear, Citizen's Awareness Network, and Union of Concerned Scientists, together referred to as petitioners, has requested that the NRC take enforcement action with regard to James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant. The petitioner's requests are included in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 50-333 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, using the following methods:

Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID 50-333. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone:

301-492-3668; e-mail: Caroi.Gallagher@nrc.gov.

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On July 25, 2013, the petitioners requested that the NRC take action with regard to James A FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant. The petitioners request that the NRC, under Section 2.206 of 10 CFR, take enforcement action by imposing a regulatory requirement that all the tubes in the James A FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant's condenser be replaced prior to the restart of the plant from its fall 2014 refueling outage. As the basis for this request, the petitioners state that the enforcement action is needed to protect the public from the owner of the plant opting to defer correcting a potential safety problem. James A Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant is experiencing abnormally high occurrences of condenser tube failures. The condenser tube leaks could cause the normal heat sink to become unavailable which in turn can complicate the operator's response to a reactor shutdown. The petitioners point out that the NRC's reactor oversight process also recognizes the elevated risk associated with a reactor shutdown with complications. Operating experience indicates that condenser tube leaks have contaminated the reactor coolant with impurities from the condenser cooling water, and caused extensive damage to nuclear power plant components. The petitioners explained their concerns with comparison of historical data of U.S plants' condenser tube leaks that showed that the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant has experienced over 30 percent of the condenser tube leak events of the entire U.S. fleet in the past decade.

The request is being treated pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

( 10 CFR) 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. As provided by 10 CFR 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this petition within a reasonable time. The petitioner and the co-petitioners met with NRC's Petition Review Board (PRB) on November 13, 2013 (transcript at ADAMS Accession No.ML14036A234) to further discuss their concerns. The results of that discussion were considered in the board's determination regarding the petitioner's request for action and in establishing the schedule for the review of the petition. A copy of the petition is available for inspection under ADAMS Accession No. ML13217A061.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this J.2:tb.._ day of February 2014.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

J~n?d~~

ffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

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

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSION To:

Subject*

Purpose:

Office and Division of Origin:

Contact:

Date Approved:

Volume:

Directive:

Availability:

TN: DT 20 NRC Management Directives Custodians Transmittal of Directive 8.11, "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions" Directive and Handbook 8.11 are being revised to address stakehoJder 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 of criteria for technical meetings with the petitioners; and (3) the addition of a requirement to request comments from the petitioner(s) and affected licensee(s) on the proposed director's decision, with associated steps to resolve, and document the resolution of, those comments.

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Andrew J. Kugler, (301) 415-2828 or Donna Skay, (301) 415-1322 July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) 8 Licensee Oversight Programs 8.11 Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Rules and Directives Branch Office of Administration.

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

TN: DT 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.

V

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

\\_)

Review Process* for

\\.._/.... *....

10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Directive 8.11

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

'Directive 8.11 Contents Policy. :........................................................ 1 Objectives...................................................... 1 Organizational Responsibilities and Delegations of Authority.......... 2 Executive Director for Operations (EDO) * *....... *.. * *...................

2 General Counsel (GC).................................................. 2 Office Directors........................................ *............... 2 Regional Administrators................................................ 3 2.206 PRB Chairperson.................... ~............................ 3 Associate Directors - Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). *.. *.. *....

4 Division Directors...................................................... 4 Director, Division of Licensing Project Management (DLPM),

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). *...... *..................

4

\\...J' Applicability...................... *.............................. 4 Handbook...................................................... 4 Definitions.............................................................. 4 References...................................................... 5 Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 2~; 2000) iii

VI\\ REau1 _

fj~

....,~

(~) U. S. Nuclear RegUI8t0ry Comlnission

'(,"'~****ott~#.

. Vo~ume: 8 Li.ce:nse~.Qyersight Prqgr~ms NRR Review Process for 10 *CFR 2.206 Petitions Directive 8.11 Policy (8.11-01)

Objectives (8.11-02)

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 l~cense; or for other. appropriate. enforcement-related action, as distinguished from actions such as licensing or rulemaking). This policy is codified at Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 2.206). The Commission may grant a request for action, in whole or in part, take other action that satisfies the concerns raised by the requester, or deny the request. Requests that raise health and safety and other concerns without requesting enforcement-related action will be* revie~ed by means other than the 10 CfR 2.206 process.

~*.. t f

~

. To ensure; the publi~ he~lth an~ safety, through the prompt and thorough evaluation of any potential problem addressed by a petition filed under 10 CFR 2.206. (021)

:ro pr:ovide. for appropriate participation by a petitioner in, and obseiVation by the pu~lic of, :NRC's. _decisionmaking activities related to a 10 CFR 2.206 petition. (022)

. 1','

To ensure effective. co.m~~nication 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 bolder relevant to the petition. (023)..

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

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

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

Executive Director for Operations (EDO)

(031)

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

General Counsel (GC)

(032)

Office Directors (033) 2 Conducts legal reviews and provides advice on 10 CFR 2.206 petitions and, upon specific request from the staff in special cases or where the petition raises legal issues, reviews drafts of director's decisions. (a)

Provides legal advice to the Commission, EDO, office directors, and staff on other matters related to the 10 CFR 2.206 process. (b)

\\....._/,

Have overall responsibility for assigned petitions. Because 10 CFR 2.206 petitions re*quest enforcement-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, inost 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, Federal Register notices 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) chaiqjerson. (e)

Designate a petition manager for each petition~ (f)

Approved: July 1, 1999.

(Revised: October 25, 2000)

Office Directors (033) (continued)

Volume,8, Licensee Oversight Programs

Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Directive s.11*

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

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

Designate an office 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 and/or a director's decision on a 2.206 petition. (a)

Make the petition manager aware or'information 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 of petitions and in de Iibera tions 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 Service manager, who will-

Convene PRB me~tings.. (a).

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

Ensure appropriate documentation ofPRB meetings. (c)

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

Appro~ed: July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) 3

Volume 8, Liceli~*ee Oyersight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Dii*ective s.it Associate Directors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)

(036)

Division Directors (037)

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

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

Director, Division of Licensing Project Management (DLPM),

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)

(038)

Appoints the Agency 2.206 Petition Coordinator, normally a DLPM

.\\_)

staff person.

"-..)

Applicability (8.11-04)

Handbook (8.11-05)

Definitions *

(8.11-06) 4 The policy and guidance in this directive and handbook apply to all NRC employees.

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

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 maybe proper. The request must meet the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206 *(see Part III of Handbook 8.11).

Licensee. Throughout the handbook, any references to a licensee shall be interpreted to include certificate holders; applicants for licenses or certificates, or other affected parties. *

\\..__/

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

References (8.11-07)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206' Petitions Directive 8.11 Code of Federal Regulations-10 CFR 2.206, "R~quests for Action Under This Subpart."

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

10 CFR 21205, "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 Regulatocy 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 0

o

0 oo,

~

I 0 o o 0

o o

o

! ~

1, 0

0 o

0

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

Handbook 8.11 Parts I -IV Contents Part I Introduction...........................................................

1 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206 (10 CFR 2.206) (A)......................................... ~.......

1 General 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 Ill 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.titi~n Evaluation (C)..... ~ : * ! *.... * *............ * * *.. * *.. *

11 Criteria for R~viewing ~eti.tion~ Yndex: lO_<;FR 2.206 (1)......... *.......

11 Criteria for Rejecting Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206 (2).*..............'.. 11 qiteria 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 (I).........

~.. ~.. ~... :... *. i, * *** : * : ~ **** ~ * * * *

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

~-----------n_

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)...... o **** o **** o ***** o ******** o

o o ** 0 o

0 19 Request for Licensee Input (2)... o ***** o o *** o ****** o

o ** o

o o ** o ** 0 o 0 ~

20 Technical Review Meeting With the Petitioner (3). o ***** o o o

o

o

o o o ** o

20 Additional Petition Review Board (PRB) Meetings ( 4)..* 0 ********** 0 ** 0 20 Schedule (B).......*.*. ~..*.*.......... : :.... *.... *.. *. *.. *. *. *... *..

20 Keeping the Petitioner Informed (C). o ****** o

o

o ** o o

o ***** o o o o

o

o

o o 0 o 22 Updates to Management and the Public (D) o 0 o

o 0 o o o 0 o 0 0

0 ** 0 o ** 0 0 ** o o o 0 22 PartY The Director's Decision 24 Content and Format (A) *.....*......*..............***.*..*.*....... :.

24 Final Versus Partial Director's Decisions (B) o o

o o

o ** o ****** o *** o ** o ** o

0 25 Granting the Petition (C).... *... *............... * *........ *.. *. *.. *...

25 Denying the Petition (D).. *... *...... *.. *.... *.... *.. *...... *.. * * * *....

26 Issuing the Proposed Director's Decision for Comment (E) 0 **** 0 ** 0 *** 0 0

0 0

26 Comment Disposition (F) *.*.*.*.......*..............*... : * *.........

27 Issuing the Director's Decision (G) 0 o **** o

0 o ** o ***** 0 0

* *** 0 0

0 o ** o

o

27 Administrative Issues (H)......... * *...................................

28 Commission Actions (I) * ~.. * *. *.... *. *.. *....... *........ *.. *. * *..... *.

30 I

Exhibits 1

Simplified 2.206 Process Flow Chart.. o

o **** o ********* 0 **** o

o ***** 0 31 2

Petition Manager Checklist...... o o ** o ********* o ~ ** ~ **** o *** o ** o * *

33

. 3 Sample Oosure Letter for Requests That Are Not 2.206 Petitions. o *** o

36

. 4 Sample Ac~o~ledgment Letter o ** o **** o ******** o ******** o

o * * * * * *

37 5

Sample Federal Register Notice............. o ** : ***** o ******** o

o * * *

38

. 6

. Sample !?~rector's _Decision and Cover Letter. ;......*.. o ** o

o

o * * * * *

39

. 7

Sample Fe¢e~al,Register.Notice for Director's Decision........*... 0. o...

43

8 Sample L~t~e~s Requesting Comments on the Proposed iv.

Director's Decision. * *............................................

45 Approved:

July*l, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000)

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

.. *Handbook8.11--Part I Part*I Introduction Title 10 of.the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206 (10 CFR 2.206) (A)

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

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

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

General Ca-q.tions (B)

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

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

Any mention outside NRC of an ongoing 01 or 01G 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 ~5, 2~00) 1

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

General Cautions (B) (continued) 2 If the petition contains information 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 or. If the petition contains information on alleged wrongdoing involving an NRC employee, NRC contractors, or NRC vendors, promptly notify OIG. (3)

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

'\\,.._./

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

Handbook 8.11 Part II Part.II Initiai**starr.*Actions NRC's Receipt of a -Petition (A)

Process Summ,~rY (1) *.* :..

After NRC receives a pe~tion, the Executive J?irector for Operations (EDO) assigns it to the di~edor of the appropriate office for evaluation and response. The original incoming petition is sent to the office and a

.. copy of the petition is s~nt_to the Officeofthe'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 of the decision, although it will not entertain a request for review of the director's decision.

Assignment of Staff Action (2)

Petitions maybe in the form of requests for NRC action that may or may not cite 10 CFR 2206 and may initially be directed to staff other than the EDO'. I~. any of these cases, the staff person who receives the document should make an initial evaluation as to whether the document meets the criteria for review under 10_CFR 2~206 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 *n~t *specifically cite *10* CFR 2.206, the staff will

** attempt to contact l}le petitioner by 'telephone to determine if he or she

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

,: determine that a request. for\\Var4ed for staff action is not a petition for

. emorcement-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 inake* its.recommendations, as described in Part III of this handbook. (a)

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

3

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

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

Assignment of Staff Action (2) ( contin1,1ed)

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

it will fonvard the request to the Office of the EDO (OEDO) for assignment of action. Petitions also may be fonvarded to the OEDO from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel or from a Presiding Officer in.accordance with 10 CPR 2.1205(1)(2). The EDO will assign each petition to the appropriate office for action. If the document does not cite 10 CPR 2.206 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 2.206 and are addressed to the EDO will be added to the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). by OEDO. OEDO will not declare these petitions official agency records nor will it make them: publicly available. Those steps will be carried out by the assigned office as described below. (c)

Office Action (B)

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

The Agency 2.206 Petition Coordinator (appointed by the Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)), receives copies of all2.206 petitions from OEDO

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

Petition Manager Action (q 4

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

. petition manager determines that a doct1ment contains allegations or other sensitive informatiori, he or she should inunediately contact the ADAMS Help Desk (301-415-1234) to prevent releasing the document to the public. (1)

Approved: *July 1, 1999 (Revised:* October 25; 20~0)

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

Handbook 8.11'.Part II Petition Manager Action (C) (continued)

Before the petition is released to the public, before the PRB meeting, and in any event within 1 week of receipt of the 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 of the petitioner as to how the matter will be handled (i.e., as an allegation or not) and document the petitioner's agreement in writing, usually in the fonn of a memorandum to file. In cases where the staff identifies certain issues in a petition that it believes are more appropriately addressed using the allegation process, the petition manager will obtain the agreement of the petitioner as to how these issues will be handled (i.e., as an allegation or not) and document the petitioner's agreement in writing. If all or part of the petition is treated as an allegation, this fact will be documented in the allegation acknowledgment letter. (see Management Directive (MD) 8.8, "Management of Allegations"). (2)

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 1~1 of this han~ book. (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) 6 make tip a part of the petition will be redacted from copies sent to the

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

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

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

\\..__/'

- Volume 8, Licensee* Oversight Programs rteliew_ Process for 10 CFR 2.~06 Petitions

Handbook 8.11* Part III Part III*

0

~etition Revi~w.Boa~d (PRB)

General (A)

Schedule (1)

. Th~ assigned office' holds ~ PRB meeting to review the 2.206 petition.

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

Board Composuici~ * (2)

Thei>rm:a;~6f~~) *:!

A PRB chairperson (generally a Senior Executive Service manager) (i)

~

A petition manager (ii) * *

. ~ **: ~~t tri~a~e~~~t ~d ~

~.rie~ (iii)

*

A ;representative. froiD *the Omee *of fuVeStigations (01), as needed (iv)

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

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

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

General (A) (continued)

Board Composition (2) (continued)

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

Preparation for the PRB Meeting (B) 8 The petition manager will provide copies of the petition to PRB and assist in scheduling the review board meeting. The petition manager also will arrange for cognizant technical staff members to attend the meeting, as necessary, and prepare a presentation for the review board.

In assigning technical staff members to the petition, management will consid~r ~ny potential conflict from assigning any staff person who was previou5ly 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 2.206 (a)

A diSCU;Ssion of the safety significance of the issues raised (b)

Recommendations for any immediate action (whether requested or not) (c)

Recomniendation8 on whether or not assistance from OI, OE, or OG_~ is necessary" (d)*

A request for confirmation concerning referral to OI 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 teleco~er~n~e, if held, is an opportunity for the *petitioner to* provide any relevant additional explanation and support for th_e request in advance o~ the PRB's evaluation. The staff will hold this type of meeting if the petitioner desires it. If a decision. is required* on a petitioner's request for immediate action before the petiti~ner's presentation can be scheduled; that decision will not be delayed. (3)

~

.. Approved: July 1, *1999 (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 m~nager' also Will invite the licensee to participate in the meeting or teleconference to* erisure that it"understands the concerns

... about its facility or: activities. The p~ 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 listen in by telephone f~r 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 teleco¢erence 'is separate from ~he ( clo~ed) PRB meeting during which the PRB members develop their reco~endations with respect to the petition. (4).

The petition ~anagerwiu ensu!.e that an staff persons at the meeting or

teleconference are aware of the need to protect sensitive infonnation from disclosure. Sensitive inform~tion includes safeguards or facility security information,.. proprietary or confidential commercial

. information, or*infonriation relating to* an ongoing investigation of

wro~gdoing. (5)

If **the petitioner*.choo's~s *to.address 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 H;e.adquarters Op~rations.Center (301-816-5100). The tape recording

.... from ~he Operati~ns _Center. is conv?rted to a printed t;ranscript that is treat~d as a s~pplem~nt to the pe~ition and is sent to the petitioner and the same distribution as the original petition. The petition manager will make arr~~gements for.transcription :service. by submitting an NRC

. Form~8?.t~ th~ Atomic Safety a~~ Licensing Board ;panel or by sending an. *e-m.~il. to: '~Coirrt Rep~rter," giying the same information as requested ori the.~o~ ~87. (6)..

0

~

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 (Relised:

October 25, 2000) 9

~------------U-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) 10*

met. MD 3~5 allows for 'ess than W days' public notice, if necessary, with appropriate management concurrence. The meeting should be notiCed as ~ meeting between the ~~staff, the petitioner, and the license*e (~ess the licensee chooses not to participate). The licensee is invited ~o participate, as in the teleconference described above, and members of the public may -attend as observers. The meeting is transcribed and the transcript is treated in the same manner as in the case of a telephone briefuig. (7) 0 The pe~itioner may reques~ that a reasonabl~ number of associates be p'ermitted *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 meeting or teleconference, the chairperson will provide a brief 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 oppo~unityto 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 scheduling5: and holding the petitioner presentation may impact the established time goals for holding the regular* PRB meeting and issuing the acknow.ledgment letter. Any impac~ should be kept to* a minimum. (10)

The petition manager will review the transcript and, where necessary, edit it to ensure it accurately reflects'\\vhai was said in the meeting or teleconference. Corrections are only.necessaiyfor errors that affect the meaning of the text of the transcript. Tlie petition manager is not exp~cted to correct inconsequential errors. (11)

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

*the* same. distribution (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 (Revi~ed: October 25, 2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process *~OI: 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions *

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

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

Criteria for RevieWing Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206 (1)

~..

. The staff will review a petition u~der the requirements of 10 CFR 2.206 if the request meets all of the.following criteria-( a)

The petition contains a request for 'enforcement-related action such as issuing an. order modifying, stispending, or revoking a license, issuing a notiCe of violation, with or without 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 of support bey~n~ the bare assertion; The supporting facts must be credible and sufficient to warrant 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 available, 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 inform the petitioner of the ongoing proceeding and will not treat the request under 10 CFR 2.20~. (iii).

An 'exception to the first two criteria is any petition to intervene and request for hearing in a licensing proceeding that is referred to the 10 CFR 2:206 pro.cess in.aecordance\\yith 10 CFR 2.1205(1)(2). These referrals may be made when the p'etition 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

. substantive* issues iii the request for a hearing 'or intervention will be Tead as

an implicit *request for *eriforcement-related action, thus

_

satisfying the criteria 'for treatment 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-Approve~: July 1, 1999 (Revised: Oct!lber 25, 2000) 11

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part III Criteria for Petition Evaluation (C) (continued) 12 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 'Yith9ut supporting facts (e.g., the quality assura~ce at the facility is inadequate). These assertions will be t~eated as routine corresponc;fence or as allegations that will be referred 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 'achieved, the issues have been resolved, and the resolution is applicable to the facility in question. This would include requests to

"-._)_

re_consider 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 2.206 petition unless they present significant new information. (b)

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

The request addresses deficiencies within existing NRC rules. This type ~frequestshould be addressed as a petition for rule making. (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 of diluting the importance of any petition and recommend whether or not con~olidation is appropriate. The assigned office director will determine whether or not to consolidate the petitions.

. App.roved: July 1, i999 (Revised: October 25, 2000)

u PRB Meeting (D)

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

Handbook 8.11 Part III

PRB ensures that an appropriate petition review process is followed.

The purposes of ~e PRB p~ocess are to-(1)

Determine whether or not the* petitioner's request meets the criteria for review as a 10 CFR2.206 petition (see Part III(C) of this handbook)'(a)

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

or rulemaking) (b)

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

. Establish.. a schedule for responding to the petitioner so that a commitment is niade by man:agement arid the technical review staff to respond to the pe.~ition in*a timely in'anner (see Part IV of this handbook for guidance regarding schedules) (d)

0.

.

Address the possi~ility. of issuing a partial director's decision (e)

D~termine whether or*not.the petition should be consolidated with another petition( f).. * ~*....

Determine whether or not referral to OI or OIG is appropriate (g) 0 ol Determine whether or not there is a need for OGC to participate in the review (h)

Determine whether M 'ri6t ~h~ *u~~nsee ~hould be requested to respond to the peti~ion (i)......... *..

~

Determine whether or riot th~ petition' is sufficiently complex that additional.review b~ard *m~etings shoUld be scheduled to ensure that suita~le progress" is being made '(j): **. :

I

~ ' o I

I

.~

0 1

. *.The PRB meeting is a closed.meeting, separate from any meeting with

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

... meeting,.the petition. manager briefs PRB on the petitioner's

. request( s ), any background 'information, the need for an independent technical review, and a proposed plan for resolution, including target completion dates. The petition manager, with the assistance of the

4 Approved: July.1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) 13

Volume 8, Licensee. Oversight Programs R~yi~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 forth~

~eview~* if appropriate. (3)

Informing the Petitioner of the Results (~)

After P~ 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 recoillill:~ndations 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 2.206, of the disposition of any reques~for immediate action, of how the review will proceed, and that *an acknowledgment letter is forthcoming. If the staff plans to take

\\._)

an action that is contrary to an immediate 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) 14 After informing the petitioner of the pertinent PRB recommendations,

. the petition manager will offer the petitioner an opportunity to co~~nt 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 so as not to adversely affect the established petition review schedule. (i)

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

"'-../.

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

This meeting or teleconferen~, ~f held, is an opportunity for the petitioner to provide any relevant additional explanation and support for the request in light ofPRB's recommendations. The PRB members may ask,questions to clarify the p~titioner's request. If staff decisions on any of the petitioile~'s illlll?-ediate cictiC?n *requests are required before the petitioner's presentation can be scheduled, those decisions

.will not be delayed. The forinat of the meeting.or teleconference, application of MD 3.5~ transcription, etc., and the requirements to edit

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

After this discussion, PRB will consider the need to modify any of its recommendations. The final recom1nendations will be included in the acknowledgment letter. The acknowledgment letter will addi:ess any

- comments the petitioner made concerning *the initial PIU3

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 information constitutes a new petition that will be treated separately from the initial petition. (3)

.The requirements f!lr 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 th:e Petitioner (q)

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

Requests.Tha't Do Not ~eet th~,Criteria (1)

If PRB, with o~ce-level mmagement.oon~ence, determines that the petition does not meet the Criteria for review *as a 10 CFR 2206 petition, the petition manage~ th~n prep~es 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 ~ibi~ 3 for an example. (a)

. The

petition manager will attach. the original petition and any

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

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

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

Requests That Meet the Criteria (2)

If the PRB finds that the petition meets the criteria for review as a 10 CFR 2.206 petition, the petition manager prepares an acknowl~dgment 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 of facility operation l:llltil 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 respo~~* (a)

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

The petition manager will attach the original 2.206 petition and any enclosure(s) to the Reading File copy of the acknowledgment letter. (c)

In rare cases the staff may be prepared to respond to the merits of the petition immediately. In this case, the staff can combine the functions of the ackilowledgment letter and the director's decision into one document. A similar approach. would be taken in combining the a.ssoci~t7d Federal Register notices. (d).

Se~ding Documents.to the Petitioner (H) 16 If the PRB determines that the request is a 2.206 petition, then the petition manager will-(1)

Add the petitioner to the service list(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; (Revised: October 25, 2000)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supplements to the Petition (I)

A petitioner. will sometimes subplit a supplement to his or her petition.

The petition m*anager. will review the supplement promptly and determine wheth~r. or** not_.it contains allegations or sensitive

. iriforination. If the supplement appears to oontain information of this nature, 'the petition* manager must. obtain the agreement of the pe*ioner as to how these issues will be handled (i.e., as an allegation or not) and document the petitioner's agreement in writing, usually in the form c;>f a ~~mor~md~ to fi~e.lf all or p~rt of the supplement is treated as an allegation, thi~.fact* will.be documented in the allegation acknowledgment letter (see_ MD 8.8, "Management of Allegations").

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

The p*etition nia~ager: will ;also ens~r~ *the supplement receives *the same d~stribution *as.the petition* and y.ill forward a copy of the supplement to the P.RB members. 'The PRB ~~mbers will review the supplement and detemune whether thefrieed to meet formally to discuss it and, if so,' whether or not to offer the petitioner an opportunity to discuss the' supplement with the PRB members before the board review~ the s:upplement (see Part III(B) of~s handbook). In deciding whether* a'formal.PRB.. meeting is needed, 'the PRB members will

. con~ider the safety: sigilific~uice. and c9mplexitY of the information in the supplement.*aarifi~ations of previous information will generally not require a new PRB meeting. If a new PRB meeting is not convened, the petition manager will include the supplement in the ongoing petition review and no further action is necessary. (2)

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

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

Part III.

Supplements to the Petition (I) (continued).

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

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

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

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

I Referral to OI 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 18 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 disctiss itS recommendations with respect to the supplement. (See Part III(F) of this handbook for information on this type of meeting 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 ari'acknowledgment letter

to* the petitioner, reset. the 120-day*. clock to the date of the new acknowledgment letter, and inform the Office of the Executive Director for Operations (OEDO). ( 4) ifPRB determines that the suppleme~twill be treated as a new petition (i.e., not consolidated wit~ the existing petition), the assigned office

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

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

."--._../

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

Handbook 8.11 Part IV

Petition Review Activities

~e~ewiD:g t~~ ;fetition (A)

. r

. *J~teromce Coordination (1)

~

J I

The petition manager coordinates *an information required for the petition review.-* The petition ~anager al~o advises his or her management of the need for review and advice from the Office of the General Counsel (O~C) regarding ~ petition in special cases. When 1.: appropriate, an Associate Director in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, a Division Director in the Office of Nuclear Material

.. L Safety and Safeguards,'or tlie'Director of the Office of Enforcement

requests OGGinvolvement through the OGqspecial counsel assigned to 2.206 matters. (a)

All information related to a Wrongdoing investigation by the Office of

Investigations (OI) 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

. 2206 petition~ the assigried office 'director, or 4is designee, maintains

. copies. of any documentS: reqUired and ensures that no copies of documents related to *an OI or *oiG investigation are placed in the docket file or the Agencyiwide Documents :Access and Management System (ADAMS) without the approval of the Director, 01, or the IG,.

respectively. (b)

~

I.';

o o

,ro App~6ved:

J~ly i, 1999 * :..

(Revised: October 25, 2000)

~-------------*L 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)

Schedule (B) 20 If appropriate, the petition manager will request the licensee to provide a voluntary response to the NRC on the issues specified in the petition, usually within 30 days. This staff request will usually be made in writing. The petition manager will advise the licensee that the NRC will make the licensee's response publicly available and remind the licensee to provide a copy of the response to the petitioner. The licensee inay voluntarily submit information relative to the petition, even if the NRC staff has not requested any such information. (a)

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

licensee should avoid. using proprietary.. or personal privacy information that requires protection from public disclosure. If such information is necessary 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 meeti~g witli. the* p~tltl~ner will be held whenever the staff believes that such a meeting (whether requested by the petitioner, the licensee, or the. staff) would be beneficial to the staff's review of the petition. Meeting guidance is provided in MD 3.5. The petition manager will ensure that the meeting does not compromise the protection of sensitive information. A meeting will not be held simply

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

Additional Petition Review Board (P~) ~eetings (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.

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 (Revised: October 25, 2000)

Schedule (B) (continued)

Volume 8; Licensee Oversight Progra~s Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions

Handbook s:11 Part IV director's decision.. The actual schedule should be shorter if the

.. number arid compl~~ty of ~he comments.. allow. The Office of the Executive Director for Ope~ations (OEI:?O) tracks the first target date, and any cha~ge of the dat~ require~ approval by the ED 0. The petition manager monitors the progress of any.01 investigation and related enforcement actions. ~nforcement. actions that are prerequisites to a

. director's decision ~hO\\J:ld be.expedited and completed in time to meet the 120-day goal. Investigations by PI and OIG associated with petitions should be expedited to t~e extent-practicable. However, the goal of issuing the proposed director's de'ci~ion 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 of an investigation by 01 or OIG, or a referral to the Department of Justice (DOJ), or if NRC decides to await a Department of Labor 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 director's decision should be issued for comment within the ongimil 120. 4!1YS. _When. the.staff receives the results of the investigation, it will promptly dev.elop and issue a proposed final director's decision for co~ent.. See Part V of this handbook for a discussio~ of partial director's decisions. (1)

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

other. ~easons (e.. g., very *complex issues); the appropriate level of ma~agement in -the assigned. office.. determines the need for an e_xtension 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 tpe* coinments received and provide the schedule* to *issu~' the di~ector's dec~si_on to the Agency 2.206 Petition

* * *coordinator for i~clusion* in the ne~ status* report. (3)

Approved: July i~'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 (C)

The petition manager ensures that the petitioner is notified at least every '60 days of the status of the petition, or more frequently if a slgnifican~ action occurs. If a significant action will be reported in the monthly *status repo~ 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 pet~ti~ner will not indicate-

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

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

Enforcement action under consideration (3)

Updates t~ 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 2.206 Petition Coordinator combines all the status reports, including staff performance metrics for petitions processed under 10 CFR 2.206 for the current year, in a monthly report to the EDO from the Associate Director, Project Licensing and Technical Analysis. The Agency 2.206 Petition Coordinator also ensures the document is added to ADAMS and made publicly available and e-mails a 'copy to "NRCWEB" for placement on the NRC's Web site. (1) *

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

. safeguards or facility security information, proprietary or confidential

. t:ommercial information, information. relating to an ongoing investigation of wrongdoing or enforcement.actions under development, or information about referral of matters to the DOJ and should be handled in accordance with MD 12.6, "NRC Sensitive

---.)

Unclassified Information Security Program." The Agency 2.206 *

'-.._..)

22

* - A(iproved: July 1,' 199~f (Revised:* *October 25, 20?0)

u u

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

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

. : Handbook 8.11 Part IV Petition Coordinator will protect this.information from disclosure by placing the affected status report(s) in a separate enclosure to the status report, clearly marking the status report to the EDO, and redacting the s_ensitive information from the version. of the report that is made public. (2)

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

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

Director's decisions

are also

published

in NRC Issuances (NUREG-0750). (3)

Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) 23

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbo.ok 8.11 *Part V * * *

PartY The. Director's Decision Content and Forma~ (A) 24 The petitlon'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 fmal director's decision will refer to, but does not have to repeat the content of, the partial director's decision. After management's review, the petition manager incorporates any proposed revisions in the decision. (2)

If appropriate, the decision and the transmittal letter for the director's decision or partial director's decision should. acknowledge that the petitioner identified valid issues and should specify the corrective actions that have been or will be taken to address these issues, notwithstanding that some or all of the petitioner's specific requests for action have not been granted. (3)

"-../'

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

u Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Program~

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

If the Office oflnvestigations (OI) has completed its investigation of a

potential wrongdoing issue* and the* matter.lias been referred to the Department ofJustice (DOJ);~he petitiQn manager will contact OI and the Office of *Enforcement. (OE) to coordinate NRC's actions. For petitions assigned to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR),

the petition manager also*win contact the*NRR Senior Enforcement Coordinator. The staff may need t~) withhold action on the petition in keeping with the Memorandum of Understanding with DOJ. (4)

I If the.results of a.wrong4oing investigation by OI in relation to the petition are av~ilab~e, the staff will consid~r these results in completing the.. action on the,petition.. OI must concur in the accuracy and characterization of ~he 01 findings and conclusions that are used in the decision. (5) r*.

The petition manager will obtain OE's review of the director's decision for potential enforcement implications. For petitions assigned to NRR, the petition manager also will provide a copy of the director's decision to the NRR Senior Enforcement Coordinator. (6)

Final Versus).>artial Di~ector's D~~isio~s (B)

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 format, con~ent, ~~d method of processing a partial director's decision are the s"ame *as that of a' director's decision (as described above) arid an aci::ompariyiiig -.Fe4eral. Register notice would still be prepared (see ~~bit. 7)._ 'H~wever, the partial director's decision should clearly indi~:at~ th.ose portions.<?f the. pe.tition that remain open, explain the reasons.for the ~elay to the extent p~actical, and provide the staff's schedule for the final director's decision. If all of the issues in the petition can be resolved together, then the director's decision will

. address all of the issues. (2)

Granting the ~etitioit (C). :.. *.. _

...., '. ~.

Once the staff has d~termined 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

Vol_ume 8, _Lic~nsee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part-V Granting the Petition (C) (continued) actions the. licensee took voluntarily 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 r~que~ted and/or takes actions other than those reque~ted to address the ~nderlying problem. If the petition is granted in full, the director's decision will explain the bases for granting the petition and state that the Commission's action res~lting from t~e director's decision is outlined in the Commission's

order or other appropriate communication. If the 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 "Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206" for the office director's signatu~e. The decision will explain the

\\,.__./

bases for the denial and discuss all matters raised by the petitioner in suppo~. of the request.

Issuing the Proposed Director's Decision for Comment (E) 26 After the assigned office director' has concurred in the proposed director's decision, the petition. manager will issue the letters to' the petitioner and the licensee enclosing t~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 dec~sion. The letters will request a response within a set period of time, nominally2 weeks. The.amount of

time. allowed for the response may be adjusted depending on circumsta_nces. For exam pi~, for very 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 director's decision, should be transmitted to the recipients electronically or by fax, if possible. (2)

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

v Com~ent Disposition (F)

-~...

Volume 8, Licensee* Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 ParCV After the comment period closes on the proposed director's decision, the assigned office will review the comnients 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 assistanc~ of the technical staff, as appropriate.

Although the staff requested comments rr~m 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 comm~nts 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 manager will include in the director's decision a reference to the letters that requested comments.and a statement that no comments were received. (2)

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

Issuing the Director's Decision* (G)

A de.cision under 10 ~R 2.~06 consi~ts of a letter to the petitioner, the director's decision,. and* the* Federal Register notice. The petition manager will obtain. a director's decision number (i.e., DD-yY -XX) from the Office of the Secretary (SECY). A director's decision number is assigned to. each director's "decision in numerical sequence. This number is included c;>n the letter to.the petitioner, the director's decision, and the 'Fedefal.Re'gister.notice. Note that the director's deCision itself is not published in the*F~deral Register; only the notice of its availability, containing a summary of the substance of the decision, is publishe(:l'(see.Exhibits 6 and 7). (1)

The petition manager will prepare a letter to transmit the director's decision to the petitioner and. will also prepare the associated Federal Register notice. If ~h~ st~~*s respc;>nse to the petition involves issuing an order, the petition mariagerwill prepare a letter to transmit the order to

.

the licensee. The petition manager also will include a copy of the order Approved:** July 1,' i999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) 27'

Volume 8, Li.censee 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 director's decision and Federal Register notice that are sent to the licensee and individuals on ~e service list(s) are dispatched simultan~ously with the petitioner's *copy. Before dispatching the director's decision (or partial decision), the petition manager will inform the petitioner of the imminent iss~ance of the decision and the substance of the decisiop. 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 fotwards it to the Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Admiriistration (ADM/DAS!RDB), for transmittal to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. The staff shall NOT include a copy of

the director's decision in the package that is sent to RDB. RDB only

\\.__)

fotwards the Federal Register notice to be published. (3)

Administrative lssu~s (H) 28 The administrative staff of the assigued 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 of the petitioner, promptly dispatch the copies.)-(1)

Rulemakings and Adjudications staff, SECY (a)

Five copies of the director's decision (i)

Two courtesY copies of the entire decision package including the distribution and service lists (i.i)

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

Petitioner (b)

Signed original letter (i)

Signed director's decision (ii).

A copy of the Fe~eral Register notice (iii)

Approved: July f, 1999

(~e~sed: Octo~er 25, 2000)

v Volume.8, Licensee Oversight Program*s Revlew*Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8~11 Part V Administrative Issues (H) (continued)

Chief, Rules and Dire~tives Branch (c)

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

Five paper c~pies o~ the ~otice (ii)

A disk with a WordPeifect 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 d~cision to determine whether or not the director's decision should be reviewed. (2)

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

When action on a 2.206 p~tition is completed, the petition manager will ensure that all publicly releasable documentation is available to the public.in ADAMS. (a)

The assigned office will ~etermine 'the appropriate individuals and offices to include. on the distribution list. (b)

\\

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

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

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

Office of the Chief Information Officer (000). If other information (opinions, partial information (such as errata), or footnotes) is included in the e-mail, clearly identify the director's decision number at the beginning of each file to avoid administrative delays and*

improve the technical production schedule for proofreading, editing,_

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

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

Finally, 90 days after issuance of the director's decision, the petition manager will remove the petitioner's name from distribution 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) 30 SECY will inform the Commission of the availability of the director's.

decision. The Commission, at its.discretion, may determine to review the director's decision within 25 days of the date of the decision and may direct the 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 (Re~sed: October 25, 2000)

";~

n"d

S *. 0-1 rn 0 n <

e-o

_p.

0..

n

~

()E.

C<

n "1..

N tn\\0

... \\0 w\\0 0

0

-3

~

c l.c:Hcrwith lssuesfConccms Treat as Allegation

)

" I Or Routine Corresp. (111\\.2) c Letter that I

I

(

itc:rcrcnocs 2.206

1. Parenthcticallnfmmatlon is associated lbndbook pan:nph number.

Copy oflctter to Llcc:nsec (li.C.4)

At PRB addrts$:

2.206? Schedule:?

lmrilc:diatc Actions?

)

1 *1 Partial DO? Future Petitioner Address PRB (111.8.4*9)

Petitioner Address PRB (nt.F.2) I ill

(

PRBs? (tn.D)

Jnfann Petitioner, O!TerMtgor Tclecon (IILE&F)

Refer to Another Proc:css (e.g.,

Rulc:maldng)

(lll.G.I) 00

~

t:1

('I)

g.

N'

N =-

CO\\

~

~-

0 n*

('I).

fll fll.

~-

n.

~=**

""1'

~

r:r

.(

~--

n> ~

--~* 0

'(I) -

- ~ =:

. a.

-!~-

ooo n..

. fl ~

.rn n

!S' g

=;" fl2 I>> : )oool tT)

= 0 tT)

Q.'""'O C"'*\\.l ~

0

~

tT) 0,, "

~:w~*

90-w~

)ooo&Q"'

)oool*Q\\~

~-~a

s. =-~

..... r:. I>>

croe

-*=

firm e-n

~----------*~

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)

I.

32 r---1111-1 I i ~-till~

Jl

~

, r*-*-----,

I I

. J...,..

v.

-i. 1~~-.J

g:a=:

t..........J

. Approved: July 1, i99~f (Revised: October 25, 2000)

v

u.

Volume s; Licensee Oversight Programs Review*Process* for 10 *cFR 2.206 Petitions*

Handbook 8.11 *Exhibits' Exhibit2 Petition Manager Checklist 0 Review the petition for allegations and sensitive material. If sensitive, pr~vent releasing the document to the public. Also determine whether or not any immediate actions requested require expedited staff response.

0 Contact the petitioner and discuss the public nat'ure 'of the process. Offer a pre-PRB meeting or telecon to the petitioner.

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

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

0 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?

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

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

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

What schedule is proposed?

0 Hold the pre-PRB meeting or telecon.

0 Address the PRB at its meeting.

0 Ensure assigned office management agrees with the PRB recommendations.

0 Inform the petitioner of the PRB recomme~dat~ons: Offer a p~st-PRB meeting.

0 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 0 Hold the post-PRB meeting or telecon.

0 Address the PRB at itS. meeting.

e

0:

I ~~

0 Piepare a meeting summacy f~i ih6 pre~ :a~d po~t-PRB ~eetin~. if heid. Thi~ ~tep i~ ~o~ r~~~i~d for a telecon.

0 Ensure the transcripts of the pre-and p~~t-PRB meetin~ or teleoo~, if held, are added to ADAMS and made publicly available. For meetings, this step can be ~one using the meeting summary. * *

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

~-------------*~

Volu~e 8, Licensee Oversight. Programs Review Process for 10 CFR*2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Exhibits '

Exhibit 2 (continued) 0 Ensure assigned office management agrees with the PRB final recOmmendations.

0 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 management agrees with the PRB that the request is a 2.206 petition, continue with this checklist.

0 Add petitioner to appropriate service list(s).

0 Issue acknowledgment letter and associated Federal Register notice.

0 If licensee input is needed, send a written request 0 If further petitioner input is needed, arrange for a technical review meeting.

0 Make periodic status updates to the petitioner.

0 Prepare the director's decision, addressing:

Each of the petitioners' issues The safety significance of each issue The staff's evaluation of each issue and actions taken 0 Ensure all referenced documents are added to ADAMS and made publicly available.

0 Send the proposed director's decision to the petitioner and licensee for comment 0 After the comment period closes, give the schedule for the director's decision to the Agency 2.206 Petition Coordinator for inclusion in the next *status report.

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

0

Prepare the Federal Register notice for the direct<?r'S decision.

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

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

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

Approved: July 1,.1999*

(Revised: October 25, 2000f

"-._.)

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

Immediately dispatch the signed original letter and decision and a copy of the Federal Register notice to the petitioner.

0 Within 2 working days of issuing the Director's decision£ Provide a copy of the director's decision to the OGC special counsel assigned to 2.206 matters.

E-mail and send two paper copies of the director's decision to the NRC Issuances Project Officer in OCIO..

E-mail a signed, dated, and numbered ~py of the director's decision to "NRCWEB."

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

Approved: July 1, 1999.

(Revised: October 25, 2000) 35

~------------ti-Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Exhibits Exhibit3 Sample Closure Letter for Requests That Are Not 2.206 Petitions

[Petitioner's Name]

[Petitioner's Address]

Dear Mr.:

Your petition dated [insert date] and addressed to the [insert addressee] has been referred to the Office of [insert] pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. You request [state 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 2.206]. OR [Our petition review board has reviewed your submittal]. The staff has concluded that your submittal does not meet the criteria for

~

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

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

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

Docket Nos. [ ]

Sincerely,

[Insert Division Director's Name]

[Office of [insert Office Name]

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

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

V Volume s; Licensee Oversight Pr~gr~ms Review Proce-ss for.lO'CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Exhibits

[Petitioner'~ Name]

[Petitioner's Address]

Dear Mr.:

Exhibit4 Sample Acknowledgment Letter Your petition dated [insert date] and add~C?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 Petitio~ ~evjew 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 immedia.te action and in establishing] the schedule for the review of your 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 [301-415-extension of petition manager] Your petition is being reviewed by [organizational 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 inforination* a *copy of the notice* that is being filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication. I have* also enclosed for yotir

information a *copy of Management.D~rective s:u "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions," and the associated brochure NUREG/BR-0200, "Public Petition Process,"

prepared by the NRC Office of Public Affairs. * *

Enclosures:

Federal Register Notice Management Directive 8.11 NUREG/BR-0200 Sincerely, *

[Office ~irector]

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

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

. Vol~me 8, Licensee,. Oversight Programs Review. Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 *.Exhibits Exhibit 5 Sample Federal Register No~ice U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSiON Docket No(s).

License No(s).

[Name of Licensee]

RECEIPT OF REQUEST FOR ACTION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206

[7590-01-P]

Notice is hereby given that by petition dated [insert date]; [insert petitioner's name]

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

As the basis for this request, the petitioner states that [state petitioner's basis for

\\.__.}

request].

. The request is being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 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 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this petition* *

within a reasonable time. [The petitioner met with the [insert action office] petition review board on (insert date] to discuss.the petition. The results of that discussi~n 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]. [If necessary, add] By letten.

dated

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

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

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

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

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

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Office Director]

Dated at Rockville, Maryland This ____ day of ______ ___, 200X.

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

~

\\_)

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

Exhibit6

,_.Sample Director's Decision*and Cover Letter

[Insert petitioner's. name & address]

Dear [insert petitioner's name]:

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

pursuant to Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the** C<;Jd~ of Fe4,eral Re~lations (10 CFR 2.20~) o*n

[date of petition] as supplemented on [dates ofa~y supplements]. In your petition you requested th*at 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 yo~r petition was being referred to ~e for ac~ion and that it w.ould be acted upon within a. reasonable time. You_ were. also told that"[ staff response to any request for immediate action].

[You met with the petition review board on [ date(s) of the p~e-and/or posi-PRB.

meeting(s)] to clarify the bases for your. petition. T~~ transciipt(s) of this/these nieeting(s) was/were treated as (a) supplement(s) to the petition and *are available in ADAMS for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One 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]. [Briefly summarize the safety significance of the issues and tlie stan's response]... ~ * *.

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

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

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

V9Iunu~ 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 stafrs response].

A copy of the Director,s Decision (DD-YY -XX) will be filed with the Secretary" of the Commission for the Commission to review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(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 o~ the decision within that time. [The documents cited in the enclosed decision are available in ADAMS for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Rooin, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),

Rockville, Macylan~, 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 ~he efforts of the petitioner in bringing the issues to the.

attention of the NRC]. PleaSe f~el free to contact [petition manager name and number] to j

discuss any questions related to this petition.

Docket Nos. [ ]

Enclosures:

Director's Decision YY-XX Federal Register Notice 40 Sincerely;

[Insert Office Director's Name]

Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: *october 25, 2000)

~

1..

Volume 8, Licensee Qversight Program's Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Exhibits DD-YY-XX UNITED STATES OF AMERICA In the Matter of 0

0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0

OFFI~E OF.(INSERT]

(Office Director Naine], Director

)

Docket No(s). [Insert]

[LICENSEE NAME]

)

)*

License No(s). [Insert]

([Plantoor facility name(s)])

(10 CFR 2.206)

DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 I. 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 of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206. The p~titioner(s) requ~sted that the U.S.

Nuclear Regula~ory ~mmission (NRC) take 'the following actions: (list reques~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) of the pre-and/or post-PRB meeting(s)] to Clarify the bases for the Petition. The transcript(s) of this/these meeting(s) was/were treated as (a) supplement(s) to the petition and are available in ADAMS for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at *one White Flint North, 11555 *R~c;kville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and from the ADAMS Public Lib~ary:co~ponent on the NRC~s Web site, http://www.

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

[By letter dated [insert date], the NRC staff requested [name of licensee] to provide 0

information related to the petition. (Name of licensee] 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 ofthe 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 fo*r 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Exhibits addressed in this director's decision and briefly explain the reason for the delay on these

. issues)).

The NRC sent a copy of the proposed director's decision to the Petitio~er 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 [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 staffs 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 an*actions taken by the staff or the licensee to address the issues, even if these actions were under way or completed before the petition was received. This discussion must clearly present the staff response to all of the valid issues so that it is clear that they have been addressed].

III. Conclusion

[Summarize the stafl's conclusions with respect to the issues raised and bow 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 Secretacy of the Commission for the Commission to review. 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.

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

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

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

\\.. _./

Volume*s, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR.2.206 Petitions Handbook S.il Exhibits*

=Exhibit 7

[7~90-0l...:P]

Sample Federal Register Notice* for *Director's *Decision**

U.S. NUCLEARREGuLATORY COMMISSION ol..

Docket No(s).

License No(s). *

[Name or 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 director's decision with regard to a petition dated [insert date], filed by [in*sert petitioner's name],

hereinafter referred to as the petitioner." [The petition was' supplemented on [insert date; include transcripts from meeting(s) with thePRB)). The petition concerns the operation of the [insert facility or licensee nanie].. '*

The petition requested that [insert facility or licensee name] should be [insert request for enforcement-related action]. [lfnecess~cy,'add] The petitioner also requested that a public meeting be held to.discuss this matter in the *washington; DC, area.

C-

J.

,, r~ *.

As the basis for the [insert date] request, the petitioner raised conceiris'steinmin*g from [insert ~etitioner's supporting ba~is* for th.e request]~ The (i.ns~rt petiiione~s* ~~me].

J.:

considers such operation to be potentially unsBfe *arid to 'be' in vioh1tion of Federal.

o

' o t *, '

~'

1,

I

: ~

, f regulations;.In the petition, a number of references to [insert references] were cited that the petitioner believes prohibit operation of the facility with [hisert the ca~se* for the requested enforcement-related action]. *.

*** :*r

.f.* :.

The petition of [insert date] raises concerns originating from [insert summary information on more bases/ratio~al~~i~cuss~on ~n_d s.upporti~g facts used in the disposition of' the petition and the development or the' 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 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 [The staff did not reeeive any comments on the

proposed Director's Decision].

The Director of the Office of [name of office] has deten;nined. 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.~06 [Insert DD.No.], the complete text of which is available

- -J 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://www.nrc.gov) on the World Wide Web, under the "Public Involvement" icon.

[Briefly summarize the s_taff's findings and conclusions].

A copy of the director's decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission'~ _reyiew in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's *

. ' I ~ ; '

regulations. As provided for by this regulation, the directo~'s decision will constitute the.

final action of the Commission 25 days after the date of the decision, u~ess the Commiss~on, on i~ own motion, institutes a review of the director's decision in that time.

44 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 (Revised: October 25, 2000)

Volume S,*Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for-10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11

Exhibits

Exhibit 8.

Sa111:ple Letters Requesting Gomme1;1ts 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 guida~ce for both letters.)

[Insert petitioner's address]

Dear [Insert petitioner's name]

Your petition dated [insert date] and addressed to the [insert addressee] has been reviewed by the NRC staff pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. The staff's proposed director's decision on the petition is enclosed. I request that you provide comments to me o.n any portions of the decision that you believe involve errors or any issues in the petition that you believe have not been fully addressed. The staff is making a similar request of the licensee. The 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 Division Director]

Docket Nos. 0 cc w/o encl: (Service List]

[Insert licensee's address]

Dear [Insert licensee's name]

By lette;r dated [insert date], [insert name of petitioner] submitted a petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations with respect to [insert name(s) of affected facilities]. The petition has been reviewed by the NRC staff and the staff's proposed director's decision on the petition is enclosed I request that you provide comments to me on any portions of the decision tha~ you believe involve.errors or any issues in the petition that you believe have not been fully addressed The staff is making a similar request of the petitioner.

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

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 or this letter].

Sincerely,

[Signed by Division Director]

Docket Nos. [ ]

cc w/encl: [Service List]

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

ENCLOSURE 3 NUREG-BR-0200, Rev. 5, "U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Petition Process 10 CFR 2.206" ADAMS Accession No. ML050900248

Introdndion The US. Nudear Rt:gulatory Commi~sion

{NRC} wa~ estabhsh(:d in l Y75. w protect public health :.nd ;;afety in the tivilian usc nf nuck.ar power and matt'rlals in the Unitt'd Statt.s. As part {lf its respcm~ibilitie!)~ NRC ass<!'.~li aU potential health and s.afety issues relate.d to lkcn~ed activities 1md encouragiZ'<.

members uf the puhlic to bring ;;J.fety !ss.ues to it~ :ttte.ntiorL Section 2.206 of Tnic 10 of the Code <If' 1-'ederal Reeulations ( 10CFR 1.20<-,1 dcscrit-e\\

the pctihf}ll'pro~esY-****th~ primary mechanism.

{(~r the puhlk h> rcquc:-.! enfon...'Cment action hy NRC in a publi~ pro--.:.*ess. c;, This procc~~

permit:.: anvt)ne to vctition NRC to tak..:<

Cnforcrmeni actinn rClated to NRC liten~c-e;;

or lken~rd acliviti.e~, Depending t)il th~ result~

ni ih rvaJuatkm. NRC o mid modify. sns{k':nd.

or revoke an NRC*h:\\ur.d i!rcn~ nr taki..'" anv other appropriate enfore,~mcnt anion t;)

resnlvc a problem. Re-quest~ that raise health and safety issu~s without reqne~'>tinp:

enfftrcemetlt action are n:-\\*icw.:d by meanS other <h"n th" 2:2()6 Jl""'~"-

ln ih effort to improve public confiJence, the NRC periodi<*i!l!y r"a"c'" th<O 2.206 petition rrocess to enhance it~ etTt*ctivenes~.lirnt."lint<!'~

rmd ('fedihility. As part of these r:.:US"-'CJ.,Sm"*nts.

the NRC seeks fel"dh~td:. fn)m petitioner:;. and other stak~holders *hrough put>lic meetings and wurksh<.1ps, ~urve-ys and Federal Rt<gixur notices. as well as lr...lm itSc {JYfO staff experience. Spedfk improvemenls to the 2.206 pr<K:e-ss resulting from. the~ initiative;;

indude:

Offering pc~titioncl':' two OPJA."rtunitit--"' to discu~s the petition with the NRCs petition review !ward (PRB ). Th< first i>

tl} allow the petitioner to provide elaboration and daritication <>f the pet.iti<'n

""11tt NRC ~he t.a.<.. an :;Hcg.:.uo!l pn~~;:*<"i" Ill ~hkh !!'.d;tr~<.!uab w.h*> r-ciu-rx~~st1al \\Jff'.lJ C~1nt<!'Hi:l for NR:C IeVit\\\\.art atf.)rde-d J deg:rel!: t,f ptW"<:~Iion (l( their iti<:l~;ily. Olh.-r j;m.Jt~,;~<,. f.,_"f ruhlk inn;Jq:.rhcnl <!rt: 11.-=l.:d t;llh<: (:!IJ <1f th~.-.

pampt;k.J, before the PRB mcds to discuss tht' pt>.titinn. The ~eu.md opportuni~y comes a1t.er !.he PRB has. Jis.cu::-~.:d the mi:rits ('f the' pethkm and allows the petitioner to

..-.:omu.:.'-"nr on the PRB':.;. rccummcnd~ttit)ns regarding acc-~ptun~e {)f the pe*tition (tnd 3ny rcqc~..~..,h ft:r irmnediii!e actk,n.

Offering an opportunily for a l':>tatl-P\\."titioner-licens;(;e nh"fling to Jiscus.s tht."

Jet ail~ of the i... sue during 1he rour:;:e of th.C fCVk\\V,

Pn!\\1ding hcHCL more ff"Ct..IUCIH commtl¥ nical"K*ib lX"!V.*een the- :-;;aff ~Hld f~:tith.Hlt:f throub~hout the. pn:x:e-s:-o.

Pn-::"-*h:iing. \\..<.lpic!' of aH i~rtincnt rdat.. 'd c-orr.. ~~punJen;..*c and urnenh (f* tlH."" ~titi<*ncr:--..

Pruvu.ij~tg ~ copy of !h," propos~d Jin~.. :lnr \\ J~d:..i~..u1 nu the JX:'!ition. h.otb hJ the JX"'finoncr and th,: atll""\\..--tcJ iicen~ce tor COJTitlk."nt~. WH.I: rom:idcrir.z "'.oUt.'h(.'tlJllnil~l!...-.;

hefor~ i:':iuing the tl~d~i~1~ in fin.a! form.

The Pctilion Prucess The 2.20<l pru\\:*e!':-: iXO\\ iJ.e:-: a ~implt'. effect i vc mct:-hani~,n for an;-~unc tt~ rl~ip.lc't ::nfon.. *en:tent acti(lO and oht<:tin NRC's prompt. thnrough.

and o~ject!ve rva1uation of underl)ing safety is.Slh.:'$, 1t h:,:.eparate and d:i,tin<1 frnm the proCI.!'i'M!'> for rulemakmg and licensing.

although the-y tno anow the puhhc 10 raise safety -cnn~erns to NRC:

tlnd~rthc 2.206 process,the petitioner ~uhmit~

a request in writing 10 NRC's E,x.ecutive Dlrectur fnr Operations, idcnrifyJng the aife~ted li.cen~ee-or iiccnsed activitv. the requl.':stcd enforcement ~lction to be t~tkcil~ and the facts the pelitkmer b~.."Hevcs. provide

>Ufficicnt gr<nmds for NRC I** take cntOrcc.mcnt action. Un~upp,)neJ assertit)il$ of

- !\\afety problem~

... :* gencns:l oppositi<Jn h"'

nu'-:1earpr"~wer. or itkntificationof ~ft"ty i~suc:~

wilhom seeking enh)rce-mt~nt action are not considcrl:"d sutfkient grounds lor coa-,tderation a~ a 2.206 ~tition.

Af1er rt*>.~*.. :iving a whe-th~r the rcqucs~

petilkm. If the n.""que:,t as a 2.206 P~'ti!Jun, ack:nowledj.~.rnent kw.:r ln th-.: ped;km;;*r and a copy tv i.hc appn.tpriau~ iic-cn..:_i.~C and publi'fbcs

<:~ notk:: in the J-"'ali'ra! Regisr~.*r: lflh~ rt'4UCI,t is. not dt~:.;.cptcJ. NRC noti11~:-: the petititlfk*r t)f itr-. dec.+*::.k*n and indkatc~ thJ.lthe pditioncr'~

unde-rlying: !>,:1ft""ty :.:vm.:ern-- ~*m l:te cm1~!Jert-"d outside the 2.20c'i prrx:c:-:~.

On tht: b~:~sh tlf un._Avaluath*n nf the pt*tition.

1he arpropriatC" uffice dirr..~ctor {..,:-;Ue;.. H Je~isi011 and. if warrame-J. NRC ia.k.~.~s ~ir.>pf(lpri~Hi.~

enfi.:':rcemeot ;.tetion. Th.r<.1Hgh~~w the.* :va~~:.ttiou pr<Kes"'- NRC ~ends '"~opic' uf aH penk:.:::nt corn~spnnderh::.(* h* the-

~x~tHi~w;.cr and tht."

affectc*d lic¢nsee. NRC pba' "ll rdatcd t.'Ofr('::'pttUJcnce in ib Puhltc Docurnr:.nl RtH)ffi

PDR) in lkdvilk. Marvi:md. ailJ in thlo age-n;.:-y d~..x*wm.:nt '-"l)ntn;J ~.Y!;ii.'"Itl.

H'-nve--....c-r~

lhe-agenry wilhhohh information th~H wnuk~

rt.)lli.pn~mis.c-an inn~sttgatifm <W ongoinf enil>fJ.:\\."m(m. at.'"tion rdatin~ t-o i~suc~ in 1lw pct11i~>n. Th.e NRC also :-.:i.~~J(i:., th~ p;:rlti~mcr other information such as ~~rtml'nt g-..~iJCrk kttt-rs ond hulktin.s.

The NRC notiile:-. tht pethi,mt.~r of the IXti:i~..m \\

~tatus '-""vcrv 60 J;:;'"*s. ~)I' Hh'>rt: frcqu~nt.lv lf ~

signific:am vact\\on ~x~urs. Jvt{>nthly upthtt~~ un aH pending 2.20n peuti.ons ~!ft." avail~tMe on NRc*~ w~b s~k ~H hnu*liwww.nrc.t*vV

.rr.a.Q.ing.~~-q~lk:~tiort~pctitiom;~ 2 *2(J.(lj i!!Y~l\\,!JJJ.nl. and in the PDR.

P~'tition li:chnkal Rt:vitw '1-fet:ting A petition !t.**chnkal review mel!'ting ser\\'eS not nnly as a ~ource llf potent1ally valuable infnnnati~)n for NRC w -evaluate a 2.2.06 petition, hut alsn ;J.ffnrJ-;. rhe petitioner

mbstantive ifl'l\\)ivcment in the review and dccision-nwking pn.1ccs~ through d!rcct d1scu"-i<lll~ with NRC anJ th~! 1k~..,.n~~.~..Such a meeting will be held \\\\.benewr the Will belkves tl1at it W<>uld be hcneficiu! w the review nf the petition. Nutt.~ that the m~cting:

can he otle.red a1 any time during NRC's rcvi~w uf u petiti..:m and is open to public oh-.ef\\.'llti{)it.

¥**~

llirt'i.'tur 's lledsion The NRC'" official re;;;ponse t<.1 a :Z.206 pditiot:

is a \\Vritten dt."dsion by the Jin:ctur of tht'

,,nn:nm*i;lk oHlce that aJdr~s~!' lhe com:crn~

the petition. The agen~y*s go2t i~ 1n lS'"'>UC a pnrJX'~ed dc'-:ision for comment\\\\* ithiu 120dav.... from thr,J~t1C i~rth~ ;.~ch.nnwleJcmcnt kner. {h **w~v.:-x. aJd1tioua1 time may be ~.;t..'t.'"(kJ to ct,ndtKt an iuv~.."~tlg<*ltinn. c,~mpktc a;,

1n-.pt.~nion. or analyu~ pa11kntarly compkx t.:rhntcal is~ncs. If ~he goat h mJt md. the "NRC

-wff will pF>m.p!!y infHml the pctili"mer "*'f.1

~he:Juk clumgc.

Th~.,'

1Hrn:htf~S. dechi<:Hi inc!udl!$ the prnfes~iona[ ~t~if'f's evahJatinn d. :1U "J~Tl!nent ct'rrl'sntml.ienc..:~

\\~*dh th~..* petiti... ~ner ~1nJ th~

informatinn trom anv me,~tln~. reb-Ulb,_)f ~nv investigati~*n ur in;p~ction:**and ::tny <>lh~r (i, ~>..:untcJlt:-. rdalt..>-t1 H) petiti~*~n i"::;ue:-.. F\\*tlhJ\\\\ ing n.*-..;nlutmn oi anv ~ommems recdved <1n thr.

wnpo~ed dc:(*isiim. the dire..::tur~~ de<ision i~

providt*d tolhi.: p*..:titloner anti lhe lit:=:n"tt'.e-. and 1-~ puskJ to NRC\\ \\VdJ $it~: anJ matk. uvuil<Jble in the PDR. A nntice of :tvaiiahHit\\* i!'

puhhsht".d in the Feder,;! R.t~gi...Her

~

Din.;..:tt1r':.; dt~ci!'ions may b'".. i!'.~ueJ a~o, htBow..;:

A.:k*ci~ion granting a pctJtion. Jn expiam;j the ba:;b for thi! dedsiou gram& the ar;;tion re.qne!'ted in the petit ian

{t;.g.* NRC il'>~uln,g an un!er tH moJify.

~H~JX'!nd. or n.~V*Jl\\t a licco:'C).

/\\ de-cisH>n denying a petition. in fuH, provide!'> the reason f()f th~ denial and t!Jsel1Jo,~" all maue.r-, raised in the petition.

A dc~i~l~ttl granting a JX"'tition. in p:-1rt9 in cases where the NRC dtx:idc~ rwt to grant the a.t.:ti<.m reque~aed. f:\\ut takes,)thcr appn>priak' enfnrcement actit'n t'r dire<.:t:--.

the liccns.cc to tak'-~ cer1.ain at.*tinn[, that.

address the identified safety cone em;.

/\\~-uti a! dir~t;..1r's dedsion may be issue.d bv *he NRC in cases where some l,f the i~su.c:-' a~snciatcd wtth the petitinn can he completcJ promptly hut significant schcJulc delay~ are anticipated befou I

I I

resolution of the entire petition. A final director's decision is issued at the conclusion of the effort.

The Commission will not entertain requests for review of a director's decision. However, on its own. it may review a decision within 25 calendar days.

NRC Management Directive 8.11. Review Process for I 0 CFR 2.206 Petitions," contains m1lrc detailed information on citizen petitions.

For a free copy of the dir~ctive, write to the Superint,~ndent of Documents.

U.S.

Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082.

Washington, DC 20013-7082, or call 202-512-1800.

Electronic Access Those pmts of the monthly status report on 2.206 petitions that are not of a sensitive nature. as well as recently issued director's decisions, and Management Directive 8.11. are placed on the NRC's web site at h..t1.l2.JL w w w, n r~.,.lmYLr!d!Q i ng-rm/doc -co II ections/

P.~liJ.ign~~2:.f0.6/inde..,~.html and in the agency's Publk Document Room.

Ot.her Processes for Pyblic Involvement ln addition to the 2.206 petition process, NRC has several other ways that permit the public to express concerns on maucrs related to the NRC's regulatory activities.

The NRC's allegation process affords individuals who raise safety concerns a degree of protection of thdr identity.

Under the provisions of 10 CFR 2.802.

NRC provides an opportunity for the public to petition the agency for a rulemaking.

The NRC's licensing process offers members of the public, who are spe.cifically affected by a licensing action.

an opportunity to formally participate in licensing proceedings. This process applies not only to the initial licensing actions but also to license amendments

and other activities such as decom*

missioning and, license renewals.

For major regulatory actions involving preparation of environmental impact statements, NRC offers separate opportunities for public participation in its environmental pmceedings.

The public can attend a number of ineetings including open Commission and staff meetings, periodic media briefings by Regional Administrators, and special meetings held ncar affected facilities to inform local communities and respond to their questions.

More information on these activities can be found in NRC's pamphlet entitled, "Public Involvement in the Nuclear Regulatory Process," NUREGfBR-0215.

Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Telephone 301-415-8200 or 1-800-368-5642 NUREG/BR-0200, Rev. 5 February '2003

ENCLOSURE 4 Official Transcript of Proceedings 1 0 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board RE: Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant ADAMS Accession No. ML14036A234

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title:

Docket Number:

Location:

Date:

Work Order No.:

10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board RE Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant 50-333 Teleconference Wednesday, November 13,2013 NRC-396 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 Pages 1-24

1 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

+ + + + +

4 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 5 CONFERENCE CALL 6

RE 7

FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 8

+ + + + +

9 WEDNESDAY 10 NOVEMBER 13, 2013 11

+ + + + +

12 The conference call was held, Ho K. Nieh, 13 Jr., Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, 14 presiding.

15 16 PETITIONER: DAVID LOCHBAUM 17 18 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS 19 HO K. NIEH, JR., Director, Division of Regional 20 Support 21 MOHAN THADANI, Petition Manager for 2.206 petition 22 JOSEPH GILLMAN, Office of 23 General Counsel 24 25 (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF 2

ROBERT BEALL, Branch Chief, DORL, NRR 3

MERRILEE J. BANIC, Petition Coordinator, NRR 4

CARRIE KAVANAGH, NRO 5

MATTHEW YODER, Chemical Engineering Branch, Division 6

of Engineering, NRR 7

8 NRC REGION I OFFICE 9

STEVE SHAFFER 10 11 ALSO PRESENT 12 CHRIS ADNER, Licensing Manager, FitzPatrick Nuclear 13 Power Plant 14 JESSICA AZULAY, Alliance for a Green Economy 15 TIM JUDSON, Citizens Awareness Network 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2

3 1

P R 0 C E E D I N G S 2

1:32 p.m.

3 MR.

THADANI :

I would like to thank 4

everybody for attending this meeting.

My name is 5

Mohan

Thadani, and I'm the NRC's Senior Project 6

Manager assigned to FitzPatrick Plant.

We are here 7

today to allow Petitioner, Mr.

David Lochbaum, to 8

address the Petition Review Board regarding a 10 CFR 9

2. 206 petition dated July 25, 2013, filed by him on 10 behalf of Alliance for a

Green

Economy, Beyond 11

Nuclear, Citizens Awareness, and the Union of 12 Concerned Scientists.

I'm the petition manager for 13 this petition; the Petition Review Board chairman is 14 Mr.

Ho Nieh, Director, Division of Inspections and 15 Regional

Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor 16 Regulation.

17 This teleconference is scheduled from 1:30 18 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Eastern time; the meeting is being 19 recorded by the NRC Operations Center, and will be 20 transcribed by a court reporter.

The transcript will 21 become a supplement to the petition; the transcript 22 will also be made publicly available and will be the 23 PRE's meeting summary.

I'd like to open this meeting 24 with introductions.

In our room here today, I will go 25 on my left.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

4 1

MR. BEALL:

This is Robert Beall, Acting 2

Branch Chief, DORL, NRR.

3 MS.

KAVANAGH:

Kerri Kavanagh, I'm the 4

Chief of the Quality Assurance Vendor Inspection 5

Branch, Office of New Reactors.

6 MR.

YODER:

Matt Yoder, NRR Division of 7

Engineering, Chemical Engineering Branch.

8 CHAIRMAN NIEH:

Ho

Nieh, Director, 9

Division of Inspection and Regional Support.

10 MS.

BANIC:

Lee

Banic, Position 11 Coordinator, NRR.

12 MR.

GILLMAN:

Joe Gillman, Office of the 13 General Counsel.

14 MR.

THADANI:

we have completed 15 introductions at NRC Headquarters, and I would now 16 request those who are on the phones, please identify 17 yourself.

18 MR.

LOCHBAUM:

This is David Lochbaum, 19 Director of the Nuclear Safety Project for the Union 20 of Concerned Scientists.

21 MR. ADNER:

This is also Chris Adner, the 22 Licensing Manager at the FitzPatrick Nuclear Power 23 Plant.

24 MR.

KORS:

This is Ken Kors, Licensing, 25 FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

5 1

MS. AZULAY:

This is Jessica Azulay, Staff 2

Organizer with Alliance for a Green Economy.

3 MR. THADANI:

Is that everybody?

I'd like 4

to emphasize that we each need to speak clearly and 5

loudly to make sure that the conversation is 6

accurately recorded and subsequently correctly 7

transcribed.

If you do have something that you would 8

like to say, please first state your name for the 9

record.

For those dialing in the meeting, please 10 remember to mute your phone to minimize the background 11 and distractions.

If you do not have mute button, 12 this can be done by pressing star 6; to unmute, press 13 star 6 again.

At this time, I'll turn the meeting 14 over PRB Chairman, Mr. Ho Nieh.

15 CHAIRMAN NIEH:

Thank you, Mohan.

This is 16 Ho

Nieh, the Chair of the Petition Review Board.

17 Hello, Dave and Jessica; thank you for taking the time 18 today to discuss your petition with the PRB, and also 19 good afternoon to I think Chris and Ken from the 20 FitzPatrick Station.

Today, we're going to discuss 21 the 2. 206 petition that was submitted by Mr.

Dave 22 Lochbaum on behalf of the Alliance for a

Green 23 Economy, Beyond Nuclear, Citizens Awareness Network, 24 and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Before we get 25 into the details of the petition, I

would like to (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 WINI/V.nealrgross.com

6 1

provide a brief overview of, and some background on 2

the 2. 206 petition process, which is in Title 10 of 3

the Code of Federal Regulations.

4 This process is a public process in which 5

any member of the public can petition the NRC to take 6

an enforcement type action related to an NRC licensee 7

or a licensed activities.

Depending on the results of 8

the NRC's evaluation of these petitions, and 9

consistent with the NRC's safety mission, the NRC 10 could modify, suspend or revoke an NRC-issued license 11 or take any other appropriate enforcement action to 12 resolve a safety issue at an NRC-licensed facility.

13 The NRC conducts its review of 2. 206 petitions in 14 accordance with the guidance in Management Directive 15 8.11, and that is a publicly available document if you 16 would like to take a look at that.

17 The purpose of today' s teleconference is 18 to allow the petitioners an opportunity to provide any 19 additional explanation or support for the petition 20 that they have submitted so the PRE can consider that 21 in its evaluation.

I do want to note that this 22 meeting, it's is not hearing ~or is it an opportunity 23 for the petitioners to question or examine the PRE on 24 the merits of the issues in the request, and the 25 Petition Review Board, or PRE, will not be making a (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

7 1

decision on the merits of the petition at this 2

meeting.

3 Following this

meeting, the Petition 4

Review Board will conduct an internal deliberation on 5

whether the petition meets the criteria for review, 6

and again, those criteria are presented in Management 7

Directive 8.11.

And once that decision is made, the 8

NRC will inform the petitioner of the decision.

A 9

typical Petition Review Board at the NRC consists of a 10 chairman usually, and a

senior executive service 11 manager.

It also has a

petition manager and a 12 Petition Review Board coordinator, and the NRC also 13 brings in other members of the NRC staff to support 14 the review, and that's based on the specific content 15 of the petition that was submitted.

16 As described in our process, the NRC staff 17 during this call may ask clarifying questions in order 18 to better understand the petition and the information 19 presented to the ____ ~8..C:::. staff today, and again, that's 20 done with the goal of reaching a decision on whether 21 to accept or reject the petitioner's request for 22 review under the 1:_Q_ __ ~_~B__2. 206 petition process.

I' 11 23 give you just a brief summary of the petition.

In the 24 petition request dated July 23,

2013, Mr.

Lochbaum 25 requested that the NRC take enforcement action by (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

8 1

imposing a!.:l_Q.~_der _9..!. regulatory requirement that the 2

condenser tubes at the FitzPatrick Plant be replaced 3

prior to the reactor restarting after the Fall 2014 4

refueling outage.

5 Before I turn the meeting over to Mr.

6

Lochbaum, I would like to remind those on the phone 7

again to please mute your phones to minimize any 8

background noise.

In addition, since the call is 9

being recorded and transcribed, if you are speaking, 10 please identify yourself so the court reporter can 11 properly document your statement.

So at this time, 12 I'd like to turn the meeting over to Dave Lochbaum.

13 Dave, you have the floor.

14 MR.

LOCHBAUM:

Thank you.

This is Dave 15 Lochbaum.

I appreciate this opportunity to appear 16 before the Petition Review Board, albeit remotely, at 17 my convenience.

I think the petition is fairly clear, 18 and I really requested this opportunity to, as Ho 19 pointed out, answer any clarifying questions if there 20 are any about what we're seeking in the petition or 21 why we're seeking it.

So it's really an opportunity 22 to provide any clarification if it's requested by the 23 NRC staff.

24 I did want to take a moment to highlight a 25 couple of portions in the petition; they both appear (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

9 1

on page 5 of the petition.

Towards the top of that 2

page, we extracted a quote from an NRC inspection 3

report dated April 23, 2013, where the NRC inspection 4

report mentions Entergy's plans to replace the 5

condenser tubes during the Fall 2014 refueling outage.

6 So we think--we cited that because that is the 7

company' s plan-s-; it seems to be reasonable, or the 8

request that we're asking is not unreasonable because 9

the company's already announced its plans to do that.

10 All we're trying to do is to kind of highlight it by 11 the next paragraph, where we talk about the NRC 12 issuing a confirmatory order on July 1, 2013 to the 13 Accone Occonee

licensee, basically requiring some 14 previously committed to items be completed by a

15 certain date, a specified date, which basically turned 16 a

commitment or a promise into a more enforceable 17 regulatory requirement.

18 That same kind of regulatory footprint or 19 regulatory leverage is what we're seeking with the 20 company's plans to replace the condenser tubes at 21 FitzPatrick; basically to have the NRC issue some kind 22 of regulatory requirement, order, amendment to the 23 license or whatever it takes to basically do the same 24 25 thing that was done at Accone Occonee- -transform a promise (202) 234-4433 or a

commitment into a

more legally-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 2

3 4

5 6

10 I enforceable requirement that_ens'::1_Ees thc3:! it happens.

That would not preclude the licensee from changing that date and going past the Fall of 2014, but it would entail prior NRC review and approval for that to happen, whereas a commitment could be revised and extended much more readily.

So that's what we're 7

seeking in the petition is to basically make that 8

current plan more of a

legally-enforceable 9

requirement.

With that, I'd be glad to entertain any 10 questions, clarifying questions about the petition or 11 anything in the petition, if there are any.

12 CHAIRMAN NIEH:

Okay, thank you, Dave.

13 I'll--maybe I'll offer the opportunity for anybody 14 from the NRC staff here that has any questions?

No 15 questions?

Mohan, please.

16 MR. THADANI:

Yc s, 'vie have

.,,.we don't have 17 anything specific to ask now, but we do reserve the 18 right to ask in the futureL when we do some further 19 studies reviews.

20 MR.

LOCHBAUM:

Okay, fair enough, but I'd 21 be glad to provide any information at any time now or 22 down the road, so just let me know if I can help in 23 any way.

24 CHAIRMAIN NIEH:

No I'm sorry, this is Ho.

25 I did have a question, but I believe Jessica, if you (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

11 1

have something to add, please do.

2 MS.

AZULAY:

Yes, this is Jessica.

I 3

believe my colleague, Tim Judson from CAN is on the 4

phone, and I wanted to give him an opportunity to 5

speak first.

6 CHAIRMAN NIEH:

Okay.

Tim, are you on the 7

line there?

8 MR. JUDSON:

I am, I am.

Sorry I called 9

in a few minutes late.

And thanks to Jessica for 10 giving me the time and thanks to the Petition Review 11 Board for letting us comment today.

So I just wanted 12 to be able to put the issue of the FitzPatrick 13 condenser into a larger context, which we're very 14 concerned about, you know, the trajectory that this 15 reactor is headed down.

We are- -a number of the 16 petitioners in this proceeding are also involved in a 17 separate 2.206 proceeding regarding the financial 18 qualifications of Entergy to continue operating 19 FitzPatrick, and this particular issue of the 20 unplanned power changes and the role of the condenser 21 in that has been a central issue of evidence in that 22 petition regarding Entergy' s financial condition and 23 their desire- -their cutting costs on safety-related 24 maintenance issues at the plant.

25 (202) 234-4433 And we really think that this is an NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

12 1

important issue for NRC to deal with as an individual 2

item as a way to mitigate the broader safety concerns 3

that may arise in the financial environment that 4

operators like Entergy, and particularly FitzPatrick, 5

are operating in.

As an example of that, one of the 6

concerns that's come up most recently with respect to 7

these issues has been a concern about how NRC is 8

evaluating cost-benefit analyses regarding the sort 9

of--in relation to the financial condition that 10 operators are--that licensees find themselves in.

11 In particular, there was a report by UBS 12 Investment Research in February of this year, having 13 met with NRC regarding the concern of particularly 14 Entergy's reactors in the markets that they ' re 15 operating in.

And they made a very concerning comment 16 about how NRC made the decision not to require filters 17 on hardened vents for Mark I BWRs, and in particular 18 they mentioned that there was a concern by NRC about 19 the impact of requiring safety upgrades in the 20 financial condition that they're operating their 21 reactors in.

More particularly, I mean clearly that 22 the requiring- -that issuing safety requirements may 23 cause certain reactors to go out of business, or at 24 least be an additional burden on their continued 25 operations.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

13 1

We would be very concerned about NRC 2

deferring action on an item like the condenser, both 3

because it clearly has resulted in a safety impact vis 4

a vis the white rating under the unplanned power 5

changes indicator, and this is precisely the sort of 6

thing that NRC needs to be able to take action on in 7

order to protect safety standards within the economic 8

context like those licensees like Entergy are finding 9

themselves in.

One additional concern with respect to 10 how this is playing out at FitzPatrick, what is 11 Entergy' s diffidencede!.. i:.§_~.S.:-~ about its plans regarding 12 the continued operation of FitzPatrick.

13 You know, we know that the plan as Entergy 14 has suggested it has been to replace the condenser 15 tubes at FitzPatrick at an extra fueling outage, which 16 would occur next October, but it's also increasingly--

17

-bE?.cause _Entergy has indicated increasing uncertainty 18 as to whether they will actually conduct that 19 refueling outage, or take FitzPatrick into a shut down 20 condition.

AndL***---~~

particular_~. at a state Senate 21 hearing in early October, an Entergy representative 22 said that the continued operation of FitzPatrick past 23 the Fall of 2014 refueling is an item that they "have 24 to review on a routine basis at this point."

25 (202) 234-4433 And we realize that the issue of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

14 1

condenser is very much hung up in this, because 2

Entergy is going to need to plan for the capital 3

investment and order the equipment necessary to 4

conduct such a replacement at that time, and the fact 5

that the reactor is continuing to have unplanned power 6

changes as a result of the condenser and presenting an 7

ongoing safety concern in the meantime very much 8

underlines the need for NRC to act on this issue.

So 9

with that, I'll close my comments and cede the floor 10 to Jessica.

Thanks.

11 MS. AZULAY:

Thank you, Tim.

So again, my 12 name is Jessica Azulay, I'm a staff organizer for 13 Alliance for a Green Economy; I'm calling in from 14 Syracuse, New York today.

And I just wanted to let 15 you all know a little bit about Alliance for a Green 16 Economy.

We're a

coalition of environmental and 17 social justice organizations based in New York State, 18 and our member organizations are the Atlantic Chapter 19 of the Sierra Club, Peace Action New York State, 20 Center for Health, Environment and Justice, Citizens 21 Environmental Coalition, Central New York Citizens 22 Awareness Network, Peace Action of Central New York 23 and the Syracuse Peace Council.

So as you can see, 24 together our member groups represent tens of thousands 25 of New Yorkers concerned about nuclear safety, and (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISlAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

15 1

many live in the region surrounding the FitzPatrick 2

reactor.

3 For more than a year, we*ve been concerned 4

about the increasing number of unplanned power changes 5

at FitzPatrick.

In the fourth quarter of last year, 6

the plant exceeded the green-white threshold for 7

unplanned power changes; but even before that, it was 8

already seeing an above-average number of these 9

destabilizing events.

And since crossing the 10 threshold, FitzPatrick has stayed in the white for 11 unplanned power changes for four quarters now.

WE 12 know that not all of these unplanned power changes 13 stem from the condenser issues, but the majority of 14 them do.

We know this from reading the quarterly 15 inspection reports and the licensee notes on the 16 Safety Performance Summary.

17 So we joined this petition in order to 18 insure~ha! the NRC will address the underlying cause 19 of the ongoing unplanned power changes at FitzPatrick, 20 and will enforce its quality assurance regulation on 21 the plant by requiring Entergy to replace the tubes in 22 the condenser.

These unplanned power changes are 23 destabilizing and they increase the safety risks of 24 running the reactor.

Entergy*s failure to replace the 25 condenser so far obviously at the end of its reliable (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701

'MVW.nealrgross.com

16 1

life, and which has caused such an elevated number of 2

unplanned power changes for more than a year now is a 3

threat to our safety.

So we're asking NRC to require 4

a true fix to these issues with a clear deadline.

5 For the financial reasons that Tim Judson 6

just laid out, we 'don't believe Entergy can be relied 7

upon to act decisively in the public interest in this 8

case, or to honor the time line it previously 9

discussed with the NRC.

Even though that NRC 10 inspection report that Dave Lochbaum just pointed out, 11 where Entergy stated its plans to replace the tubes in 12 the condenser during next year's refueling outage, we 13 don't believe that Entergy considers this a solid 14 commitment.

In an interview with the Syracuse Post 15 Standard about six weeks ago, Bill Mohl, President of 16 Entergy Wholesale Commodities, was reported as saying 17 that Entergy is considering replacing the condenser 18 tubes during the next refueling outage, but he said 19 that no final decision has been made.

20 So it's increasingly unclearL given 21 Entergy' s financial situation at FitzPatrickL whether 22 the company will refuel the reactor in 2014 or will 23 close it, and even if Entergy does refuel the reactor 24 in 2014, the plant will still be under economic 25 pressure and at risk of imminent retirement.L unless (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

17 1

something dramatic shifts in the New York electricity 2

market.

With the future of the plant in limbo, and 3

free cash flow in the negative, it is all the more 4

important that NRC hold Entergy accountable for 5

investing in this vital equipment we all rely on for 6

our protection from a nuclear accident.

Without this 7

requirement that we're asking for, it would be all too 8

easy for Entergy to put financial interests above 9

safety, to absorb the hassle of unplanned power 10 changes and increased inspections, while putting off 11 this expensive investment as long as possible.

12 If Entergy does refuel the reactor next 13 year, they cannot be allowed to waffle on replacing 14 the condenser, no matter how expensive or hard it will 15 be for their bottom line.

So we're asking that this 16 Petition Review Board consider this petition very 17 seriously and issue the requirement that we're asking 18 for.

Thank you.

19 CHAIRMAN NIEH:

Okay thank you, Jessica, 20 Tim and Dave.

Well in my job as the Petition Review 21 Board Chair--this is Ho Nieh, NRR speaking--you know, 22 we'll insure that the NRC staff thoroughly considers 23 the information submitted in the petition, as well as 24 the information you all presented on the phone today.

25 I do want to point out that--Tim, you mentioned this (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

18 1

as well, and Jessica, you touched on this also in your 2

remarks with respect to the financial issues raised in 3

a separate petitioni that is also in the NRC's process 4

here, and there's been a separate board convened to 5

evaluate the information in that petition.

So that 6

will be something that we' 11 remain aware of with 7

respect to what that petition review board is 8

evaluating, but it will likely not be something that 9

we'll consider as part of this petition.

But unless 10 there's a reason to join those two together, you know, 11 we'll have to think about that at some point in time 12 in the future.

But I do want to separate those two 13 issues, because there are two separate petitions.

14 I

did have one question, and Tim and 15 Jessica, your remarks touched on this with respect to 16 the unplanned power changes and the risk to public 17 health and safety, but I would ask also Dave, I was 18 reading the petition before the

meeting, and I

19 understand that you're seeking an enforcement action, 20 similar to what we did with OconeOconee and the 21 modifications they were making to that facility, which 22 basically put~ in place a legally-binding requirement 23 to complete the modifications by a certain date in 24 time.

And in the petition, it's quoted "While perhaps 25 not posing the same heightened risk to the public as (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

19 1

the safety shortcomings at Oc_s::one~, the condenser tube 2

degradation at FitzPatrick poses risk to the public."

3 That was the part I was quoting from the petition.

4 So Dave, let me ask I guess, are there any 5

other issues that you'd like to make the Board aware 6

of with respect to safety risks to the public beyond 7

what was described by Tim and Jessica with the 8

unplanned power changes and the white performance 9

indicator?

10 MR. LOCHBAUM:

This is Dave Lochbaum.

No, 11 I

think to elaborate what was in the petition, the 12 quote you just read from the petition, you know the 13 NRC's ROP used to have the unplanned scrams with 14 complications, where loss of the normal heat S"flCB J

15 sink or the condenser was an initiator, and that was 16 in recognition that while not technically safety grade 17 or relied upon in a safety analysis, if you lose the 18 condenser or the normal heat synefi_~_nk, you

re making 19 your life more difficult; you*re increasing the risk.

20 And basically, that*s what I was alluding 21 to in the

petition, is that here there

s an 22 identified, well-established problem with the 23 condenser which makes its reliability less than it was 24 if they replaced the steam geflerator_C::_?deni?er tubes.

25 It doesn*t--it*s not that you*re one step away from (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

20 1

meltdown, but you are reducing the reliability of the 2

plant the way it

s operating.

So that*s the safety 3

implications to the public I was inferring from that 4

statement.

5 CHAIRMAN NIEH:

Okay, thank you very much, 6

Dave, I appreciate that clarification, and you know 7

when you mentioned that--this is Ho again from NRR--I 8

kind of reflect to my days back as an inspector; in 9

fact, I

was at a

site not too far away from 10 FitzPatrick, at Genay ______ §j_!.l_f!_§., but I do remember that 11 performance indicator scram with lot~s of normal heat 12 removal.

And now finding myself back in this position 13 some 13 years later, things have changed in the 14 performance indicators, and yes you were correct that 15 that indicator is no longer part of the Pis that are 16 voluntarily reported by industry.

But Dave, thanks 17 for that clarification and elaboration on that point 18 in your petition.

Any other questions from the group 19 here?

Okay I think Jessica, did you--were you going 20 to make another comment?

21 MS. AZULAY:

Yes, this is Jessica Azulay.

22 I

just wanted to respond to the question of the 23 financial qualifications petition and its relationship 24 25 to this petition.

I wanted to clarify that we*re not suggesting that these petitions be joined.

We do (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

21 1

realize that they are separate petitions, and that our 2

financial qualifications petition is in process, and I 3

think I just wanted to clarify that we are bringing 4

this issue to you today because we do think it has 5

bearing on how the company will- -how we can predict 6

the company will act, and whether- -and what they 1 re 7

considering and what kind of constraints and pressures 8

they 1 re under in deciding whether to conduct this tube 9

replacement that they 1ve said they 1 re planning to do.

10 And so that 1 s why we wanted to bring 11 these issues to your attention and bring that 12 proceeding to your attention.

We believe the company 13 is under a lot of financial pressure to put off this 14 tube replacement as long as possible, which is part of 15 why they 1 ve put this tube replacement off so long 16 while these unplanned power changes continue for such 17 a long period of time, and until the company makes a 18 decision about whether going to continue 19 operating for a long period of time, we predict they 20 won 1 t want to invest in such an expensive repair and 21 replacement.

So that 1 S why we wanted to bring these 22 to your attention, not to suggest that these two 23 petitions should be joined.

24 MR.

JUDSON:

That 1 s right, and this is 25 Tim, and just to add to that, I think the additional (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

22 1

context in which we wanted to raise those issues was 2

with respect to NRC might conduct a

cost-benefit 3

analysis in deciding sort of how to provide regulatory 4

enforcement on this issue in particular, and we would 5

just like to sort of be out there up front, sort of 6

calling attention to our concerns about how NRC might 7

conduct that cost-benefit analysis and what factors it 8

may consider.

9 CHAIRMAN NIEH:

Okay, thank you very much, 10 Tim and Jessica for that clarification.

The NRC staff 11 here do not have any additional questions, I guess 12 Dave, any final comments for the Board?

13 MR.

LOCHBAUM:

This is Dave Lochbaum, I

14 just--I should have done it at the opening.

I wanted 15 to thank Mohan Thadani for arranging this meeting.

We 16 went through a couple of iterations because of the 17 Government shutdown, but he did a fantastic job of 18 setting us up and arranging this, and I appreciate 19 that effort and the extra effort he had to go through 20 because of the Government shutdown that was beyond his 21 control.

So I appreciate that.

22 23 24 25 MR. THADANI:

Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN NIEH:

Okay, thanks for the acknowledgment, Dave.

I guess before- -so we' 11 get ready to conclude the meeting.

I did want to just (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

23 1

clarify one thing I mentioned in my opening remarks.

2 I said the wrong date for the petition; I said July 3

23, but the date of the petition is actually July 25, 4

so I wanted to clarify that.

So before I conclude the 5

meeting, I know we have some members of the public on 6

the phone, I'd like to perhaps take the opportunity 7

here to see if any members of the public have any 8

questions for the NRC on the process, not the merits 9

of the petition we just discussed, but are there any 10 questions from members of the public on the phone 11 about how the NRC dispositions 2.206 petitions?

12 MR.

GUNTHER:

This is Paul Gunter with 13 Beyond Nuclear; I don't have any questions at this 14 point.

15 CHAIRMAN NIEH:

Okay, thank you, Paul.

16 All right, well Mr. Lochbaum--okay, does the licensee 17 have any questions about the NRC's 2.206 petition 18 process?

19 MR. KORS:

No, we do not.

20 CHAIRMAN NIEH:

Okay, thank you.

Thank 21 you, Mohan.

Okay, I'd like to--excuse me?

22 MR.

KORS:

Just giving you my name, Ken 23 Kors.

24 CHAIRMAN NIEH:

Oh, okay.

Thank you, Ken.

25 Okay, well Dave and Jessica and Tim, thank you for (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

24 1

taking the time to talk with the Board today, I found 2

your remarks helpful and we'll consider them in 3

addition to the petition that was submitted on July 4

25, 2013.

5 Thank you.

6 7

8 9

2:02p.m.]

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (202) 234-4433 And with that, the meeting is adjourned.

MR. LOCHBAUM:

Thank you.

Bye.

MS. AZULAY:

Thank you.

[Whereupon, the meeting was concluded at NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 2

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 25 www.nealrgross.com

PKG:ML13217A059 Response Letter: ML14034A028 Federal Register Notice: ML14034A071 OFFICE NRRIDORULPL 1-1/PM NRRIDORULPL 1-1/LA NRRIDORULPL 1-1/BC Tech Editor NAME MThadani KGoldstein BBeasley QTE DATE 02/10/14 02/10/14 02/10/14 02/07/14 OFFICE OGC NRRIDORUD NRRID NAME EMichel ME vans Eleeds DATE 02/10/14 02/11/14 02/12/14

v t e Letter Sequence Other
TAC:MF2521, (Open)
Initiation Request, Request, Request Acceptance... Administration Questions Answers Results Approval... Other: ML14034A028, ML14127A323, ML14127A335, ML14127A338
MONTHYEAR2013-07-25 [Table View]

ML14034A028

Text

Dear Mr. Lochbaum:

Enclosures:

SUMMARY

Purpose:

Contact:

Dear Mr.:

Dear Mr.:

Enclosures:

Dear [insert petitioner's name]:

Enclosures:

Title:

Navigation menu

Search