ML18220B314: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 52: Line 52:
You met with the PRB on June 19, 2018, to discuss your petition. The transcript of that meeting is publicly available at ADAMS Accession No. ML18194A395 and is considered a supplement to the petition. The PRB will consider both the petition, and your discussion at the June 19, 2018, meeting, in establishing the schedule for the review of your petition.
You met with the PRB on June 19, 2018, to discuss your petition. The transcript of that meeting is publicly available at ADAMS Accession No. ML18194A395 and is considered a supplement to the petition. The PRB will consider both the petition, and your discussion at the June 19, 2018, meeting, in establishing the schedule for the review of your petition.
On August 2, 2018, the petition manager informed you that the PRB has determined that your petition meets the acceptance criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206, in accordance with Management Directive (MD) 8.11, and has made an initial recommendation to accept your petition for review under the NRC's 10 CFR 2.206 process. The petition manager also asked whether you desired an opportunity to comment on this recommendation, in person or via teleconference, consistent with MD 8.11. You declined this offer for a second meeting with the PRB.
On August 2, 2018, the petition manager informed you that the PRB has determined that your petition meets the acceptance criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206, in accordance with Management Directive (MD) 8.11, and has made an initial recommendation to accept your petition for review under the NRC's 10 CFR 2.206 process. The petition manager also asked whether you desired an opportunity to comment on this recommendation, in person or via teleconference, consistent with MD 8.11. You declined this offer for a second meeting with the PRB.
As provided by 1O CFR Section 2.206, we will take action on your request within a reasonable time. I have assigned Bhalchandra Vaidya to be the petition manager. Mr. Vaidya can be reached by e-mail at Bhalchandra.Vaidya@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301-415-3308.
As provided by 10 CFR Section 2.206, we will take action on your request within a reasonable time. I have assigned Bhalchandra Vaidya to be the petition manager. Mr. Vaidya can be reached by e-mail at Bhalchandra.Vaidya@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301-415-3308.


M. Kearney, et al.                        I have enclosed a copy of the proposed Federal Register notice, a copy of MD 8.11, and the associated brochure NUREG/BR-0200, "Public Petition Process," Revision 5, issued February 2003, by the NRC Office of Public Affairs.
M. Kearney, et al.                        I have enclosed a copy of the proposed Federal Register notice, a copy of MD 8.11, and the associated brochure NUREG/BR-0200, "Public Petition Process," Revision 5, issued February 2003, by the NRC Office of Public Affairs.
Line 82: Line 82:


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On March 27, 2018, the petitioner requested that the NRC take enforcement action with regard to FE, FES, NG, and FENOC operations in Ohio and Pennsylvania at Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS), Units 1 and 2; Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS), Unit 1; and Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP), Unit 1 {ADAMS Accession No.
On March 27, 2018, the petitioner requested that the NRC take enforcement action with regard to FE, FES, NG, and FENOC operations in Ohio and Pennsylvania at Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS), Units 1 and 2; Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS), Unit 1; and Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP), Unit 1 {ADAMS Accession No. ML18094A642). The petitioner requested that the NRC take the following actions:
ML18094A642). The petitioner requested that the NRC take the following actions:
A) Demands for Information (1) Promptly issue a Demand for Information to FE, FES, NG, and FENOC requesting site-specific decommissioning funding plans for the BVNPS, DBNPS, and PNPP; (2) Promptly issue a Demand for Information to FE, FES, NG, and FENOC regarding their reliance on external trust funds from FE and FES to satisfy their decommissioning financial obligations; (3) Promptly issue a Demand for Information to FE, FES, NG, and FENOC regarding their continued reliance on Parent Guarantees from FE to satisfy decommissioning funding obligations, including the ability of FE to satisfy the Parent Guarantee financial test under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 30, Appendix A; (4) Promptly issue a Demand for Information to FES, NG, and FENOC to the extent that they are relying on Parent Guarantees from FES to satisfy decommissioning funding obligations, including the ability of FES to satisfy the Parent Guarantee financial test under 10 CFR Part 30, Appendix A; 3
A) Demands for Information (1) Promptly issue a Demand for Information to FE, FES, NG, and FENOC requesting site-specific decommissioning funding plans for the BVNPS, DBNPS, and PNPP; (2) Promptly issue a Demand for Information to FE, FES, NG, and FENOC regarding their reliance on external trust funds from FE and FES to satisfy their decommissioning financial obligations; (3) Promptly issue a Demand for Information to FE, FES, NG, and FENOC regarding their continued reliance on Parent Guarantees from FE to satisfy decommissioning funding obligations, including the ability of FE to satisfy the Parent Guarantee financial test under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 30, Appendix A; (4) Promptly issue a Demand for Information to FES, NG, and FENOC to the extent that they are relying on Parent Guarantees from FES to satisfy decommissioning funding obligations, including the ability of FES to satisfy the Parent Guarantee financial test under 10 CFR Part 30, Appendix A; 3


Line 109: Line 108:


U.S. NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSION
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSION
...r' TN: DT-00-20 To:                NRC Management Directives Custodians Subject*            Transmittal of Directive 8.11, "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions" Purpose:           Directive and Handbook 8.11 are being revised to address stakeholder feedback and to improve clarity *and make the*
...r' TN: DT-00-20 To:                NRC Management Directives Custodians Subject*            Transmittal of Directive 8.11, "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions"
 
==Purpose:==
Directive and Handbook 8.11 are being revised to address stakeholder feedback and to improve clarity *and make the*
handbook easier to use. There are three major changes to the handbook: (1) the addition of an opportunity for petitioners to address the Petition Review Board after it discusses the petition; (2) the deletion 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.
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 and Division of Origin: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Contact:           Andrew J. Kugler, (301) 415-2828 or Donna Skay, (301) 415-1322 Date Approved:      July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000)
Office and Division of Origin: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
 
==Contact:==
Andrew J. Kugler, (301) 415-2828 or Donna Skay, (301) 415-1322 Date Approved:      July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000)
Volume:            8    Licensee Oversight Programs Directive:          8.11 Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Availability:      Rules and Directives Branch Office of Administration .
Volume:            8    Licensee Oversight Programs Directive:          8.11 Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Availability:      Rules and Directives Branch Office of Administration .
David L Meyer, (301) 415-7162 or Doris Mendiola, (301) 415-6297 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION
David L Meyer, (301) 415-7162 or Doris Mendiola, (301) 415-6297 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION


TN: DT-00-20
TN: DT-00-20 Significant Changes to the Management Directive 8.11 Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions The entire document has been revised to improve clarity and make it easier to use. In particular, the handbook is now written with actions in chronological order. In addition to those general changes, the following significant changes have been made:
.;
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.
* 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.
* 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.
Line 126: Line 129:
       **  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.
       **  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.
* Addition of a process flow chart and a petition manager's checklist to assist staff persons involved with petitions.
  ...
2
2


\_)                  Review Process for 1O CFR 2.206 Petitions Directive 8.11
\_)                  Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Directive 8.11
\_J ....*, . . . .
\_J ....*, . . . .


Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions
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),
                                                                                                                       *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 Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Handbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Handbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 2~; 2000)                                                                                                              iii
*.
Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 2~; 2000)                                                                                                              iii


U. S. Nuclear Regulatory ~ommission
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory ~ommission
Line 144: Line 144:
* To e~urt: the p~blic health an~ safety, through the prompt and thorough evaluation of* any potential problem addressed by a petition filed under 10 CFR 2.206. (021)
* To e~urt: the p~blic health an~ safety, through the prompt and thorough evaluation of* any potential problem addressed by a petition filed under 10 CFR 2.206. (021)
* To p~ovide. for appropriate participation by a petitioner in, and obseivation by the pu~lic of, :NRC's. _decisionmaking activities related to a 10 CFR 2206 petition. (022)
* To p~ovide. for appropriate participation by a petitioner in, and obseivation by the pu~lic of, :NRC's. _decisionmaking activities related to a 10 CFR 2206 petition. (022)
                                                  .                    .
:**  . 1*,* .        .. . . . .
:**  . 1*,* .        .. . . . .
* To ensure effective. co.m~1:1nication with the petitioner and other stakeholders on the* status of the petition, including providing relevant documents and notification of interactions between the NRC staff and a licensee or certificate holder relevant to the petition. (023) .
* To ensure effective. co.m~1:1nication with the petitioner and other stakeholders on the* status of the petition, including providing relevant documents and notification of interactions between the NRC staff and a licensee or certificate holder relevant to the petition. (023) .
Line 180: Line 179:
* Participate, as necessary, in meetings with the petitioner and public, in technical review of petitions and in deliberations of the PRB. (c) 2.206 PRB Chairperson (035)
* Participate, as necessary, in meetings with the petitioner and public, in technical review of petitions and in deliberations of the PRB. (c) 2.206 PRB Chairperson (035)
Each office that is assigned a petition will appoint a PRB chairperson, generally a Senior Executive Setvice manager, who will-              *-*,
Each office that is assigned a petition will appoint a PRB chairperson, generally a Senior Executive Setvice manager, who will-              *-*,
* Convene
* Convene PRB. meetings
                          *..
PRB. meetings
                                            . *. .
                                                     .. (a)
                                                     .. (a)
* Ensure appropriate review of all new petitions in a timely manner. (b)
* Ensure appropriate review of all new petitions in a timely manner. (b)
Line 222: Line 218:
Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000)                                                            5
Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000)                                                            5


Review Process for 1O CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 u
Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 u
   * * * * #. ,. * * * * * * * * ** ~ * * * * - * * * * * : - * * * ' ' * * ** * ~
   * * * * #. ,. * * * * * * * * ** ~ * * * * - * * * * * : - * * * ' ' * * ** * ~
* Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions
* Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions
Line 245: Line 241:
Part IV Petition Review Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Part IV Petition Review Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
* Reviewing the Petition (A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Interoffice Coordination (1) . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      19 Request for Licensee Input (2) *..................................... ~                                            20 Technical Review Meeting With the Petitioner (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        20 Additional Petition Review Board (PRB) Meetings (4) . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . * * .                            20 Schedule (B) ........................... ~ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                    20 Keeping the Petitioner Informed (C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          22 Updates to Management and the Public (D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                  22 PartV The Director's Decision                                                                                                      24 Content and Format (A) ............................................. : .                                                24 Final Versus Partial Director's Decisions (B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . .              25 Granting the Petition (C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Denying the Petition (D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Issuing the Proposed Director's Decision for Comment (E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                            26 Comment Disposition (F) *................................ : . . . . . . . . . . .
* Reviewing the Petition (A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Interoffice Coordination (1) . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      19 Request for Licensee Input (2) *..................................... ~                                            20 Technical Review Meeting With the Petitioner (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        20 Additional Petition Review Board (PRB) Meetings (4) . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . * * .                            20 Schedule (B) ........................... ~ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                    20 Keeping the Petitioner Informed (C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          22 Updates to Management and the Public (D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                  22 PartV The Director's Decision                                                                                                      24 Content and Format (A) ............................................. : .                                                24 Final Versus Partial Director's Decisions (B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . .              25 Granting the Petition (C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Denying the Petition (D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Issuing the Proposed Director's Decision for Comment (E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                            26 Comment Disposition (F) *................................ : . . . . . . . . . . .
* 27 Issuing the Director's Decision (G) .......... : ............ *.. . . . . . . . . . . . ..                              21 Administrative Issues (H) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Commission Actions (I) . ~ . . . * . . . . . . * . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
* 27 Issuing the Director's Decision (G) .......... : ............ *.. . . . . . . . . . . . ..                              21 Administrative Issues (H) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Commission Actions (I) . ~ . . . * . . . . . . * . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Exhibits 1    Simplified 2.206 Process Flow Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            31 2    Petition Manager Checklist ............*........ ! ** ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    .
Exhibits 1    Simplified 2.206 Process Flow Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            31 2    Petition Manager Checklist ............*........ ! ** ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 33
* 33
     .3      Sample Oosure Letter for Requests That Are Not 2.206 Petitions . . . . . . .                                      36 4    Sample Ac~o~ledgment Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              37 5    Sample Federal Register Notice ...**........... ; . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . .                      38
     .3      Sample Oosure Letter for Requests That Are Not 2.206 Petitions . . . . . . .                                      36 4    Sample Ac~o~ledgment Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              37 5    Sample Federal Register Notice ...**........... ; . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . .                      38
Line 281: Line 275:
The official response is the office director's written decision addressing the issues raised in the petition; The office director can grant, partially V                        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.        *
The official response is the office director's written decision addressing the issues raised in the petition; The office director can grant, partially V                        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)
* Assignment of Staff Action (2)
                                                        ;* '
Petitions maybe in the form of requests for NRC action that may or may not cite 10 CFR 2.206 and may initially be directed to staff other than the Boo*. In__ any of these cases, the staff person who receives the document should make an initial evaluation as to whether the document meets the criteria for review tinder 10_CFR2;206 provided in Part III of this handbook. Staff persons who are uncertain whether or not the document meets the criteria should consult their management or office coordinators for further guidance.. If a petition meets the criteria but does *n~t *specifically cite* 10
Petitions maybe in the form of requests for NRC action that may or may not cite 10 CFR 2.206 and may initially be directed to staff other than the Boo*. In__ any of these cases, the staff person who receives the document should make an initial evaluation as to whether the document meets the criteria for review tinder 10_CFR2;206 provided in Part III of this handbook. Staff persons who are uncertain whether or not the document meets the criteria should consult their management or office coordinators for further guidance.. If a petition meets the criteria but does *n~t *specifically cite* 10
* CFR 2.206, the staff will
* CFR 2.206, the staff will
Line 326: Line 319:
* Part III i
* Part III i
Part III-
Part III-
                                                          ..
                   ~etition Revi~w .Boa~d (PRB)
                   ~etition Revi~w .Boa~d (PRB)
General (A)
General (A)
Line 340: Line 332:
* A 1*eJiresenta:tive* from the Office. of hlvestigations (01), as needed (iv)
* A 1*eJiresenta:tive* from the Office. of hlvestigations (01), as needed (iv)
* A -~pres~ntati~e ~~:'.the. ~~ce *~f *Enforcement (OE) *and, for petitions .*assigned to'. the. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), the NRR Senior Enforcement Coordinator, as needed (v)
* A -~pres~ntati~e ~~:'.the. ~~ce *~f *Enforcement (OE) *and, for petitions .*assigned to'. the. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), the NRR Senior Enforcement Coordinator, as needed (v)
              ..
Approved:. July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000)                                                                      7
Approved:. July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000)                                                                      7


Line 352: Line 343:
The petition manager's presentation to PRB should include-(2)
The petition manager's presentation to PRB should include-(2)
* A recommendation as to whether or not the petition meets the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206 (a)
* A recommendation as to whether or not the petition meets the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206 (a)
                                        .                                . .
                           .*  A discussion of the safety significance of the issues raised (b)
                           .*  A discussion of the safety significance of the issues raised (b)
                                                    .,
* Recommendations for any immediate action (whether requested or not) (c)                                      *
* Recommendations for any immediate action (whether requested or not) (c)                                      *
* Recommendations on whether or not assistance from 01, OE, or OGC is necessary (d) *
* Recommendations on whether or not assistance from 01, OE, or OGC is necessary (d) *
Line 373: Line 362:
* an .'e-m.~H . to.: "Court Reporter," giying the same information as requested oli the ~o~ 587. (6) . ,
* an .'e-m.~H . to.: "Court Reporter," giying the same information as requested oli the ~o~ 587. (6) . ,
                                                   ~
                                                   ~
                             .                        ' * * .1 *
                             .                        ' * * .1
                                                                          .
* If the petitioner chooses to attend in person, the meeting will take place at NRC headquarters ata*mutually agreeable time. For the meeting,
If the petitioner chooses to attend in person, the meeting will take place at NRC headquarters ata*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 u                          that the 10-day public notice *period descnoed in MD 3.5 will not be Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised:* October 25, 2000)                                                                    9
: , 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 u                          that the 10-day public notice *period descnoed in MD 3.5 will not be
  .    .
Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised:* October 25, 2000)                                                                    9


       --------------------------'-------IRL.
       --------------------------'-------IRL.
Line 397: Line 383:
: 10.                                                              (Revi~ed: October 25, 2000)
: 10.                                                              (Revi~ed: October 25, 2000)


Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions *
Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions
                                                                      '
* Handbook    8.11 :Part III V
Handbook    8.11 :Part III V
Criteria for Petition Evaluation (C)
Criteria for Petition Evaluation (C)
The staff will use the criteria discussed in this section to determine whether or not a petition should be considered under 10 CFR 2.206 and whether or not similar petitions should be consolidated.
The staff will use the criteria discussed in this section to determine whether or not a petition should be considered under 10 CFR 2.206 and whether or not similar petitions should be consolidated.
Line 413: Line 398:
                           .process. (b)
                           .process. (b)
. .                        Criteria for Rejecting Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206 (2)
. .                        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-
The.staff will not review a petition under 10 CFR 2.206, whether specifically cited or not, under the following circumstances-Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revi_sed: Oct~ber 25, 2000)                                                                  11
                        ...
Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revi_sed: Oct~ber 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)
Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part III Criteria for Petition Evaluation (C) (continued)
Criteria for Rejecting Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206 (2) (continued)
Criteria for Rejecting Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206 (2) (continued)
* The incoming correspondence does not ask for an enforcement-related action or fails to* provide sufficient facts to support the petition but simply alleges wrongdoing, violations of NRC regulations, or existence of safety concerns. The request cannot- be simply a general statement of opposition to nuclear power or a general assertion with~ut supporting facts (e.g., the quality assurance at the facility is inadequate). These assertions will be ~eated as routine correspondence or as allegations that will be referred for appropriate action in accordance with MD 8.8, "Management of Allegations." (a)
* The incoming correspondence does not ask for an enforcement-related action or fails to* provide sufficient facts to support the petition but simply alleges wrongdoing, violations of NRC regulations, or existence of safety concerns. The request cannot- be simply a general statement of opposition to nuclear power or a general assertion with~ut supporting facts (e.g., the quality assurance at the facility is inadequate). These assertions will be ~eated as routine correspondence or as allegations that will be referred for appropriate action in accordance with MD 8.8, "Management of Allegations." (a)
                              .                              .
* The *petitioner raises issues that have already been the subject of NRC staff review and *evaluation. either on that facility, other similar facilities, or on a generic basis, for which a resolution has been achieved, the issues have been resolved, and the resolution is applicable to the facility in question. This would include requests to  "-.J_
* The *petitioner raises issues that have already been the subject of NRC staff review and *evaluation. either on that facility, other similar facilities, or on a generic basis, for which a resolution has been achieved, the issues have been resolved, and the resolution is applicable to the facility in question. This would include requests to  "-.J_
reconsider or reopen a previous enforcement action (including a decision not to initiate an enforcement action) or a director's decision. These requests will not be treated as a 2.206 petition unless they present significant new information. (b)
reconsider or reopen a previous enforcement action (including a decision not to initiate an enforcement action) or a director's decision. These requests will not be treated as a 2.206 petition unless they present significant new information. (b)
Line 427: Line 409:
Criteria for Consolidating Petitions (3) .
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.
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.
                                                                          .              .
Approved: July 1, 1999 12                                                              (Revised: October 25, 2000)
Approved: July 1, 1999 12                                                              (Revised: October 25, 2000)


Line 439: Line 420:
* Determine whether ~r not the petitioner .should be offered or informed of an al_temative process (e.g., consideration of issues as allegations, consideration of issues in a pending license proceeding,
* Determine whether ~r not the petitioner .should be offered or informed of an al_temative process (e.g., consideration of issues as allegations, consideration of issues in a pending license proceeding,
* or rule making) (b)
* or rule making) (b)
                                                      ..                                  .
* Determine whether there .is a need for any immediate actions (whether requested or*not)' (c) .
* Determine whether there .is a need for any immediate actions (whether requested or*not)' (c) .
* Establish* *a schedule for responding to the petitioner so that a commitment is made by management arid the technical review staff to respond to the pe~tion in*a timely inanner (see Part IV of this handbook for guidance :regarding schedules) (d)
* Establish* *a schedule for responding to the petitioner so that a commitment is made by management arid the technical review staff to respond to the pe~tion in*a timely inanner (see Part IV of this handbook for guidance :regarding schedules) (d)
                                                          .... *.                  .          '
                         .*  Address the possi~ility of issuing a partial director's decision (e)
                         .*  Address the possi~ility of issuing a partial director's decision (e)
* De.termine whether or not the petition should be consolidated with another petition (f) .
* De.termine whether or not the petition should be consolidated with another petition (f) .
* r. .
* r. .
* Determine whether or not referral to 01 or OIG is appropriate (g)
* Determine whether or not referral to 01 or OIG is appropriate (g)
                                      .*            :    !.    . .... . .    .      '              . :.
* Determine whether or not there is a need for OGC to participate in the review (h)                                      *
* Determine whether or not there is a need for OGC to participate in the review (h)                                      *
* Determine whether                6i *ri6t ili~ li~nsee ~hould be requested to respond. to the petition (i). . .
* Determine whether                6i *ri6t ili~ li~nsee ~hould be requested to respond. to the petition (i). . .
Line 454: Line 432:
                       ...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
                       ...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
                       ... meeting, .the petition manager briefs PRB on the petitioner's
                       . request(s), any background1nfoimation, 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
                       . request(s), any background1nfoimation, the need for an independent technical review, and a proposed plan for resolution, including target completion dates. The petition manager, with the assistance of the Approved: July .1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000)                                                                              13
                .        ...
Approved: July .1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000)                                                                              13


Volume 8, Licensee. Oversight Programs Review Process* for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 .Part III .
Volume 8, Licensee. Oversight Programs Review Process* for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 .Part III .
Line 501: Line 477:
If the PRB determines that the request is a 2.206 petition, then the petition manager will-(1)
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 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)            "-.J
Add the petitioner to the headquarters and regional service lists for the licensee(s) that is(are) the subject of the petition. (a)            "-.J Approved: July 1, 1999:
                                                                              .                .
Approved: July 1, 1999:
16                                                                (Revised: October 25, 2000)
16                                                                (Revised: October 25, 2000)
* Volume 8; Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process*:for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11* Part III u
* Volume 8; Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process*:for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11* Part III u
Line 527: Line 501:
* There is a need for any immediate actions (whether requested or not) (a)
* There is a need for any immediate actions (whether requested or not) (a)
* The supplement should be consolidated with the existing petidon (b)
* The supplement should be consolidated with the existing petidon (b)
* To issue
* To issue a p~ial director's decision (c)
                              ,
a p~ial director's decision (c)
* Referral to 01 or OIG is appropriate (d)
* Referral to 01 or OIG is appropriate (d)
* To revise the review schedule for the petition based on the supplement (see Part IV of this handbook for guidance regarding schedules) (e)
* To revise the review schedule for the petition based on the supplement (see Part IV of this handbook for guidance regarding schedules) (e)
Line 536: Line 508:
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 det~rmines that the suppleme~twill be treated as a new petition (i.e., not consolidated wi~ the existing petition), the assigned office
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 det~rmines that the suppleme~twill be treated as a new petition (i.e., not consolidated wi~ the existing petition), the assigned office
* must contact OEDO and obtain a new tracking number in the Work Item Tracking System. (5)
* must contact OEDO and obtain a new tracking number in the Work Item Tracking System. (5)
                                                                                  '      ' '
                                                                 . Approved: July 1, 1999 18                                                            (Revised: October 25, 2000)
                                                                 . Approved: July 1, 1999 18                                                            (Revised: October 25, 2000)


Line 553: Line 524:
* Within NRC, access to this information is limited to those having a need-to-know. Regarding a
* Within NRC, access to this information is limited to those having a need-to-know. Regarding a
* 2.206 petition~ the assigned office *director, or his designee, maintains copies' of any documents: required and ensures that no copies of documents related to *an 01 or *01G investigation are placed in the docket file or the Agencywide Documents :Access and Management System (ADAMS) without the approval of the Director, 01, or the IG, .
* 2.206 petition~ the assigned office *director, or his designee, maintains copies' of any documents: required and ensures that no copies of documents related to *an 01 or *01G investigation are placed in the docket file or the Agencywide Documents :Access and Management System (ADAMS) without the approval of the Director, 01, or the IG, .
respectively. (b)                                         *
respectively. (b)
                * *!
* Appr~ved:
                      ..
                    . **
                        *-:.'*      . :: .
Appr~ved:
* July i, 1999 * ...
* July i, 1999 * ...
(Revised: October 25, 2000)                                                                        19'
(Revised: October 25, 2000)                                                                        19'
Line 573: Line 540:
                   *because the petitioner claims to have additional information and will not present it in any other forum.
                   *because the petitioner claims to have additional information and will not present it in any other forum.
* Additional Petition Review Board (PRB) Meetings (4)
* Additional Petition Review Board (PRB) Meetings (4)
                                                            ....
Additional PRB meetings may be scheduled for complex issues.
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.
Additional meetings also may be appropriate if the petition manager finds that significant changes must be made to the original plan for the resolution of the petition.
Schedule (B)
Schedule (B)
The first goal is to issue the proposed director's decision for comment within 120 days after issuing the acknowledgment letter. The proposed director's decision for uncomplicated petitions should be issued in less than 120 days. The second goal is to issue the director's decision within 45 days of the *end of the comment period for the proposed Approved: July 1, 1999 20                                                                (Revised:
The first goal is to issue the proposed director's decision for comment within 120 days after issuing the acknowledgment letter. The proposed director's decision for uncomplicated petitions should be issued in less than 120 days. The second goal is to issue the director's decision within 45 days of the *end of the comment period for the proposed Approved: July 1, 1999 20                                                                (Revised:
                                                                    .      .
October 25, 2000)
October 25, 2000)


Line 586: Line 551:
                         .. number arid complC?~ty of ~he comments allow. The Office of the Executive Director for Operations (OEPO) tracks the first target date, and any ch~ge of the dat~ n;quire~ approval by the EDO. The petition manager monitors the progress of any 91 investigation and related enforcement actions. pnforcement.actions that are prerequisites to a director's decision ~hoU:ld be.expedited and completed in time to meet the 120-day goal. Investigations by Pl and OIG associated with petitions should be expedited to the extent.practicable. However, the goal of issuing the proposed director's deci~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
                         .. number arid complC?~ty of ~he comments allow. The Office of the Executive Director for Operations (OEPO) tracks the first target date, and any ch~ge of the dat~ n;quire~ approval by the EDO. The petition manager monitors the progress of any 91 investigation and related enforcement actions. pnforcement.actions that are prerequisites to a director's decision ~hoU:ld be.expedited and completed in time to meet the 120-day goal. Investigations by Pl and OIG associated with petitions should be expedited to the extent.practicable. However, the goal of issuing the proposed director's deci~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. directo(s decision. should be issued for comment within the original 120. d~ys..When the .staff receives the results of the inves.tigation, it will promptly deyelop and issue a proposed final director's decision for comment. See Part V of this handbook for a discussion of partial director's decisions. (1)
* petition awaiting disposition by those organizations. The clock will start again when the staff receives the results of the investigation. If the staff can respond to some portions of the petition without the results of the investigation, then a proposed partial. directo(s decision. should be issued for comment within the original 120. d~ys..When the .staff receives the results of the inves.tigation, it will promptly deyelop and issue a proposed final director's decision for comment. See Part V of this handbook for a discussion of partial director's decisions. (1)
                                                          .                  .
:,If the proposed director's decision cannot be issued in 120 days for other ~easons (e.g., very -comp~ex issues), the appropriate level of management in *the assigned. office. _determines the need for an extension of the schedule and requests the extension from the EDO. In
:,If the proposed director's decision cannot be issued in 120 days for other ~easons (e.g., very -comp~ex issues), the appropriate level of management in *the assigned. office. _determines the need for an extension of the schedule and requests the extension from the EDO. In
                       . . addition, the petition manager will contact the petitioner promptly to explain the reason(s) for the delay and will maintain a record of the contact. (2)
                       . . 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)
Line 638: Line 602:
* Department of Justice (DOJ); ~e petiti~nnianagerwill contact 01 and the Office of *Enforcement* (OE) to ci:Jordiiiate NRC's actions. For petitions assigned to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NJ;lR),
* Department of Justice (DOJ); ~e petiti~nnianagerwill contact 01 and the Office of *Enforcement* (OE) to ci:Jordiiiate NRC's actions. For petitions assigned to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NJ;lR),
the petition manager also* will contact the *NRR Senior Enforcement Coordinator. The staff may need t~ withhold action on the petition in keeping with the Memorandum of Understanding with DOJ. (4)
the petition manager also* will contact the *NRR Senior Enforcement Coordinator. The staff may need t~ withhold action on the petition in keeping with the Memorandum of Understanding with DOJ. (4)
                                                          .'
If the _results of a -wrong4oing investigation by 01 in relation to the petition are av~ilable, the staff will consid~r these results in completing the . action on the ,petition.. 01 must concur in the accuracy and characterization of the 01 findings and conclusions that are used in the decision. (5)
If the _results of a -wrong4oing investigation by 01 in relation to the petition are av~ilable, the staff will consid~r these results in completing the . action on the ,petition.. 01 must concur in the accuracy and characterization of the 01 findings and conclusions that are used in the decision. (5)
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)
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)
Line 673: Line 636:
Although the staff requested comments from only the petiti~ner and the licen~ee; comments from other sources (e.g., other members of the public) may be received. *These additional comments should be addressed in the same manrieras the comments from the petitioner and licensee. A copy of tlie comments received and the associated staff responses will be included in the director's decision. An attachment to the decision will generally be used for this purpose. (1) .
Although the staff requested comments from only the petiti~ner and the licen~ee; comments from other sources (e.g., other members of the public) may be received. *These additional comments should be addressed in the same manrieras the comments from the petitioner and licensee. A copy of tlie comments received and the associated staff responses will be included in the director's decision. An attachment to the decision will generally be 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 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)
* V 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)      *           *
* V 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)
Issuing the Director's Decision (G)
A de_cision under 10 CFR 2.206 consists 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 Secretacy (SECY). A director's decision number is assigned to* each director's *decision in numerical sequence. This number is included on the letter to _the petitioner, the director's decision, and the Federal. Re'gister .notice. Note that the director's decision itself is not published in the-Federal Register; only the notice of its availability, containing a summacy of the substance of the decision, is published*(see.Exhibits 6 and 7). (1)
A de_cision under 10 CFR 2.206 consists 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 Secretacy (SECY). A director's decision number is assigned to* each director's *decision in numerical sequence. This number is included on the letter to _the petitioner, the director's decision, and the Federal. Re'gister .notice. Note that the director's decision itself is not published in the-Federal Register; only the notice of its availability, containing a summacy of the substance of the decision, is published*(see.Exhibits 6 and 7). (1)
The petition manager will prepare a letter to transmit the director's decision to the petitioner and* will also prepare the associated Federal Register notice. If th~ staff's response 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,'1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000)                                                                    27
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 th~ staff's response 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,'1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000)                                                                    27
Line 694: Line 656:
* Signed original letter (i)
* Signed original letter (i)
* Signed director's decision (ii).
* Signed director's decision (ii).
                                                .              .
* A copy of the Federal Register notice (iii)
* A copy of the Federal Register notice (iii)
                                                                       . Approved: July 1, 1999 28                                                              (~e~sed: Octo~er 25, 2000)
                                                                       . Approved: July 1, 1999 28                                                              (~e~sed: Octo~er 25, 2000)
Line 709: Line 670:
* When action on a 2.206 petition is completed, the petition manager will ensure that all publicly releasable documentation is available to the public in ADAMS. (a) _
* When action on a 2.206 petition 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 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)
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)
* 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)
Line 747: Line 707:
JI'    '&deg;        Rcremice, 2.206                          OtTerMtgor I            I                          .. <                            Partial om Fuhll'C N    \0
JI'    '&deg;        Rcremice, 2.206                          OtTerMtgor I            I                          .. <                            Partial om Fuhll'C N    \0
     . '&deg;                                                clccon (11.c.2&3 c::,                                                                                                                                            PRBs? (111.D) c::,
     . '&deg;                                                clccon (11.c.2&3 c::,                                                                                                                                            PRBs? (111.D) c::,
                                                                                                                                                                    !.........
-.9                                                                                                                                                                  =a
-.9                                                                                                                                                                  =a
                                                                                                                                                                       ~
                                                                                                                                                                       ~
Line 787: Line 746:
               ~'=~I.,._____...,.
               ~'=~I.,._____...,.
               ,s ii~
               ,s ii~
                  *.
                 ~
                 ~
Approved: July 1, i99~f 32                                        (Revised: October 25, 2000)
Approved: July 1, i99~f 32                                        (Revised: October 25, 2000)
Line 840: Line 798:
Handbook 8.11
Handbook 8.11
* Exhibits Exhibit 2          (continued)
* Exhibits Exhibit 2          (continued)
Immediately dispatch the signed original letter and decision and a copy of the Federal Register notice to the petitioner.   *
Immediately dispatch the signed original letter and decision and a copy of the Federal Register notice to the petitioner.
                          .                      '      .
* D Within 2 working days of issuing the Director's decision:
D 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.
       -  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 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 a signed, dated, and numbered ~PY of the director's decision to "NRCWEB."
E-mail beadnotes on the petition to the NRC Issuances Project Officer in OCIO.
E-mail beadnotes on the petition to the NRC Issuances Project Officer in OCIO.
,-
Approved: July 1, 1999.
Approved: July 1, 1999.
(Revised: October 25, 2000)                                                                                35
(Revised: October 25, 2000)                                                                                35
Line 920: Line 876:


==Dear [insert petitioner's name]:==
==Dear [insert petitioner's name]:==
                    ...
j of This letter responds to the petition you filed with [EDO or other addressee petition) pursuant to Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code ofFet!,.eral Regulations (10 CFR 2.206) ori
j of This letter responds to the petition you filed with [EDO or other addressee petition) pursuant to Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code ofFet!,.eral Regulations (10 CFR 2.206) ori
[date of petition] as supplemented on [dates of any supplements]. In your petition you
[date of petition] as supplemented on [dates of any supplements]. In your petition you
Line 930: Line 885:
[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 information provided was considered by the staff in its evaluation of the petition].
[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 information provided was considered by the staff in its evaluation of the petition].
In your petition you stated that [summarize the Issues raised]. [Briefly summarize the safety significance of the issues and tlie stafrs response]. . . : * * *    **    . *
In your petition you stated that [summarize the Issues raised]. [Briefly summarize the safety significance of the issues and tlie stafrs 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 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].
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
Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000)                                                                  39
Line 960: Line 915:
([Plant.or facility name(s)])                )                      (10 CFR 2.206)
([Plant.or facility name(s)])                )                      (10 CFR 2.206)
DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 V I. Introduction By letter dated [insert date], as supplemented on [dates of supplements], [petitioner names and, ifapplicaJ:,le, represented organizations] filed a Petition pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206. The petitioner(s) requ~sted that the U.S.
DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 V I. Introduction By letter dated [insert date], as supplemented on [dates of supplements], [petitioner names and, ifapplicaJ:,le, represented organizations] filed a Petition pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206. The petitioner(s) requ~sted that the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory ~mmission (NRC) take 'the following actions: (list reques~s]. The bases for the requests were'(describe].              *                 *
Nuclear Regulatory ~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.
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~ckville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and from the ADAMS Public Lib~alY:CO~ponent on the NRC~s Web site, http://www.
[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~ckville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and from the ADAMS Public Lib~alY:CO~ponent on the NRC~s Web site, http://www.
nrc.gov (the Public Electronic Reading Room)].
nrc.gov (the Public Electronic Reading Room)].
Line 971: Line 925:
* October 25, 2000)                                                              41
* October 25, 2000)                                                              41


_______________________...________..._
Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process ro*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
Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process ro*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]].
. issues)).
The NRC sent a copy of the proposed director's decision to the Petitioner and to
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]
[licensee(s)] for comment on [date]. (The Petitioner responded with comments on [date]
Line 995: Line 948:
License No(s).
License No(s).
[Name of Licensee]
[Name of Licensee]
                .            .
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CPR 2206 Notice is hereby given that the Director, [name of office], bas issued a director's decision with regard to a petition dated [insert date], filed by [insert petitioner's name],
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CPR 2206 Notice is hereby given that the Director, [name of office], bas issued a director's decision with regard to a petition dated [insert date], filed by [insert petitioner's name],
hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner." [The petition wa*s* supplemented on [Insert date,'
hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner." [The petition wa*s* supplemented on [Insert date,'
include transcripts from meeting(s) with the.PRB]]. The petition concerns the operation of the [insert facility or licensee naoie]. . *
include transcripts from meeting(s) with the.PRB)). The petition concerns the operation of the [insert facility or licensee naoie]. . *
* The petition requested that [insert facility or licensee name] should be [insert request for enforcement-related action]. [If necess~ry," add] The petitioner also requested that a public meeting be held to discuss this matter in the *washington; DC, area.
* The petition requested that [insert facility or licensee name] should be [insert request for enforcement-related action]. [If necess~ry," add] The petitioner also requested that a public meeting be held to discuss this matter in the *washington; DC, area.
                 ,    .                .      .  , ,-    . ,      .      ,.    * . ,**.,.              . r,;                ,        .;    .,  ~
                 ,    .                .      .  , ,-    . ,      .      ,.    * . ,**.,.              . r,;                ,        .;    .,  ~
Line 1,004: Line 956:
considers such operation to be pote~tially
considers such operation to be pote~tially
           ** .  ; -    * ,  * *  *  **              f *.'  -.*
           ** .  ; -    * ,  * *  *  **              f *.'  -.*
                                                                     ~nsrle'
                                                                     ~nsrle' in irid to;be1 violation of&deg;:Feaeral
                                                                      *, *      **          *'  ;
in irid to;be1 violation of&deg;:Feaeral
* 1,  , : * *' - , ,  **
* 1,  , : * *' - , ,  **
0 1    ** ': *  . '
0 1    ** ': *  . '
regulat1ons._ln the pet1t1on, a number of references to [insert references] were cited that
regulat1ons._ln the pet1t1on, a number of references to [insert references] were cited that the petitioner believes prohibit operation of the facility with [insert the ca~se* for the requested enforcement-related
;
the petitioner believes prohibit operation of the facility with [insert the ca~se* for the requested enforcement-related
                       .*          ...      -*.action].
                       .*          ...      -*.action].
                                                     .                        .I .*.
                                                     .                        .I .*.
Line 1,017: Line 965:
* r The petition of [insert date] raises concerns originating from [insert summary information on more bases/rationale/discussion
* r The petition of [insert date] raises concerns originating from [insert summary information on more bases/rationale/discussion
                                                 .      ., .            .      and
                                                 .      ., .            .      and
                                                                                   . - supporting
                                                                                   . - supporting facts used in the disposition of the petition and the development of the* director's decision].
                                                                                              .                .
facts used in the disposition of the petition and the development of the* director's decision].
Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000)                                                                                                                          43
Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000)                                                                                                                          43


Line 1,035: Line 981:
A copy of the director's decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the' Commission's
A copy of the director's decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the' Commission's
           ' ~ :
           ' ~ :
review in accordance with 10 CFR 2206 of the Commission's
review in accordance with 10 CFR 2206 of the Commission's regulations. As provided ~or by this regulation, the directots decision will constitute the .
                          . . .
regulations. As provided ~or by this regulation, the directots decision will constitute the .
final action of the Commission 25 days after the date of the decision, ufi:Iess the Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the director's decision in that time.
final action of the Commission 25 days after the date of the decision, ufi:Iess the Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the director's decision in that time.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this [insert date] day of [insert month, year].                  r FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Original Signed By
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this [insert date] day of [insert month, year].                  r FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Original Signed By
Line 1,070: Line 1,014:
ENCLOSURE 3 NUREG-BR-0200, Rev. 5, "Public Petition Process" ADAMS Accession No. ML050900248
ENCLOSURE 3 NUREG-BR-0200, Rev. 5, "Public Petition Process" ADAMS Accession No. ML050900248


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  -,
i Introduction                                                            hefnre the PRB meets to discuss the petition. The second opportunity comes After receiving a re4uest. NRC determines whether the request qualifies as a 2.20fi rnrector's Decision The NRC, otlkial response toa 2.206 petition I
i Introduction                                                            hefnre the PRB meets to discuss the petition. The second opportunity comes After receiving a re4uest. NRC determines whether the request qualifies as a 2.20fi rnrector's Decision The NRC, otlkial response toa 2.206 petition I
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                                  after the PRB has disrnssed the merits of    petition. If the re4uest is accepted for review      ts a written decision by the director of the (NRC) was established in 1975 to protect                                the petition and allows the petitioner to    as a 2.206 petition. the NRC sends an                appropriate office that addresses the concerns public health and safety in the civilian use of                          comment on the PRB', recommendations          acknowledgment letter to the petitioner and a        raised in the petition. The agency's goal is to nuclear power and materials in the United                                regarding acceptance of the petition and      copy to the appropriate licensee and puhlishe,        issue a proposed decision for comment within States. As part of its responsibilities. NRC                            any rt*qucsts for immediate action.          a notice in the Federal Regis1e1: If the re4ucst      120 davs from the date of the acknowledl!mcnt assesses all potential health and safety issues                                                                        is not accepted. NRC notifies the petitioner ol      letter. However. additional time mav he n'eeded related to licensed activities and encourages
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                                  after the PRB has disrnssed the merits of    petition. If the re4uest is accepted for review      ts a written decision by the director of the (NRC) was established in 1975 to protect                                the petition and allows the petitioner to    as a 2.206 petition. the NRC sends an                appropriate office that addresses the concerns public health and safety in the civilian use of                          comment on the PRB', recommendations          acknowledgment letter to the petitioner and a        raised in the petition. The agency's goal is to nuclear power and materials in the United                                regarding acceptance of the petition and      copy to the appropriate licensee and puhlishe,        issue a proposed decision for comment within States. As part of its responsibilities. NRC                            any rt*qucsts for immediate action.          a notice in the Federal Regis1e1: If the re4ucst      120 davs from the date of the acknowledl!mcnt assesses all potential health and safety issues                                                                        is not accepted. NRC notifies the petitioner ol      letter. However. additional time mav he n'eeded related to licensed activities and encourages

Latest revision as of 07:44, 17 March 2020

OEDO-18-00160 - Acknowledgement Letter 2.206 Petition for Citizen Complaint and Request for Enforcement Action Regarding Firstenergy Nuclear Facility Operations in Ohio and Pennsylvania
ML18220B314
Person / Time
Site: Beaver Valley, Davis Besse, Perry
Issue date: 08/27/2018
From: Ho Nieh
Plant Licensing Branch III
To: Belcher S, Kearney M
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co
Vaidya B, NRR/DORL/LPL3 ,415-3308
Shared Package
ML18220B322 List:
References
OEDO-18-00160
Download: ML18220B314 (76)
v • d • e


Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 August 27, 2018 Ms. Margrethe Kearney Ms. Andrene Dabaghi Environmental Law and Policy Center 35 E. Wacker Drive, Ste. 1600 Chicago, IL 60601

SUBJECT:

10 CFR 2.206 PETITION FOR CITIZEN COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTION REGARDING FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR FACILITY OPERATIONS IN OHIO AND PENNSYLVANIA

Dear Ms. Kearney and Ms. Dabaghi:

On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am responding to your petition dated March 27, 2018. Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR),

Section 2.206, "Requests for Action under this Subpart," you submitted a petition to the Executive Director for Operations of the NRC and your petition has been referred to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) for review. Your petition is available in the NRC Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under Accession No. ML18094A642.

In your petition, you requested enforcement actions against FirstEnergy Corp. (FE), FirstEnergy Solutions (FES), FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation (NG), and FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) for failure to comply with nuclear decommissioning funding requirements under 42 U.S.C.A. (United States Code Annotated), Section 2201(x)(1 ), for the Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (BVPS); Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS), Unit 1; and Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP), Unit 1, all nuclear plants located in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Specifically, you requested the following enforcement actions:

A) Demands for Information (1) Promptly issue a Demand for Information to FE, FES, NG, and FENOC requesting site-specific decommissioning funding plans for the BVPS, DBNPS, and PNPP.

(2) Promptly issue a Demand for Information to FE, FES, NG, and FENOC regarding their reliance on external trust funds from FE and FES to satisfy their decommissioning financial obligations.

(3) Promptly issue a Demand for Information to FE, FES, NG, and FENOC regarding their continued reliance on Parent Guarantees from FE to satisfy decommissioning funding obligations, including the ability of FE to satisfy the Parent Guarantee financial test under Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 30.

M. Kearney, et al. (4) Promptly issue a Demand for Information to FES, NG, and FENOC to the extent that they are relying on Parent Guarantees from FES to satisfy decommissioning funding obligations, including the ability of FES to satisfy the Parent Guarantee financial test under Appendix A to 10 CFR, Part 30.

(5) Promptly issue a Demand for Information to FE, FES, NG, and FENOC regarding their proposed investment and financial contribution plans to make up the current decommissioning shortfall.

(6) Promptly issue a Demand for Information to FE and FES regarding each of their commitments to guarantee NG and FENOC's decommissioning shortfall in the event of bankruptcy.

B) Notice of Violation and Penalties (1) Promptly issue a Notice of Violation against FE, FES, NG, and FENOC for operating nuclear facilities without sufficient decommissioning funds in violation of 42 U.S.C.A.,

Section 2201 (x)( 1), and 10 CFR Section 50. 75.

(2) Promptly issue civil penalties against FE, FES, NG, and FENOC for operating nuclear facilities without sufficient decommissioning funds in violation of 42 U.S.C.A.,

Section 2201(x)(1), and 10 CFR Section 50.75.

(3) Promptly issue an order to suspend NG's and FENOC's licenses for BVPS, DBNPS, and PNPP.

The Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC) also urges the NRC to prohibit NG and FENOC from placing their nuclear facilities into SAFSTOR for purely financial reasons. In addition, ELPC requests that this petition be given immediate emergency consideration in light of FE's and FES' rapidly deteriorating financial conditions.

The basis for your request is summarized below:

1. NG and FENOC's decommissioning trust amounts are insufficient on their own to provide reasonable assurance of funding.
2. FE cannot rely on rate increases forced on retail ratepayers to pay for the decommissioning trust fund shortfalls.
3. The costs, including SAFSTOR costs, may still be much higher than expected due to significantly higher shortfalls as reported by the Callan Institute and recognized flaws in the NRC's cost estimate formula.
4. On March 28, 2018, FES and FENOC announced that they would permanently retire all four of their reactors within the next 3 years. If the plants close in 2020 and 2021, the funds cannot grow to levels that will pay for complete decommissioning.
5. Parent companies FE and FES filed for bankruptcy on March 31, 2018.

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

M. Kearney, et al. Although the petition does not request specific immediate action(s) or does not contain information that would warrant immediate NRC action, the petition requested "immediate emergency consideration." Based on the information provided, the petition manager informed you by e-mail on May 2, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18123A299), that the petition review board (PRB) concluded that there is no current public health and safety concern that requires immediate NRC action. The PRB determined that the financial concerns do not raise an imminent safety issue or indicate that the licensee, FENOC, is unable to safely operate the facilities listed in the petition.

You met with the PRB on June 19, 2018, to discuss your petition. The transcript of that meeting is publicly available at ADAMS Accession No. ML18194A395 and is considered a supplement to the petition. The PRB will consider both the petition, and your discussion at the June 19, 2018, meeting, in establishing the schedule for the review of your petition.

On August 2, 2018, the petition manager informed you that the PRB has determined that your petition meets the acceptance criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206, in accordance with Management Directive (MD) 8.11, and has made an initial recommendation to accept your petition for review under the NRC's 10 CFR 2.206 process. The petition manager also asked whether you desired an opportunity to comment on this recommendation, in person or via teleconference, consistent with MD 8.11. You declined this offer for a second meeting with the PRB.

As provided by 10 CFR Section 2.206, we will take action on your request within a reasonable time. I have assigned Bhalchandra Vaidya to be the petition manager. Mr. Vaidya can be reached by e-mail at Bhalchandra.Vaidya@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301-415-3308.

M. Kearney, et al. I have enclosed a copy of the proposed Federal Register notice, a copy of MD 8.11, and the associated brochure NUREG/BR-0200, "Public Petition Process," Revision 5, issued February 2003, by the NRC Office of Public Affairs.

Sincerely, Ho K. Nieh, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Federal Register Notice
2. MD 8.11
3. NUREG/BR-0200 cc: Mr. Don Moul President and Chief Nuclear Officer FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company 341 White Pine Drive Akron, OH 44320 Mr. David B. Hamilton Site Vice President FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Mail Stop A PY A290 PO. Box 97, 10 Center Road Perry, OH 44081 0097 Mr. Mark B. Bezilla Site Vice President FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Mail Stop A DB 3080 5501 North State, Route 2 Oak Harbor, OH 43449 9760 Mr. Richard D. Bologna Site Vice President FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Beaver Valley Power Station Mail Stop A BV SSB PO. Box 4, Route 168 Shippingport, PA 15077 Listserv

ENCLOSURE 1 Federal Register Notice ADAMS Accession No. ML182208317

[7590-01-P]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docket Nos. 50-334, 50-412, 50-346, and 50-440 NRC-2018-0174 First Energy Corp.

First Energy Solutions FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: 10 CFR 2.206 request; receipt.

SUMMARY

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is giving notice that by petition dated March 27, 2018, Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC) (the petitioner) has requested that the NRC take enforcement action with regard to First Energy Corp. (FE), First Energy Solutions (FES), FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation (NG),

and FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC). The petitioner's requests are included in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0174 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

Jennifer Borges; telephone: 301-287-9127; e-mail: Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

  • NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, 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 (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this document. In addition, for the convenience of the reader, the ADAMS accession numbers are provided in a table in the "Availability of Documents" section of this document.
  • 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bhalchandra K. Vaidya, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3308; email: Bhalchandra.Vaidya@nrc.gov; or Perry Buckberg, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1383; email: Perry. Buckberg@nrc.gov. Both are staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

2

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On March 27, 2018, the petitioner requested that the NRC take enforcement action with regard to FE, FES, NG, and FENOC operations in Ohio and Pennsylvania at Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS), Units 1 and 2; Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS), Unit 1; and Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP), Unit 1 {ADAMS Accession No. ML18094A642). The petitioner requested that the NRC take the following actions:

A) Demands for Information (1) Promptly issue a Demand for Information to FE, FES, NG, and FENOC requesting site-specific decommissioning funding plans for the BVNPS, DBNPS, and PNPP; (2) Promptly issue a Demand for Information to FE, FES, NG, and FENOC regarding their reliance on external trust funds from FE and FES to satisfy their decommissioning financial obligations; (3) Promptly issue a Demand for Information to FE, FES, NG, and FENOC regarding their continued reliance on Parent Guarantees from FE to satisfy decommissioning funding obligations, including the ability of FE to satisfy the Parent Guarantee financial test under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 30, Appendix A; (4) Promptly issue a Demand for Information to FES, NG, and FENOC to the extent that they are relying on Parent Guarantees from FES to satisfy decommissioning funding obligations, including the ability of FES to satisfy the Parent Guarantee financial test under 10 CFR Part 30, Appendix A; 3

(5) Promptly issue a Demand for Information to FE, FES, NG, and FENOC regarding their proposed investment and financial contribution plans to make up the current decommissioning shortfall; and (6) Promptly issue a Demand for Information to FE and FES, respectively, regarding each of their commitments to guarantee NG and FENOC's decommissioning shortfall in the event of bankruptcy.

B) Notice of Violation and Penalties (1) Promptly issue a Notice of Violation against FE, FES, NG, and FENOC for operating nuclear facilities without sufficient decommissioning funds in violation of 42 United States Code Annotated (U.S.C.A.), Section 2201 (x)(1) and 10 CFR Section 50.75; (2) Promptly issue civil penalties against FE, FES, NG, and FENOC for operating nuclear facilities without sufficient decommissioning funds in violation of 42 U.S.C.A. Section 2201(x)(1) and 10 CFR, Section 50.75; and (3) Promptly issue an Order to suspend NG, and FENOC's licenses for BVNPS, DBNPS, and PNPP.

The ELPC also urges the NRC to prohibit NG and FENOC from placing their nuclear facilities into SAFSTOR for purely financial reasons. In addition, ELPC requests that this Petition be given immediate emergency consideration in light of FE's and FES' rapidly deteriorating financial conditions.

4

The basis for ELPC's request is summarized below:

1. NG and FENOC's decommissioning trust amounts are insufficient on their own to provide reasonable assurance of funding.
2. FE cannot rely on rate increases forced on retail ratepayers to pay for the decommissioning trust fund shortfalls.
3. The costs, including SAFSTOR costs, may still be much higher than expected due to significantly higher shortfalls as reported by the Callan Institute and recognized flaws in the NRC's cost estimate formula.
4. On March 28, 2018, FES and FENOC announced that they would permanently retire all four of their reactors within the next 3 years. If plants close in 2020 and 2021, the funds cannot grow to levels that will pay for complete decommissioning.
5. Parent companies FE and FES filed for bankruptcy on March 31, 2018.

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 Nuclear Reactor Regulation. As provided by 10 CFR 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this petition within a reasonable time.

5

The petitioner met with the Petition Review Board on June 19, 2018, to discuss the petition; the transcript of that meeting is a supplement to the petition (ADAMS Accession No. ML18194A395). The petition and the results of the discussion at the June 19, 2018, meeting would be considered in establishing the schedule for the review of the petition.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this th day of August 2018.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Ho K. Nieh, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 6

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

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSION

...r' TN: DT-00-20 To: NRC Management Directives Custodians Subject* Transmittal of Directive 8.11, "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions"

Purpose:

Directive and Handbook 8.11 are being revised to address stakeholder feedback and to improve clarity *and make the*

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

Office and Division of Origin: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Contact:

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

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

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

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

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

\_J ....*, . . . .

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

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory ~ommission

.yo~u~e: 8 License~ .Qversight Prqgr~ms NRR Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Directive 8.11 Policy (8.11-01)

It is the policy of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to provide members of the public with the means to request that the Commission take enforcement-related action (i.e., to modify, suspend, or revoke a l~cense, or for other. appropriate . enforcement-related action, as distinguished from actions such as licensing or rulemaking). This policy is codified at Section 2206 of Title 10 of the Code ofFederal 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.

Objectives (8.11-02) .

  • To e~urt: the p~blic health an~ safety, through the prompt and thorough evaluation of* any potential problem addressed by a petition filed under 10 CFR 2.206. (021)
  • To p~ovide. for appropriate participation by a petitioner in, and obseivation by the pu~lic of, :NRC's. _decisionmaking activities related to a 10 CFR 2206 petition. (022)
    • . 1*,* . .. . . . .
  • To ensure effective. co.m~1:1nication with the petitioner and other stakeholders on the* status of the petition, including providing relevant documents and notification of interactions between the NRC staff and a licensee or certificate holder relevant to the petition. (023) .

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

Volume 8, Licens~e 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)

  • 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) \._/,

Office Directors (033)

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

Approved: July 1, 1999.

2 (Revised: October 25, 2000)

Volume _8, Licensee Oversight Programs

. *. Directive 8.11

  • Office Directors (033) (continued)
  • Promptly notify (1) the Office of Investigations of any allegation of wrongdoing by a licensee or certificate holder, applicant for a license or certificate, their contractors, or their vendors or (2) the Office of the Inspector General of any allegation of wrongdoing by an NRC staff person or NRC contractor, that is contained in a petition they may receive. (g)
  • Provide a draft of. each director's decisions to the Office of Enforcement for review. (h)
  • Designate an office 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 ofinformation that is received or that is the subject of any correspondence relating to a pending petition. (b)
  • Participate, as necessary, in meetings with the petitioner and public, in technical review of petitions and in deliberations of the PRB. (c) 2.206 PRB Chairperson (035)

Each office that is assigned a petition will appoint a PRB chairperson, generally a Senior Executive Setvice manager, who will- *-*,

  • Convene PRB. meetings

.. (a)

  • Ensure appropriate review of all new petitions in a timely manner. (b)
  • Ensure appropriate documentation of PRB meetings. (c)
  • Convene periodic PRB meetings with the petition managers to discuss the status of open petitions and to provide guidance for timely resoluti_on. (d) * *
  • Appro~ed: July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) 3

Volume 8, Lice1i~ee Oyersight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Directive 8.11 -

Associate Directors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)

(036)

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

Division Directors (037)

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

Director, Division of Licensing Project Management (DLPM),

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)

(038)

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

Applicability (8.11-04)

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

Handbook (8.11-05)

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

Definitions *

(8.11-06)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Management Directives-

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

- 8.8, "Management of Allegations."

- 12.6, "NRC Sensitive Unclassified Information Security Program."

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

"Nuclear Regulatory Commission lssuances,".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 u

  • * * * #. ,. * * * * * * * * ** ~ * * * * - * * * * * : - * * * ' ' * * ** * ~
  • Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions
  • Handbook 8.11 Parts I -IV V

Contents Part I Introduction ........................................................... . '

1 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206 (10 CFR 2.206) (A) ........................................ ~ . . . . . . . 1 Gene~al Cautions (B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Part II.

Initial Staff Actions 3 NRC's Receipt of_a Petition (A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . * . . * . . 3 Process Summary ( 1) ............... ;o * -~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

  • 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 ~e PRB Meeting (B) ................................ ~ . . . . 8 Criteria for Pe.titian Evaluation (C) ..... ~ ~ . . . . . . . . . . * * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Criteria for Reviewing ret~tion~ Unde~ lO_c;FR 2.206 (1) ..*...*. .- . . . . . .. . 11 Criteria for Rejecting Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206 (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * .

  • 11

~teria for Consolidating Petitions (3) ........**.*......*. ~ **** : * . . . *

  • 12
  • PRBMeeting(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) ......... *...*.. ~ ... ~ ... -~ ;. *... : .. : * . . . . . . . . . 17 Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) iii

'------~

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

  • Contents (continued)

Part IV Petition Review Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

  • Reviewing the Petition (A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Interoffice Coordination (1) . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Request for Licensee Input (2) *..................................... ~ 20 Technical Review Meeting With the Petitioner (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Additional Petition Review Board (PRB) Meetings (4) . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . * * . 20 Schedule (B) ........................... ~ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Keeping the Petitioner Informed (C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Updates to Management and the Public (D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 PartV The Director's Decision 24 Content and Format (A) ............................................. : . 24 Final Versus Partial Director's Decisions (B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Granting the Petition (C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Denying the Petition (D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Issuing the Proposed Director's Decision for Comment (E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Comment Disposition (F) *................................ : . . . . . . . . . . .
  • 27 Issuing the Director's Decision (G) .......... : ............ *.. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21 Administrative Issues (H) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Commission Actions (I) . ~ . . . * . . . . . . * . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Exhibits 1 Simplified 2.206 Process Flow Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2 Petition Manager Checklist ............*........ ! ** ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
  • 33

.3 Sample Oosure Letter for Requests That Are Not 2.206 Petitions . . . . . . . 36 4 Sample Ac~o~ledgment Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5 Sample Federal Register Notice ...**........... ; . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . 38

. 6 Sample p~rector's _Decision and Cover Letter .. *. . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . * . 39

,7

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

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

  • Handbook8.ll .. Part I V

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)

V 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 general requests as allegations or routine correspondence. Petitioners are encouraged to pr~vide a telephone number or e-mail address through which the staff may make contact. (2)

General CaQ.tions (B)

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

provides NRC policy with regard to notifying the Office of Investigations (01) and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of wrongdoing matters, as well as initiating, prioritizing, and terminating investigations. Each petition manager should become familiar with the current version 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 OIG 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 ~S, 2000) 1

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

General Cautions (B) (continued)

If the petition contains 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 01. If the petition contains information on alleged wrongdoing involving an NRC employee, NRC contractors, or NRC vendors, promptly notify OIG. (3)

.'-._/

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

. Volume s; Licensee Oversight Programs Review Pro~ess for_ IO CFR 2.206 Petitions

  • ** *
  • Handbook 8.11 Part II V

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

Process Summary (1)

After NRC receives a petition, the Executive ~irector for Operations (EDO) assigns it to the difecior of the appropriate office for evaluation and response. The original incoming petitio~ is sent to the office and a

. copy of the petition is s~nt_ to the Office of the 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 V 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 2.206 and may initially be directed to staff other than the Boo*. In__ any of these cases, the staff person who receives the document should make an initial evaluation as to whether the document meets the criteria for review tinder 10_CFR2;206 provided in Part III of this handbook. Staff persons who are uncertain whether or not the document meets the criteria should consult their management or office coordinators for further guidance.. If a petition meets the criteria but does *n~t *specifically cite* 10

  • CFR 2.206, the staff will
  • -. attempt to contact 1}1e petitioner by telephone to determine ifhe or she
  • wants the request processed pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206. The staff may

.. determine that a request_ forwarqed for staff action is not a petition for

. enforcement-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 2206, 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 CFR 2.206 petition,

  • it will forward the request to the Office of the EDO (OEDO) for assignment of action. Petitions also may be forwarded to the OEDO from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel or from a Presiding Officer in.accordance with 10 CFR 2.1205(1)(2). The EDO will assign each petition to the appropriate office for action. If the document does not cite 10 CFR 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 all 2.206 petitions from OEDO

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

Petition Manager Action cq The petition manager will promptly review the petition and determine whether or not it contains allegations or sensitive information. The timing of this step is particularly important for petitions that are not addressed to the EDO. Normally, these documents have been entered into ADAMS through the Document Control Desk (DCD) and are released to the public after a specified period of time. The delay allows the staff time to review the petition for allegations or other sensitive information. If the petition manager determines that a document contains allegations or other sensitive infonnatiori, he or she should immediately contact the ADAMS Help Desk (301-415-1234) to prevent releasing the document to the public. (1)

  • Approved: *July 1, 1999 4 (Revised:* October 25; 20~0)

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

. Handbook 8.lf .Part II V

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 form 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 II.I of this handbook. (3)

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

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs

, Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part II Petition Manager Action (C) (continued) make tip a part of the petition will be redact~d 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 6 (Revised: October 25, 2000)

  • *Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs

~eTI,ew_ Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions

\_)

  • Handbook 8.11
  • Part III i

Part III-

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

General (A)

Schedule (1)

The assign~d 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 ~eetjng 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 contraiy to an immediate action requested in . the petition before issuing the acknowledgmentletter (such as permitting restart of a facility when the petitioner has requesi~d.that re~art not.be permitted), the petition manager must promptly notify the petitioner by telephone of the pending staff action. * .

Board Compositiri~ (2)

The PRB'. consists of~~)

  • A PRB chairpe~n ~~ne~ a Seni°7 Executive Service manager) (i)
  • A petition manager (ii) *
  • . q;~i ~~m~~t ~d staff, ~ _rieceswy (iii)
  • A 1*eJiresenta:tive* from the Office. of hlvestigations (01), as needed (iv)
  • A -~pres~ntati~e ~~:'.the. ~~ce *~f *Enforcement (OE) *and, for petitions .*assigned to'. the. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), the NRR Senior Enforcement Coordinator, as needed (v)

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

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,___ _ _ _ _ _ llL Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part Ill

  • 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)

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 previously involved with the issue that gave rise to the petition. (1)

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

  • A recommendation as to whether or not the petition meets the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206 (a)

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

  • Recommendations for any immediate action (whether requested or not) (c) *
  • Recommendations on whether or not assistance from 01, OE, or OGC is necessary (d) *
  • A request for confirmation concerning referral to 01 or the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), as appropriate (e)
  • The proposed schedule, including the review schedule for the affected technical branches (f)

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

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

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

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 PRB members may ask any questions needed 'to' 'clarify the petitioner's request. "Pte' 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 for a teleconference) as an obseiver. *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 the (closed) PRB meeting during which the PRB members develop their recommendations with respect to the petition. (4) . *
  • The petition manager will ensure that all staff persons at the meeting or
  • teleconference are aware of the need to protect sensitive information from disclosure. Sensitive information includes safeguards or facility security information,. . proprietary or confidential commercial

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

  • wrongdoing. (5) * * * ** * . . *
  • If the petitioner* ~hoos~s to .addre.ss PRB by telephone, it is not considered a meeting and no public notice is necessary. The petition manager will establish a mutually agreeable time and date and arrange to conduct the teleconference on a recorded line through the NRC He.adquarters Op~rations .Center (301-816-5100). The tape recording

. .. _from ~he Operati~ns _Center. is conv~rted to a printed ~anscript that is treated 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 managerwill make arr~~gements for .transcription ;service. by submitting an NRC Form587_to the Atomic Safety and licensing Board Panel or by sending

  • an .'e-m.~H . to.: "Court Reporter," giying the same information as requested oli the ~o~ 587. (6) . ,

~

. ' * * .1

  • If the petitioner chooses to attend in person, the meeting will take place at NRC headquarters ata*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 u that the 10-day public notice *period descnoed in MD 3.5 will not be Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revised:* October 25, 2000) 9

'-------IRL.

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) met. MD 3.5 allows for ,ess than 10 days' public notice, if necessary, with appropriate management concurrence. The meeting should be noticed as a meeting between the ~C. staff, the petitioner, and the license*e (µnless the licensee chooses not to participate). The licensee is invited to pa_rticipate, 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 briefing. (7) .

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

At the ~~eting 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 opportunity to ask the petitioner questions for purposes of clarification.

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

The requirements* for schedulinf: and holding the petitioner presentation may impact the established time goals for holding the regular* PRB meeting and issuing the acknowledgment 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 onlynecessaxyfor errors that affect the meaning of the text of the transcript. The petition manager is not e:xp~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

10. (Revi~ed: October 25, 2000)

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

  • Handbook 8.11 :Part III V

Criteria for Petition Evaluation (C)

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

Criteria for Reviewing Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206 (1)

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

  • The petition contains a request for enforcement-related action such as issuing an order modifying, suspending, or revoking a license, issuing a notice ofviolation, 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 warr~nt ~ e r inquiry. (ii) *
  • There is no NRC proceeding available in which the petitioner is or could be a party and through which the petitioners 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 2.206. (iii) .

An exception to the first two criteria is any petition to intervene and request for hearing in a licensing proceeding that is referred to the 10 CFR 2.206 pro_cess in _accordance *":'ith 10 CFR 2.1205(1)(2). These referrals inay be made when the petition does not satisfy the legal requirements for a hearing _or intervention and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel or the Presiding Officer determines that referral to the 10 CFR 2.206 process is appropriate. For these referrals, the a

substantive issues in the request for hearing *or intervention will be Tead as

  • an implicit *request for enforcement-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-Approved: July 1, 1999 (Revi_sed: Oct~ber 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)

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

  • The incoming correspondence does not ask for an enforcement-related action or fails to* provide sufficient facts to support the petition but simply alleges wrongdoing, violations of NRC regulations, or existence of safety concerns. The request cannot- be simply a general statement of opposition to nuclear power or a general assertion with~ut supporting facts (e.g., the quality assurance at the facility is inadequate). These assertions will be ~eated as routine correspondence or as allegations that will be referred for appropriate action in accordance with MD 8.8, "Management of Allegations." (a)
  • The *petitioner raises issues that have already been the subject of NRC staff review and *evaluation. either on that facility, other similar facilities, or on a generic basis, for which a resolution has been achieved, the issues have been resolved, and the resolution is applicable to the facility in question. This would include requests to "-.J_

reconsider or reopen a previous enforcement action (including a decision not to initiate an enforcement action) or a director's decision. These requests will not be treated as a 2.206 petition unless they present significant new information. (b)

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

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

Volume 8, Licensee Oversighi Programs Review Process.for 10 *cFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part Ill

  • u PRB Meeting (D)

PRB ensures that an appropriate petition review process is followed.

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

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

. . . ~

  • Determine whether ~r not the petitioner .should be offered or informed of an al_temative process (e.g., consideration of issues as allegations, consideration of issues in a pending license proceeding,
  • or rule making) (b)
  • Determine whether there .is a need for any immediate actions (whether requested or*not)' (c) .
  • Establish* *a schedule for responding to the petitioner so that a commitment is made by management arid the technical review staff to respond to the pe~tion in*a timely inanner (see Part IV of this handbook for guidance :regarding schedules) (d)

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

  • De.termine whether or not the petition should be consolidated with another petition (f) .
  • r. .
  • Determine whether or not referral to 01 or OIG is appropriate (g)
  • Determine whether or not there is a need for OGC to participate in the review (h) *
  • Determine whether 6i *ri6t ili~ li~nsee ~hould be requested to respond. to the petition (i). . .
  • Determine whether or riot th~ peiitioii js sufficiently complex that additional review board -m~etings should be scheduled to ensure that suita1>Ie progress*'is being made (j) : **. :

' . : .. . . ' ~- ~ . ::  ; ~ - . . :. ,* .

...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 background1nfoimation, the need for an independent technical review, and a proposed plan for resolution, including target completion dates. The petition manager, with the assistance of the Approved: July .1, 1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) 13

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

PRB Meeting (D) (continued)

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

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

review~ if appropriate. (3)

  • Informing the Petitioner of the Results {E)

After PRB meets, and before issuing the acknowledgment letter, the petition manager will ensure that appropriate levels of management

{as determined by the assigned office) are informed of the board's recommendations and that they concur. The petition manager will then inform the petitioner by telephone as to whether or not the petition

. meets the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2206, of the disposition of any requests for immediate action, of how the review will proceed, and that *an acknowledgment letter is forthcoming. If the staff plans to take *"-._)

an action that is contrary to an imme*diate 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 OI or OIG.

  • Meeting With tµe ~etitioner (F)

After informing the petitioner of the pertinent PRB recommendations,

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

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

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Partlll Meeting With the Petitioner (F) (continued) .

This meeting or teleconference, if held, is an opportunity for the petitioner to provide any relevant additional explanation and support for the request in light of PRB's recommendations. The PRB members may ask questions to clarify the petitioner's request. If staff decisions on any of the petitioneJ:"s immediate acti~n *requests are required before the petitioner's presentation can be scheduled, those decisions w,ill not be delayed.. rite format of the meeting .or teleconference, application of MD 3.5, transcription, etc., and the requirements to edit

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

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

  • ,comments the petitioner made concerning
  • the initial P~
  • recommendations and the staff's response. *The petitioner will be notified promptly of staff decisions on any immediate action requests.

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

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

Response...to the' .

Petitioner (<;,)

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

Requests _That Do Not ~eet th~°Criteria (1)

If PRB, with office-level ooagement concurrence, determines that the petition does not meet the criteria for review *as a 10 CFR 2206 petition, the petition manage~ then prep~es a letter that (1) explains why.th~

request is not being reviewed under 10 CFR 2206; (2) respon~ to the extent poSSI'ble at ~at ~e, to the issu~s in the petitioner's 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 Exlu"bit 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 Re~ew: ;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 acknowledgment letter and associated Federal Register notice (see Exhibits. 4 and 5). The letter should acknowledge the petitioner's efforts in bringing issues to the staff's attention. If the petition contains a request for immediate action by the .NRC, such as a request for immed~ate suspension of facility operation until final action is taken on the request, the acknowledgment letter must explain the staff's response to the immediate action requested and the basis for that response. (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 acknowledgment letter and the director's decision into one document. A similar approach. would be taken in combining the associ~tedFederal Register notices. (d) .

Sen.ding Documents.to the Petitioner (H)

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) "-.J Approved: July 1, 1999:

16 (Revised: October 25, 2000)

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

.Sending Documents to the Petitioner .CH> (continued)

  • Request the licensee to send copies of any future correspondence related to the petition
  • to the petitioner,* with due regard for proprietary, safeguards,*and other sensitive information. (b)
  • To the extent that the petition manager is aware of these documents, ensure that the petitioner is placed on distn'bution for other NRC
  • correspondence relating to the issues raised in the petition, including relevant generic letters *or bulletins that are issued during the pendency of the NRC's consideration of the petition. 1bis does not include NRC correspondence or documentation related to an 01 or OIG investigation, which will not be released outside NRC without the approval of the Director, 01, or the IG, respectively. (c)

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

Supplements to the Petition (I)

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

The petition m*anager .will review the supplement promptly and determine whether . or* not _it contains allegations or sensitive

. information. If the supplement appears to contain information of this nature, the petition* manager must. obtain the agreement of the petj.tioner as to how these issues will be handled (i.e., as an allegation or not) and do~e:nt the petitioner's agreement in writing, usually in the form of a me.morandum to ~e. If all orp!,lrtof 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 manager: will :also ens~~ the supplement receives *the same ~stribution as .the petition and will forward a copy of the supplement to the PRB members. *The PRB members will review the supplement and determine whether they. riced 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 supplement (see Part III(B) of this handbook). In deciding whether a:*tormal.PRB.. meeting is needed,'the PRB members will

consider the safety' significarice. and complexity of the information in the supplement. 'Qarifi~tions 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 u petition review and no further action is necessary. (2)

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

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

  • Part III .

Supplements to the Petition (I) (continued) .

If a new 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 petidon (b)
  • To issue a p~ial director's decision (c)
  • Referral to 01 or OIG is appropriate (d)
  • To revise the review schedule for the petition based on the supplement (see Part IV of this handbook for guidance regarding schedules) (e)
  • To send an acknowledgment letter for the supplement (An acknowledgment letter should be sent if the supplement provides significant new information, causes the staff to reconsider a previous determination, or requires a schedule change beyond the original 120-day goal. See Part III(G) of this handbook for information on acknowledgment letters.) (f)
  • To offer the petitioner a meeting or teleconference with PRB to discuss its recommendations with respect to the supplement. (See Part IIl(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 det~rmines that the suppleme~twill be treated as a new petition (i.e., not consolidated wi~ 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 18 (Revised: October 25, 2000)

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

V *Handbook 8.11 Part IV

  • Part.*IV
  • Petition Review Activities

~eviewi~g t~e J.>etition (A)

. *interoffice _Coordinatio_n .(1)

The petition manager coordinates *au information required for the petition review.** The petition manager also advises his or her management of the need for review and advice from the Office of the General Counsel (O~C) regarding a petition in special cases. When

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

  • Safety and Safeguards,* or tlitf Director the Office of Enforcement
requests OGC involvement through the OGG special counsel assigned to 2.206 matters. (a) * *
  • All information related to a wrongdoing investigation by the Office of Investigations (01) or the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), or
even the fact that -an investigation is being conducted, will receive limited distribution within NRC and will not be released outside NRC without the approval of the Director, 01, or the IG, respectively (see Management 'Directive (MD) : 8.8).
  • Within NRC, access to this information is limited to those having a need-to-know. Regarding a
  • 2.206 petition~ the assigned office *director, or his designee, maintains copies' of any documents: required and ensures that no copies of documents related to *an 01 or *01G investigation are placed in the docket file or the Agencywide Documents :Access and Management System (ADAMS) without the approval of the Director, 01, or the IG, .

respectively. (b)

  • Appr~ved:
  • July i, 1999 * ...

(Revised: October 25, 2000) 19'

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

\_).

Reviewing the Petition (A) (continued)

Request for Licensee Input (2)

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

Unless necessacy for NRC's proper evahiation of the petition, the

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

  • because the petitioner claims to have additional information and will not present it in any other forum.
  • Additional Petition Review Board (PRB) Meetings (4)

Additional PRB meetings may be scheduled for complex issues.

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

Schedule (B)

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

October 25, 2000)

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

  • :Handbook 8~11 Part IV
  • u Schedule (B) (continued) director's decision.. The actual schedule should be shorter if the

.. number arid complC?~ty of ~he comments allow. The Office of the Executive Director for Operations (OEPO) tracks the first target date, and any ch~ge of the dat~ n;quire~ approval by the EDO. The petition manager monitors the progress of any 91 investigation and related enforcement actions. pnforcement.actions that are prerequisites to a director's decision ~hoU:ld be.expedited and completed in time to meet the 120-day goal. Investigations by Pl and OIG associated with petitions should be expedited to the extent.practicable. However, the goal of issuing the proposed director's deci~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. directo(s decision. should be issued for comment within the original 120. d~ys..When the .staff receives the results of the inves.tigation, it will promptly deyelop and issue a proposed final director's decision for comment. See Part V of this handbook for a discussion of partial director's decisions. (1)
,If the proposed director's decision cannot be issued in 120 days for other ~easons (e.g., very -comp~ex issues), the appropriate level of management in *the assigned. office. _determines the need for an extension of the schedule and requests the extension from the EDO. In

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

After the comment period closes on* a proposed director's decision, the

  • assigned office -~11. review tµe* comments received and provide the schedule to *issue' the director's decision to the Agency 2.206 Petition

-.. *Coordinator foii~clusion* in the ne~ status* report. (3) u Approved: Ju1:v 1,'1999 (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 significan~ action occurs. If a significant action will be reported in the monthly *status report prepared by* the Agency 2.206 Petition Coordinator, the petition manager will inform the petitioner before the status report is issued. The petition manager makes the status reports to the* *petitioner by telephone~ The petition manager should speak directly to the petitioner if reasonably possible~ The petition manager keeps up-to-date on the status of the petition so that reasonable detail can be provided with the* status reports~ However, the status report to the peti,tioner 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 to Management and the Public (D)

On a monthly basis, the Agency~.206 Petition Coordinator will contact all petition managers reminding them* to prepare a status report regarding 2.206 petitions in their offices~ The petition managers should e-mail the status report for each open petition; with the exception of sensitive information as described below, to "Petition." The Agency 2.206 Petition Coordinator combines all the; status reports, including staff performance metrics for petitions processed under 10 CFR 2206 for the current year, in a monthly report to the EDO from the Associate Director, Project Licensing and Technical Analysis. The Agency 2.206 Petition Coordinator also ensures the document is added to ADAMS a

and made publicly available and e-mails *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 petition managerwill so indicate in the e-mail and in the status report itself. Sensitive information includes

. safeguards or facility security information, proprietary or confidential

  • commercial information, information
  • relating to an ongoing investigation of wrongdoing or enforcement _actions under development, or information about referral of matters to the DOJ and should be handled in accordance with MD 12.6, "NRC Sensitive Unclassified Information Security Program." The Agency 2.206 * '-._,)
    • - Approved: July 1,' 1995f 22 (Revised:' *October 25, 2000)

I* *  :*

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

  • Handbook 8.11 Part IV u

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

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

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

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

Director's decisions

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

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part V * \_)

PartV The. Director's Decision Content and Format (A)

The petition manager prepares. the proposed director's decision on the petition and the associated Federal. Register notice for the office director's consideration, including coordination with the appropriate staff supporting the review. See Exhibits 6 and 7 for a sample director's decision with cover letter and the associated Federal Register notice, .\

respectively. The petition manager will also prepare letters to the '--,/1 petitioner and the licensee that will enclose the proposed director's decision and request comments on it (see Exhibit 8). These letters will be routed with the director's decision for concurrence. (1)

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

If appropriate, the decision and the transmittal letter for the director's decision or partial director's decision should. aclmowledge 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 24 (Revised: October 25, 2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight *Program~

. Review Process* for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part V V

Content and Format (A) (continued).

If the Office oflnvest~gations (01) has completed its investigation of a

  • potential wrongdoing issue* and the matter. has been referred to the
  • Department of Justice (DOJ); ~e petiti~nnianagerwill contact 01 and the Office of *Enforcement* (OE) to ci:Jordiiiate NRC's actions. For petitions assigned to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NJ;lR),

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

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

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 Director's D~~isions (Bj

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

The format, con~ent, ~d method of processing a partial director's decision are the s*ame_. as. th~~ -of a< director's. decision ( as descnoed above) a~d an accompanying _Fet!eral Register notice would still be prepared (see J?.xh~oit. 7)._ However, the partial director's decision should clearly indi~t~ t~ose portions_~f the_ pe~ition that re~ain open, explain the :reasons.for the ~elay to the extent practical, 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 Petition (C) ..* . . '- ., ...

. . *once the staffh~s determined that the petition will be granted, in whole

  • or in part,. the petition manager will prepare a "Director's Decision

. Under 10 CFR 2.206'~ for the office director's signature. The decision will explain the bases upon which the petition has been granted and identify the actions that NRC staff has taken or will take to grant all or that portion of the petition. *The decision also should describe any

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

Volume 8, 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 reque~ted and/or takes actions other than those requested to address the underlying problem. If the petition is granted in full, the director's decision will explain the bases for granting the petition and state that the Commission's action resulting from the director's decision is outlined in the 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)

After the assigned office director has concurred in the proposed director's decision, the petition* manager will issue the letters to the petitihner and the licensee enclosing t~e proposed director's decision and requesting comments on it. The letters, with the enclosure, will be inade 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 circumst~nces. For example, 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 26 (Revised: October 25, 2000)

Volume 8, Licensee* Oversight Pr~grams Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part'V V

Com~ent Disposition (F)

After the comment period closes on the proposed director's decision, the assigned office will review the comments received and provide the schedule to issue the director's decision to the Agency 2206 Petition Coordinator for incl~sion in. the next status report. The petition manager will then evaluate any comments received on the proposed decision, obtaining the assistance of the technical staff, as appropriate.

Although the staff requested comments from only the petiti~ner and the licen~ee; comments from other sources (e.g., other members of the public) may be received. *These additional comments should be addressed in the same manrieras the comments from the petitioner and licensee. A copy of tlie comments received and the associated staff responses will be included in the director's decision. An attachment to the decision will generally be 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)

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

A de_cision under 10 CFR 2.206 consists 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 Secretacy (SECY). A director's decision number is assigned to* each director's *decision in numerical sequence. This number is included on the letter to _the petitioner, the director's decision, and the Federal. Re'gister .notice. Note that the director's decision itself is not published in the-Federal Register; only the notice of its availability, containing a summacy of the substance of the decision, is published*(see.Exhibits 6 and 7). (1)

The petition manager will prepare a letter to transmit the director's decision to the petitioner and* will also prepare the associated Federal Register notice. If th~ staff's response 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,'1999 (Revised: October 25, 2000) 27

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part V Issuing the Director's Decision (G) (continued) in the letter to the petitioner. When the director's decision has been signed, the petition manager will promptly send a copy of the decision, electronically or by fax if possible, to* the petitioner. Copies of the 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 decisioµ. The petition *manager will also ask .the petitioner whether he or she wishes to continue receiving documents related t!-) the petition. (2)
  • The assigned office director will sign the cover letter, the director's decision, and the Federal Register notice. After the notice is signed, the staff forwards it to the Rules .and Directives Branch, Office of Administration (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 '\._)

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

Administrative lssu~s (H)

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

.. 2.206 package before it is dispatched and determine appropriate distribution. The administrative staff also will immediately (same day) hand -carry the listed.material to the following offices (in the case 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 (ii)
  • Two copies of the incoming petition and any supplement(s) (ill)
  • Petitioner (b)
  • Signed original letter (i)
  • Signed director's decision (ii).
  • A copy of the Federal Register notice (iii)

. Approved: July 1, 1999 28 (~e~sed: Octo~er 25, 2000)

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

  • Handbook 8.11 Part V V

Administrative Issues (H) (continued)

  • Chief, Rules and Dire~tives Branch {c)
  • Original signed Federal Register notice only (do not include the director's decision) (i)
  • . Five paper copies of the 1:1otice (ii)
  • A disk with a WordPerfect file that contains the Federal Register notice (iii)
  • The staff must fulfill these requirements promptly because the Commission has 25 calendar days from the date of the decision to determine whether or not the director's decision should be reviewed. (2)

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

  • When action on a 2.206 petition 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 (NRCI) Project Officer, Publishing SeIVices Branch (PSB),

Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO). 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 documents. In addition, send two paper copies of the signed director's decision to the NRCI Project Offi~r. (b)

Approved: July 1, 1999

  • (Revised: October 25, 2000) 29

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

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

The petition manager will prepare headnotes, which are a summary of the petition, consisting of no more than a few paragraphs describing what the 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)

\_)

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 30 (Re~sed: October 25, 2000)

C C .(

,a~

~ "d Treat IS Allegation

i *. ""1 l.cnerwith

) .. I OrRoutine

~ ~ Issues/Concerns C.Orresp. (IIAJ)

?.-. 0Clo 0 ..

n C-4 S'

C" '<

e. At PRO address:

~ ~

'"I .. 2.206? Schedule? rn N~ Contact Pdhioncr, .....

. Letter that ) 1

  • 1rmmediate Adlons?

JI' '° Rcremice, 2.206 OtTerMtgor I I .. < Partial om Fuhll'C N \0

. '° clccon (11.c.2&3 c::, PRBs? (111.D) c::,

-.9 =a

~

Q.,

lnronn Pditloner, Copy ofld1cr to Petitioner Address Offer Mtg or N Licensee (11.C.4)

  • N PRO (111.8.4,9) Telecon (111.F.&F)

~

=*

~

~

..... ~--

.n, ~

"'1" er . ~. 0 Q .........

Pdltloner Address n*

~- )-l

    • i =

PRB (UI.F.2) 1111 ( fl'l >::p ! .

fl'l r, 0 ..00 (D t'(

J . fl) .....
,fn r,

~- is, (D

=;111 ;
n. =  :,- (D r:s = (D IS AUegatlon C' Q., ""' 0 or Routine "1 . er"<

Q ~ (D Corresp. (IILO.I) ....=** Q "~

,;"
N **

Or ~-w~

,.. = '*

,.. Cl'\~

Rcrcr to Another Process (e.g., ~*za I. l'arcnthctlcal lnfonnatlon Is asocllkd ll1ndboolc puagnph ffllfflber. Rulemalcing)

... C:

a. -* CJ.9=

(111.G.I) er o ~

~ -* r:s

- fl) g fl)

~

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.,._____...,.

,s ii~

~

Approved: July 1, i99~f 32 (Revised: October 25, 2000)

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

Handbook 8.11 'Exhibits' u

Exhibit2 Petition Manager Checklist D Review the petition for allegations and sensitive material. If sensitive, prevent releasing the document to the public. Also determine whether or not any immediate actions requested require expedited staff response.

D Contact the petitioner and discuss the public nature of the process. Offer a pre-PRB meeting or telecon to the petitioner. *

  • D Send a copy of the incoming petition to the licensee and Document Control Desk (Public), with redactions as appropriate.
  • D If a pre-PRB meeting or telecon is held, notice it (meeting only) and arrange for it to be recorded and transcn"bed (meeting or telecon). Arrange the meeting and the PRB meeting which will follow it.

D Prepare a PRB presentation. Include the following information:

Does the request meet the criteria for review under 2.206?

What are the issues and their significance?

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

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

What is your reco~ended approach to the response?

What schedule is proposed?

D Hold the pre-PRB meeting or telecon.

D Address the PRB at its meeting.

D Ensure assigned office management agrees with the PRB recommendations.

D Inform the petitioner of the PRB recomme~dat~ons: Offer a post-PRB meeting.

D 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 D Hold the post-PRB meeting or telecon.

D Address the PRB at its meeting.

  • D Prepare a meeting summacy for th~ pre~ *a~d po~t-PRB ~eetings, if beid. ~ step is ~ot r~qlrlred for a telecon.
  • u D Ensure the transcripts of the pre- ~d post-PRB.meetings or teleco~, 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)

D 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 2206 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 2206 petition, continue with this checklist.

  • D Add petitioner to appropriate service list(s).

0 Issue acknowledgment letter and associated Federal Register notice.

D If licensee input is needed, send a written requesL 0 If funher petitioner input is needed, arrange for a technical review meeting.

O Make periodic status updates to the petitioner.

D Prepare the director's decision, addressing:

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

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

O After the comment period closes, give the schedule for the director's decision to the Agency 2206 Petition Coordinator for inclusion in the next *status report.

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

D

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

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

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

Hand-carry two full copies of the package (including the incoming(s) and distribution and service lists) and five additional copies to the Rulemakin~ and Adjuwcation 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.

Approyed: July 1, 1?99:

34 (Revised: October 25, 2000)'

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.

  • D 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 beadnotes on the petition to the NRC Issuances Project Officer in OCIO.

Approved: July 1, 1999.

(Revised: October 25, 2000) 35

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

  • 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 determination regarding your request for immediate action and whether or not the petition meets the criteria for consideration under 10 CFR 2.206]. OR [Our petition review board has reviewed your submittal]. The staff has concluded that your submittal does not meet the criteria for *'-.-,)

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

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

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

Sincerely,

[Insert Division Director's Name]

[Office of [insert Office Name]

Docket Nos. [ ]

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

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

Volume s; Licensee Oversight Pro~ms Review Process for.10* CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Exhibits

.u Exhibit4 Sample Acknowledgment Letter

[Petitioner's Name]

[Petitioner's Address]

Dear Mr.:

Your petition dated [insert date] and addr~ssed to the [insert addressee] bas 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~ ~vjew Board (PRB) on [insert date] to discuss your petition.

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

[your request for immediate action and in establishing] the schedule for the review 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 or 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]. [Ifnecess~ry, 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 be_ing filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication. I have also enclosed for yoiir information a *copy of Management Directive 8~11 "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions," and the associated brochure NUREG/BR-0200, "PublicPetition Process,"

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

  • Sincerely, .

.* [Office ~irector]

Enclosures:

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

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

. Volµme 8, Licensee. Oversight Programs Review. Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 *.Exhibits Exhibit 5 (7590-01-P]

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 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 \J request].

. The request is being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. The request has been referred to the Director of the Office of [Insert action office]. As provided by Section 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 letter* 1
  • dated , t,he. Director (granted or denied) petitioner's request for (insert request .

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

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

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

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Office Director]

Dated at Rockville, Maryland This _ _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ __, 200X Approved: July 1, 1999 38 (Revised: October 25, 2000)

~* ....*'

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Exhibits Exhibit6

'. Sample Director's Decision* and Cover Letter

[Insert petitioner's_ name & address]

Dear [insert petitioner's name]:

j of This letter responds to the petition you filed with [EDO or other addressee petition) pursuant to Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code ofFet!,.eral Regulations (10 CFR 2.206) ori

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

  • requested that the NRC (list requested actions]. . ..

On [date of acknowledgment letter] the NRC staff acknowledged receiving your petition and stated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 that YOlJ! petition was being referred to me for acµon and that it would be acted upon within a. reasonable time. You.were also told thar[staff response to any request for immediate action]. *

[You met with the petition review board on [date(s) of the pre- and/or post-PRB . .

meeting(s)] to clarify the bases for your.petition. T~e transcrlpt(s) of this/these m'eeting(s)

V was/were treated as (a) supplement(s) to the petition and are available inADAMS for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and from the ADAMS Public Lt"brary 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 information provided was considered by the staff in its evaluation of the petition].

In your petition you stated that [summarize the Issues raised]. [Briefly summarize the safety significance of the issues and tlie stafrs 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

Vc;>lum~ 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 *Exhibits Exhibit 6 (continued)

[Summarize the issues addressed in this direct~r's decision and the staff's 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 2206(c). As provided for by this regulation, the decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days after the date of the decision unless the Commission, on its own

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

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

I have also enclosed a copy of the notice of "Issuance of the Di~ector's Decision Uoder 10 CFR 2.206" that has been filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.

[If appropriate, acknowledge the efforts of the petitioner in bringing the issues to the.

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

  • discuss any questions related to this petition. \._,)

Sincerely,

[Insert Office Director's Name]

Docket Nos. [ ]

Enclosures:

Director's Decision YY-XX Federal Register Notice Approved: July 1, 1999 40 (Revised: *october 25, 2000)

. - 1 ' .

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

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

)

)

[LICENSEE NAME] ) License No(s). (Insert]

)

)

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

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

Nuclear Regulatory ~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~ckville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and from the ADAMS Public Lib~alY: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 .

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 of the petition were addressed). [Explain which issues remained to be Approved: July 1, 1999*

(Revised:

  • October 25, 2000) 41

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process ro*r 10 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 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 receive any comments on the proposed director's decision].

II. Discussion

[Discuss the issues* raised, the significance of the iss~es (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].

m. Conclusion

[Summarize the stairs conclusions with respect to the issues raised and how they have been, or will be, addressed].

As provided in 10 CFR 2206(c), a copy of this Director's Decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission to review. As provided for by this regulation, the decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days after the date of the decision unless the Commission; on its own motion, institutes a review of the decision within that time.

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

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

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

Volume*s, Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for iO CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Exhibits*

"-)

Exhibit 7

[7~90-01 ~P]

Sampl~ Federal Register Notice for *Director's *Decision -*

U.S. NUCLEAR*REGULATORY COMMISSION Docket No(s).

License No(s).

[Name of Licensee]

NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CPR 2206 Notice is hereby given that the Director, [name of office], bas issued a director's decision with regard to a petition dated [insert date], filed by [insert petitioner's name],

hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner." [The petition wa*s* supplemented on [Insert date,'

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

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

, . . . , ,- . , . ,. * . ,**.,. . r,; , .; ., ~

As the basis for the [Insert date] request, the petitioner raised concerris'steinming from [insert ~etitioner's supporting ba~is*for the requestf The hns~rt petitione~s* ~~me]

considers such operation to be pote~tially

    • .  ; - * , * * * ** f *.' -.*

~nsrle' in irid to;be1 violation of°:Feaeral

  • 1, , : * *' - , , **

0 1 ** ': * . '

regulat1ons._ln the pet1t1on, a number of references to [insert references] were cited that the petitioner believes prohibit operation of the facility with [insert the ca~se* for the requested enforcement-related

.* ... -*.action].

. .I .*.

  • * * - ~
  • r The petition of [insert date] raises concerns originating from [insert summary information on more bases/rationale/discussion

. ., . . and

. - supporting facts used in the disposition of the petition and the development of 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 Handbook 8.11 .Exhibits Exhibit 7 (continued) , I

[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 opportunit;y 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 receive any comments on the
  • proposed Director's Decision].

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

in ADAMS for inspe~tion at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and via the NRC's Web site (http://www.nrc.~ov) ,

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's

' ~ :

review in accordance with 10 CFR 2206 of the Commission's regulations. As provided ~or by this regulation, the directots decision will constitute the .

final action of the Commission 25 days after the date of the decision, ufi:Iess the Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the director's decision in that time.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this [insert date] day of [insert month, year]. r FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Original Signed By

[Insert Office Director's Name]

Office of [insert Office Name]

  • Approved: July 1, 1999 44 (Revised: October 25, .2000)
  • Volume 8, *Licensee Oversight Programs Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 .Exhibits Exhibit 8.

Sample Letters Requesting Comments ~n 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 on 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.

u 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 2206 of the C.Ommission'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 commenl 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 of this letter].

Sincerely,

[Signed by Division Director]

Docket Nos. [ ]

cc w/encl: [Service List]

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

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

i Introduction hefnre the PRB meets to discuss the petition. The second opportunity comes After receiving a re4uest. NRC determines whether the request qualifies as a 2.20fi rnrector's Decision The NRC, otlkial response toa 2.206 petition I

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission after the PRB has disrnssed the merits of petition. If the re4uest is accepted for review ts a written decision by the director of the (NRC) was established in 1975 to protect the petition and allows the petitioner to as a 2.206 petition. the NRC sends an appropriate office that addresses the concerns public health and safety in the civilian use of comment on the PRB', recommendations acknowledgment letter to the petitioner and a raised in the petition. The agency's goal is to nuclear power and materials in the United regarding acceptance of the petition and copy to the appropriate licensee and puhlishe, issue a proposed decision for comment within States. As part of its responsibilities. NRC any rt*qucsts for immediate action. a notice in the Federal Regis1e1: If the re4ucst 120 davs from the date of the acknowledl!mcnt assesses all potential health and safety issues is not accepted. NRC notifies the petitioner ol letter. However. additional time mav he n'eeded related to licensed activities and encourages

  • Offering an opportunity for a staff- its decision and indicates that the petitioner', 1n conduct an investi11ation. Cf;mplete an members of the public to bring safety issue, petitioner-licensee meeting to discuss the underlying safety concern, will he wnsidered i1hpection. or analyze particularly complex to its attention. details of the issue during the course of outside the 2.200 process. technical issues. If the goal is not met. the NRC the review. "

Section 2.200 of Title 10 of the Code of On the basis of an evaluation of the petition. ,taff will promptly inform the petitioner of a Federul Ref.(ulatiom ( IO CFR 2.206) describe*,

  • Providing better. more fre4uent commu- the appropriate oftice director issues a decision ,chedule chan).!e.

the petition process-the primary mechanism n1catiom between the staff and petitioner and. if warranted. NRC takes appropriate The director*, dec1Sion includes the for the public to request enforcement actinn throughout the process enforcement action. *niroughnut the C\ aluauon prnle"wnal siatr, evaluatwn of all pertinen1 hy NRC in a public pnicess." Thi, procl's,

  • Providing rnp1es of all pertinent petition- process. NRC ,ends copies of all pertinent 1nformat1on rrnrn the petition. correspondence permits anyone to pl'tition NRC to take related correspondence and other doc- correspondence to the petitwncr and the with the pet1t1oner and the licensee enforcement action related to NRC licensee, uments to the petitioners. affected licensee. NRC places all related mformation tro111 ,my mcetmg. results of an\

nr licensed activities. Depending on the result, correspondence in its Public Document Room mvcstigation or inspectton. and anv othe, of its evaluation. NRC could modify. suspend.

  • Providing a copy of the proposed (PDR) in Rock ville. Marv land. and 111 the dornments related to petition 1.ssue,. Followin!'

or revoke an NRC-issued license nr take anv director"s decision on the petition. both to agency document control system. However. re*.olution of anv cmnments received on the other appropriate enforcement action ti, the petitioner and the affected licensee for the a11ency withholds information that would proposed decis1Zm. the director's decision "

resolve a problem. Requests that raise health comments. and considermc: such comments compromise an investigation or ongoing pn1\*ided to the petitioner and the licensee. and and safety issues without requesting before is,uing the decisi;;n in final form. enforcement action relatmg to issue, in the 1, posted to NRC, weh ,ite and made available enforcement action are reviewed hy means petition. The NRC also se~ds the pe!ltioner 111 the PDR. A notice of availabilitv 1, other than the 2.2()1, process. other information such as pertinent genenc puhli,hed in the Ft'<feml ReRISfl'/:

  • The Petition Process letters and bulletin, In its effort to improve public confidence. the Director*, dec1,ions mav he issued as follow,:

NRC periodically reassesses the 2.206 petitwn The 2.206 process provides a simple. effective The NRC notifies the petitionerof the petition\

process to enhance its effectiveness. timeliness mechanism for anyone to re4uest enforcement status every f,() days. or more fre4uentlv if a * -\ tkc1sion grant111g a petition. in full.

and credibility. As part of these reassessments. action and obtain NRC's prompt. thorough. si11nitican1 action ,iccurs. Monthly updates on cxpla111s the basis for the decision and the NRC seeks feedback from petitioners and and objective evaluation of underlying safet~ all pending 2.206 petitions are avatlahlc on  !,!rants the action requested in the pett11on other stakeholders through public meetings issues. It is separate and distinct from the NRC's weh site at http://www.nrc.i;o"/ te.g .. NRC issuing an order to modif).

and workshops. surveys and Ft*dera/ Regisrt'r processes for rulemaking and licensing. read in i;-rm/doc-col lections/pet it ions 20fi/ ,u,pend. or revoke a license).

notices. as well as from its own staff although they too allow the public to raise index.html. and in the PDR.

  • A decision denying a petition. in full.

ellperience. Specific improvements tn the safety concerns to NRC. provides the reason for the denial and 2.206 process resulting from these initiative, Petition Technical Review MeetinJ! discusst*s all matters raised in the petition.

Under the 2.2()1, process. the petitioner submits include: a request in writing to NRC's Ellecutive A petition technical review meeting serves not

  • A dcci~ion granting a petition. in part. in
  • Offering petitioners two opportunities to Director for Operations. identifying the only as a source of potentially valuahle cases where the NRC decides not to grant discuss the petition with the NRC's affected licensee or licensed activity. the information for NRC to evaluate a 2.20fi the action re4uested. but takes other petition review board (PRB). The first is requested enforcement action to be taken. and petition. hut also affords the petitioner appropriate enforcement action or directs to allow the petitioner to provide the facts the petitioner believes provide substantive involvement in the review and the licensee to take certain actions that elaboration and clarification of the petition sufficient grounds for NRC to take decision-making process through direct address the identified safety concerns.

enforcement action. Unsupported m;sertions of discussions with NRC and the licensee. Such

"'safety problems:* general opposition to a meeting will be held whenever the stall

  • A partial director's decision may he issued

The NRC also ha.s an alleizatton proce!<.'- in which 1ndiv1dual, nuclear power. or identification of safety issues helicves that it would be beneficial to the by the NRC m ca~cs where some of the who ra,,e po1ent1al saft.*ty l'Onl*em., for NRC review are without seeking enforcement action are not review of the petition. Note that the meeting issues associated with the petition can be afforded a degree of protection of their 1dent1ty. Other considered sufficient grounds for completed promptly but significant proces~s for publk- 1molvement are hsted al the end of th1, can he offered at any time during NRC's review consideration as a 2.206 petition. of a petition and is open to public observation. schedule delays arc anticipated before pamphlet.

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

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

  • For major regulatory actions involving on its own, it may review a decision within 25 preparation of environmental impact calendar days. statements, NRC offers separate opportunities for public participation in its NRC Management Directive 8.11. "Review em*iromnental proceedings.

Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions," contains more detailed information on citizen petitions.

  • The public can attend a number of For a free copy of the directive, write to the meetings including open Commission and Superintendent of Documents, U.S. staff meetings. periodic media briefings Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, by Regional Administrators. and special Washington. DC 20013- 7082. or call 202- meetings held near affected facilities to 5 I 2-1800. inform local communities and respond to their questions.

More information on these activities can be Electronic Access found in NRC's pamphlet entitled, "Public Those parts of the monthly status report on Involvement in the Nuclear Regulatory 2.206 petitions that are not of a sensitive Process." NUREG/BR-0215.

nature, as well as recently issued director's decisions, and Management Directive 8.11, are placed on the NRC's web site at http://

www. nrc. &ov /readi ni;-rm/doc-collections/

petitions-2-206/index.html and in the agency's Public Document Room.

Other Processes for Public Involvement In addition to the 2.206 petition process. NRC has several other ways that permit the public to express concerns on matters related to the NRC's regulatory activities.

  • The NRC's allegarion process affords individuals who raise safety concerns a degree of protection of their identity.
  • Under the provisions of IO 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 specifically affected by a licensing action.

an opportunity to formally participate in licensing proceedings. This process

Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-000 l Telephone 301-415-8200 or 1-800-368-5642 NUREG/BR-0200, Rev. 5 February 2003

Package: ML182208322; Letter: ML182208314; 2.206 FRN: ML182208317; MD 8.11: ML041770328; NUREG-8R-0200: ML050900248

  • b1yema1*1 OFFICE NRR/D0RL/LPL3/PM NRR/D0RL/LPL3/LA Tech Editor* NRR/DORL/LSPB*

NAME BVaidya SRohrer JDougherty PBuckberg DATE 8/10/2018 8/09/2018 8/14/2018 8/10/2018 OFFICE NRR/DLP/PFPB* OE* OGC* NRR/D0RL/LPL3/BC NAME SHarwell DJones LBaer DWrona DATE 8/12/2018 8/10/2018 8/13/2018 8/17/2018 OFFICE NRR/DORL/DD NRR/D NRR/D0RL/LPL3/PM NAME GSuber HNieh BVaidya DATE 8/20/2018 8/24/2018 8/27/2018

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18220B314&oldid=2616140"