ML20212G629
| ML20212G629 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/27/1999 |
| From: | Travers W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Bishop R NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (FORMERLY NUCLEAR MGMT & |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212G633 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 9909300060 | |
| Download: ML20212G629 (12) | |
Text
C 0 ]>x
- o p
UNITED STATES t
B-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066-0001 w
September 27, 1999 Mr. Robert W. Bishop Vice President and General Counsel Nuclear Energy Institute j
1776 i Street, NW., Suite 400 i
Washington, DC 20006
Dear Mr. Bishop:
Thank you for your letter of July 30,1999, in which you commented on our recent changes to the 10 CFR 2.206 review process and our sources of stakeholder input to those changes. We welcome and appreciate your comments.
The revised process, which is documented in NRC Management Directive 8.11 (MD 8.11),
" Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions," dated July 1,1999, is the culmination of the most recent phase of a continuing effort to enhance the effectiveness of our reviews and thereby strengthen public cor.fidence in the petition process. This MD 8.11 revision reflects several improvements that we were able to implement relatively quickly in response to a rather limited stakeholder survey and from staff experience with the existing process. During this first phase effort, we sought feedback only from a selected group of petitioners, each of whom had filed one or more petitions during the previous year or so, because only this group had direct and i
personal experience with the total process. One of our principal objectives was to facilitate more contact between petitioners and staff in order to increase opportunities for more active petitioner involvement in the process. We recognized that this short-term action could not address all of the interests of the industry and other members of the public, nor would it adequately resolve all of the petitioners' concerns.
In the next phase of our improvement effort, we will reach many more stakeholders, including members of the industry, through one of our planned follow-on efforts, namely, publication of the revised MD 8.11 in the F_ederal Reaister for an Manded comment period. We plan to do this shortly. We also plan to hold a public meeting on the process at an appropriate point during the Federal Reaister comment period. Following the receipt and consideration of comments, a second Federal Reaister notice will be published which will contain responses to the comments and recommendations received. It will also explain any changes to be made in MD 8.11 and any plans for rulemaking as a result of the public process.
Thank you again for bringing your concerns to our attention. Enclosed is a copy of the revised management directive for your information.
Sincerely, h 7M
)
/
I
$ r n()O J
William rave 4
g4AgC Q fr J~
1 ecutiv irector I
for Operations
[ _. K (> J L_.
Enclosure:
As stated 9909300060 990927 PDR REVCP ERONUHRC
'X PDR l
i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
~
I i
DIRECTIVE TRANSMITTAL
!l TN: DT-99-18 To:
NRC Management Directives Custodians l
Subject-Transmittal of Directive 8.11, " Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions" Purpose-Directive and Handbook 8.11 are being revised to address stakeholder feedback, to make the 2.206 review process more timely and effective, and to facilitate increased petitioner-staff communication and interaction.
Office and Division of Origin:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Contact:
Herbert N. Berkow,415-1485 or l
Gordon Edison,415-1448 Date Approved:
September 23,1994 (Revised: July 1,1999)
Volume:
8 Licensee Oversight Programs Directive:
8.11 Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Availability:
Rules and Directives Branch Office of Administration David L. Meyer, (301) 415-7162 or Jeannette P. Kiminas (301) 415-7086 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION
r September 27, 1999 Mr. Robert W. Bishop Vice President end G:neral Counsel Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 i Street, NW., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006
Dear Mr. Bishop:
.Thank you for your letter of July 30,1999, in which you commented on our recent changes to the 10 CFR 2.206 review process and our sources of stakeholder input to those changes. We
' welcome and appreciate your comments.
The revised process, which is documented in NRC Management Directive 8.11 (MD 8.11),
" Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions," dated July 1,1999, is the culmination of the most recent phase of a continuing effort to enhance the effectiveness of our reviews and thereby strengthen public confidence in the petition process. This MD 8.11 revision reflects soeral improvements that we were able to implement relatively quickly in response to a rather limited
{
stakeholder survey and from staff experience with the existing process. During this first phase j
effort, we sought feedback only from a selected group of petitioners, each of whom had filed one or more petitions during the previous year or so, because only this group had direct and personal experience with the total process.. One of our principal objectives v as to facilitate more contact between petitioners and staff in order to increase opportunities for more active petitioner involvement in the process. We recognized that this short-term action could not address all of the interests of the industry and other members of the public, nor would it i
adequately resolve all of the petitioners' concerns.
l In the next phase of our improvement effort, we will reach many more stakeholders, including members of the industry, through one of our planned follow-on efforts, namely, publication of the revised MD 8.11 in the Federal Reaister for an extended comment period. We plan to do this shortly. We also plan to hold a public meeting on the process at an appropriate point during the Federal Reaister comment period. Following the receipt and consideration of comments, a second Federal Reaister notice will be published which will contain responses to the comments and recommendations received. It will also explain any changes to be made in MD 8.11 and any plans for rulemaking as a result of the public process.
Thank you again for bringing your concerns to our attention. Enclosed is a copy of the revised managemeni directive for your information.
Sincerely, Odghsr@edby William D.Travens William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
- As stated DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\PDll-1\\BERKOW\\ letter to bishop on 2.206 process.wpd*See previous concurrence To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box C= Copy w/o attachment / enclosure E= Copy with attachment / enclosure N = No copy OFFICE LA:PDil-1*
D:PDil-1*
Tech Editor
- D:DLPM*
ADPT:NRR*
NAME CHawes HBerkow:cn RSanders JZwolinski BSheron DATE 08/06/99 08/09/99 8/9/99 08/09/99 08/10/99 dr j%
OFFICE D:NRR*
NAME SCollins h
r vers fh99 DATE1 8/11/99
/
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
F i
I' Distribution for Green Ticket #G19990387 to Robert W. Bishop Central File (w/ incoming)
PUBLIC (w/ incoming)
EDO #G19990387
' W. Travers F. Miraglia M.Knapp P. Norry J. Blaha S. Collins /R. Zimmerman
. B. Sheron
. PD ll-1 R/F (w/ incoming)
OCA NRR Mailroom (EDO #19990387 w/ incoming) (O-5 E-7)
M. King C. Norsworthy G. Edison R. Subbaratnam C.Hawes L. Plisco, Ril D. Cool i.
',[-
1 Mr. R:bert W. Bishop Vice Pr:sid:nt and G:n:ral Counsel Nucizr Energy Instituts 1776 l Street, NW., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006
Dear Mr. Bishop:
Thank you for your letter of J 30,1999, in which you commented on our recent changes to the 10 CFR 2.206 review proce' s and our sources of stakeholder input to those changes. We welcome and appreciate your co ments.
The revised process, which is docurnqnted in NRC Management Directive 8.11 (MD 8.11),
" Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions," dated July 1,1999, is the culmination of the first
{
phase of a continuing effort to enhance e effectiveness of our reviews and thereby strengthen public confidence in the petition process. his MD 8.11 revision reflects several improvements that we were able to implement relatively q 'ckly in response to a rather limited stayeholder survey and from staff experience with the ex ting process. During this first phase sffort, we sought feedback only from a selected group o etitioners, each of whom had filed one or more petitions during the previous year or so, becaus only this group had direct and personal experience with the total process. One of our pri cipal objectives was to facilitate more contact between petitioners and staff in order to increase portunities for more active petitioner involvement in the process. We recognized that thi hort-term acticn could not address all of the interests of the industry and other members of the ublic, nor would it adequately resolve all of the petitioners' concerns.
In the next phase of our improvement effort, we will reach any more stakeholders, including members of the industry, through one of our planned follow n efforts, namely, publication of the revised MD 8.11 in the Federal Reaister for an extended co ent period. We plan to do this shortly. We also plan to hold a public meeting on the process t an appropriate point during the FederalEteaister comment period. The results of these and oth r continuing efforts will be reflected in a future revision of MD 8.11.
Thank you again for bringing your concerns to our attention. Encio d is a copy of the revised management directive for your information.
l l
Sincerely, William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
As stated DOCUMENT NAME: A:\\ letter to bishop on 2.206 process.wpd*See previous concurre c To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box C= Copy w/o attachment / enclosure E= Copy with atta h nt/ enclosure N = No copy OFFICE 1.A:PDil-1*
D:PDil-1*
Tech Editor
- D:DLPM*
ADPT:NRb NAME CHawes HBerkow:cn RSanders JZwolinski BSheron DATE 08/06/99 08/09/99 8/9/99 08/09/99 08/10/99 i
OFFIC D:NFJfp fJ MEDO NAME S
Ins ravers DATE Q / tl /99
/
/99 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY j
Mr. Robert W. Bishop Vics President and Gan:ral Couns:1 Nuclear Energy institute 1776 i Street, NW., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 l'
Dear Mr. Bishop:
. Thank you for your letter of July 30,1999, in which you commented on our recent changes to -
the 10 CFR 2.206 review process and our sources of stakeholder input to those changes. We welcome and appreciate your comments.
/
The revised process, which is documented in NRC Management Directive 8.}1'(MD 8.;1),
" Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions," dated July 1,1999, is the culmination of the first phase of a continuing effort to enhance the effectiveness of our reviews afid thereby strengthen public confidence in the petition process. This MD 8.11 revision reflec}s'several improvements that we were able to implement relatively quickly in response to a rather limited stakeholder survey and from staff experience with the existing process. During(his first phase effort, we sought feedback only from a selected group of petitioners, each whom had filed one or more petitions during the previous year or so, because only this gr had direct and personal experience with the total process. One of our principal obje es was to facilitate more contact
. between petitioners and staff in order to increase opportun,itles for more active petitioner involvement in the process. We recognized that this short-term action could not address all of the interests of the industry and other members of the public, nor would it adequately resolve all of the petitioners' concerns.-
In the next phase of our improvement effort, we wilfreach many more stakeholders, including members of the industry, through one of our planped follow-on efforts, namely, publication of the revised MD 8.11 in the Federal Reaister for,an extended comment period. We plan to do this shortly. We also plan to hold a public mepting on the process at an appropriate point during the Federal Reaister comment period /The results of these and other continuing efforts
- will be reflected in a future revision of MD 8p11.
Thank you again for bringing your conceyns to our attention. Enclosed is a copy of the revised management directive for your information.
Sincerely, William D. fravers
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
As stated G:\\PDil dilERKOW\\ letter to bishop on 2.206 process.wpd*See previous concurrence DOCUMENT NAME:
To receive a copy of this document, te in the box C= Copy w/o attachment / enclosure E= Copy with attachment / enclosure N = No copy m
OFFICE LA:PDil-1 *
[ D:PJ1(li Tech Editor
- D:DLPM m ADP R
f
[
HBeIbn RSahders JZwolink-.BShekD l0 NAME' CHawes -
'DATE
'8/ 6 /99!
7 /$ /99 8/9/99 9/07/9h 8 // /99 D:NRR [
EDO OFFICE -
NAME SColli WTravers DATE.
/!. /99
./
/99 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY '
E l
Mr. Robert W. Bishop.
Vice Pr:sid:nt and G:n:rd Counst!
1 Nuclear Energy Institute g
- 1776 i Street, NW., Suite 400
\\
Washington, DC 20006 q
Dear Mr. Bishop:
Thank you for your letter of July 30,1 9, in which you commented on our recent changes to the 10 CFR 2.206 review process and dur sources of stakeholder input to those changes. We l
welcome and appreciate your thoughts.
The revised process, which is' document, in Management Directive 8.11 (MD 8.11)," Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions," date July 1,'1999, is the culmination of the first phase of "a continuing effort to enhance the effective ss of our reviews and thereby improve public c
confidence in the petition process. This MD.11 revision includes several improvements which we were able to implement relatively quickly i response to a rather limited stakeholder survey and from staff experience with the existing pr ss. During this first phase effort we sought feedback only from a selected group of petition s, each of whom had filed one or more petitions during the previous year or so, because ese are the only people who had direct and personal experience with the total process.,One o our principal objectives was to facilitate greater interactions between petitioners and staff a to provide opportunities for more active petitioner involvement in the process. We recognize that this short-term action might not address all of the interests of the industry or other me bers of the public, nor would it adequately resolve all of the petitioners' concerns.
In the next phase of our improvement effort, a much larg r number of stakeholders, including members of tne industry, will be reached by one of our pl ned follow' on efforts, namely, publication of the revised MD 8.11 in the Federal Reaister r an extended comment period.
'We plan to do_ this shortly. We also plan to hold a public m eting on the process at an
- appropriate point during the Federal Reaister comment peri. The resu!ts of these and other I
continuing efforts will be reflected in a future revision of MD 11.
I
. Thank you again for bringing your concerns to our attention.
closed is a copy of the revised j
Management Directive for your information.
Sincerely, William D. Travers Executive Director for erations
Enclosure:
As stated DOCUMENT NAME: : A:\\ letter to bishop on 2.206 process.wpd
- To receive a copy of this document, Indicate in the box C= Copy w/o attachment / enclosure E= Cop with attachment / enclosure N = No I:opy kDPT:NRR OFFICE LA:PDil-1 b
D:PDil:1 Tech Editor D:DLPM 3 _
kheron NAME CHawesh7N HBedok JZwolinski
\\/-/99 DATE' h/h /99'
-$/i/99
/
/99
/
/99
\\'
OFFICE D:NRR EDO NAME SCollins WTravers DATE"
/
/99'
/
/99
' OFFICIAL RECORD COPY t
{.
Thank you again for bringing your concerns to our attention. Enclosed is a copy of the revised Management Directive for your information.
\\
\\
Sincerely, j
William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
As stated
'\\
\\
\\'
I
\\
\\
\\
z L
DOCUMENT NAME: P:\\ letter to bishop on 2206' process.w To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box C= Copy wio attach nt/ enclosure E= Copy with attachment / enclosure N = No copy OFFICE '
l#PDll-1 D:PDil-1 Tech Editor N \\D:DLPM ADPT:NRR NAME CHawes' HBerkow:en hk hZwolinski BSheron DATE
/'
/99
/
/99
$ / $ /99
\\ /
/99
/
/99 OFFICE 0:NRR EDO M
\\,
PD ll-1 DOCUMENT COVER PAGE DOCUMENT NAME: Paletter to bishop on 2206 process.wpd ORIGINATOR:
H. BERKOW SECRETARY:
CHERI NAGEL
SUBJECT:
GREEN TICKET #Gi9990387 DATE:
August 9,1999
- ROUTING LIST *****
NAME DATE 1.
C. HAWES
/ /99 2.
H. BERKOW
/ /99
- 3. TECH EDITOR O
//7/99 4.
J. ZWOLINSKI
/ /99
- 5. B. SHERON
/ /99 6.
S. COLLINS
/ /99 7.
W. TRAVERS
/ /99
- 8. Secretary - Dispatch H-12 O return incoming / background to licensing assistant / project manager
PD 11-1 DOCUMENT COVER PAGE DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\PDil-1\\BERKOW\\ letter to bishop on 2.206 process.wpd ORIGINATOR:
H. BERKOW SECRETARY:
CHERINAGEL
SUBJECT:
GREEN TICKET #G19990387 DATE:
August 9,1999
- ROUTING LIST *****
NAME DATE 1.
C. HAWES 8/699 2.
H. BERKOW h 9 / /99
- 3. TECH EDITOR 8/9/99
- 4. J. ZWOLINSKd
[fi/99 I
d 8 ##/99 5.
B. SHERON V ' gu)
/
g 6.
S. COLLINS
/ /99 b 7.
W. TRAVERS
/ /99
- 8. Secretary - Dispatch H-12 O return incoming / background to licensing assistant / project manager 5
PD 11-1 DOCUMENT COVER PAGE DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\PDil-1\\BERKOW\\ letter to bishop on 2.206 process.wpd l
ORIGINATOR:
H. BERKOW SECRETARY:
CHERINAGEL SUB. LECT:
GREEN TICKET #G19990387 DATE:
August 6,1999
- ROUTING LIST *****
NAME DATE 1.
C. HAWESNIN O/h99 2.
H. BERKOW
/ /99 3.
TECH EDITOR
/ /99
- 4. J. ZWOLINSKI
/ /99 1
5.
B. SHERON
/ /99 j
6.
S. COLLINS
/ /99 7.
W. TRAVERS
/ /99
- 8. Secretary - Dispatch H-12 O return incoming / background to licensing assistant / project manager
b-m
. 4 j~ < ~. -,-
,7 u;
l EDO. Principal Correspondence Control i
FROMt DUE: %} /3j / q q EDO CONTROL: G19990387 DOC DT: 07/30/99 FINAL REPLY:
Robert Willis Bishop 1
Nuclocr-Energy Institute (NSI) l TOs Travers, EDO FOR SIGNATURE F :
- GRN CRC NO:
M DESCs ROUTING:
CHANGES TO REVIEW AND PROCESS UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 Travers Knapp Miraglia Norry Blaha Burns DATE: 08/03/99 Cyr, OGC Goldberg, OGC ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
Subbaratnam,NRR JiRR
_ Collins SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
For Appropriate Action.
l 1
l C