ML14237A726

OEDO-14-00145 - Response Letter to Mike Mulligan for Ltr. 2.206 - Palisades

ML14237A726
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	09/25/2014
From:	Dorman D H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Mulligan M - No Known Affiliation
Jennivine Rankin, NRR/DORL
Shared Package
ML14071A005	List: ML14071A004 ML14071A006 ML14237A726 ML14237A727 NRC-2014-0216, OEDO-14-00145 - Federal Register Notice for Mike Mulligan Ltr. 2.206 - Palisades
References
2.206, OEDO-14-00145
Download: ML14237A726 (77)

Text

Mr. Michael Mulligan P.O. Box 161 Hinsdale, NH 03451

Dear Mr. Mulligan,

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 September 25, 2014 Your petition dated March 5, 2014 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 14071A006),

as supplemented by your addresses to the Petition Review Board (PRB) on April 8, 2014, and September 3, 2014 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML 14143A212 and ML 14259A135, respectively),

and by e-mail dated May 21, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 14142A101),

has been referred to me under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (1 0 CFR) 2.206, "Requests for Action under This Subpart,"

of the Commission's regulations.

In your petition, you request a number of actions to be taken by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the licensee, ENO) for equipment failures at Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP). As the basis for your request, you state that there have been various recent plant events and equipment failures at PNP, such as primary coolant pump (PCP) impeller pieces breaking off and lodging in the reactor vessel (RV), leakage from the safety injection refueling water tank (SIRWT),

and flaws in the control-rod drive mechanisms (CRDMs).

I would like to note that during the spring 2014 refueling outage, ENO replaced all of the CRDM housings with new CRDM housings that incorporated a design change in an effort to eliminate the cause of the cracking.

In 2013, ENO replaced most of the bottom of the SIRWT and made other repairs to ensure that any water leaking from the SIRWT would be captured and collected.

No leakage from the SIRWT has been noted since these repairs in 2013. I would also like to express my appreciation to you for voicing your concerns to the NRC regarding these matters.

The PRB comprises representatives from the following technical groups within the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation:

• the Component Performance, Non-Destructive Examination, and Testing Branch and the Vessels and Internals Integrity Branch within the Division of Engineering

• the Reactor Systems Branch and the Nuclear Performance and Code Review Branch within the Division of Safety Systems The PRB initially met in regard to your petition on March 14, 2014. At this meeting, the PRB reviewed your request for immediate action to prevent a PNP restart because of a piece of PCP impeller that was lodged between the RV and the flow skirt. The licensee attempted to remove the lodged piece using several methodologies, including vice grips and hydraulic tools. Despite the application of approximately 3,000 pounds per square inch of force, the piece did not move. The licensee performed fluid dynamics

analysis, structural

analysis, and fracture

analysis, which concluded that the piece would not move, would not break up, would not impede PCS flow, and would not affect the pressure-retaining capability of the RV. The NRC staff performed an in-depth independent review of the licensee's analysis and concluded that the impeller piece did not pose a threat to safe operation of the reactor and RV. Therefore, the PRB determined that this event raised no safety-significant concerns that would prevent the plant from restarting as scheduled.

Likewise, the PRB reviewed your request to immediately shut down PNP until the PCPs were replaced and determined that the event raised no safety-significant concerns that would require a plant shutdown.

This was communicated to you by e-mail dated March 19, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 14083A680).

You addressed the PRB by teleconference on April 8, 2014, and on September 3, 2014, to discuss your petition.

The results of that discussion have been considered in the PRB's determination regarding your request for enforcement action and in establishing the schedule for the review of your petition.

The PRB met internally on May 19, July 28, and September 3, 2014, to discuss your petition, as supplemented, and with respect to the criteria for review and rejection described in Management Directive (MD) 8.11, "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions."

The PRB determined that the following requests from your petition meet the criteria for review in accordance with MD 8.11: 1. Request for PNP to open every PCP for inspection and clear up all flaws. 2. Request for PNP to replace the PCPs with others designed for their intended duty. 3. Request an Office of the Inspector General (OIG) inspection on why different NRC regions have different analysis criteria for similar PCP events. 4. Request a $10 million fine over these events. 5. Request for PNP to return to yellow or red status and for the NRC to intensify its monitoring of PNP. Your remaining requests do not meet the criteria for review, either because they are not requests for enforcement-related action or because they concern now-resolved issues that have already been the subject of NRC staff review and evaluation.

Although many of your requests do not meet the criteria of MD 8.11, the NRC staff appreciates your concerns, and Enclosure 1 to this letter explains why those requests were not accepted into the 2.206 process.

As provided by Section 2.206, the NRC will take action on your request within a reasonable time. I have assigned Jennie Rankin to be the petition manager for your petition.

Ms. Rankin can be reached at 301-415-1530.

Your petition is being reviewed by the Division of Engineering, the Division of Safety Systems, and the Division of Operating Reactor Licensing within the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in conjunction with the Division of Reactor Projects in Region Ill. I have referred to the OIG those allegations of NRC wrongdoing contained in your petition and in the transcripts of your addresses to the PRB on April 8 and September 3, 2014. I have enclosed for your information a copy of the notice that is being filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.

I have also enclosed for your information copies of MD 8.11 and the associated

brochure, NUREG/BR-0200, "Public Petition Process,"

prepared by the NRC's Office of Public Affairs.

Again, I appreciate you bringing these matters to the attention of the NRC.

Enclosures:

1. Disposition of Requests

2. Federal Register Notice 3. Management Directive 8.11 4. NUREG/BR-0200 cc: Listserv Sincerely, Daniel H. Dorman, Acting Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Disposition of Requests that Were not Accepted into the 10 CFR 2.206 Process The following

requests, as summarized below, do not meet the criteria for review, either because they are not requests for enforcement-related action or because they concern now-resolved issues that have already been the subject of NRC staff review and evaluation.

Although these requests do not meet the criteria of Management Directive (MD) 8.11, "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions,"

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff appreciates your concerns, and the paragraphs below explain why your requests were not accepted into the 2.206 process.

Concerns with NRC staff monitoring of PCP impeller issues (Issue Nos. 1 I 21 11 I 121 and 14 of petition dated March 51 2014) This issue, regarding failure of the PCP impellers resulting in pieces breaking free in the reactor vessel (RV) is being tracked by Region Ill through the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP). Region Ill staff, in addition to the resident inspection staff at PNP, have followed up (and will continue to follow up) with the licensee regarding the licensee's corrective

actions, in accordance with ROP activities.

On August 8, 2012, Region Ill documented a finding of very low safety significance and an associated non-cited violation for the failure of the licensee to operate the PCPs in accordance with their design operating criteria (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 12221A340).

Region Ill recently documented its inspection findings in the PNP integrated inspection report dated May 7, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 14127A543).

The report states the following:

Because the PCP-C impeller was replaced with a new impeller this outage, PCP-8 was the only pump that remained in service with a refurbished impeller that was more susceptible to the fatigue-related failures that have been observed.

The licensee ensured that PCP-8 was not one of the first two PCPs started following the Spring 2014 refueling outage, which did not expose PCP-8 to the susceptible pressure and flow conditions.

However, because PCP-8 continues in service with potential impeller vane cracks there remains a potential for impeller pieces to break off. The inspectors and NRC staff recognized this concern and did not identify any immediate safety concerns, in part due to the extensive operating experience with broken impeller pieces. However, a review of the licensee's evaluation to justify continued operation of PCP-8 with a potentially cracked impeller continues.

Additionally, the inspectors continue to review the licensee's corrective actions to date and going forward to determine whether the licensee plans to eliminate the known susceptibility of impeller pieces breaking off. In addition to continued monitoring of this issue under the ROP, Region Ill staff addressed this issue at the public End of Cycle meeting conducted in South Haven, Michigan (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML 141928384 and ML 14175A284 for the meeting summary and NRC meeting slides).

During the public End of Cycle meeting, the NRC staff presented a discussion on the RV foreign material inspection that occurred during the 2014 refueling outage and provided a poster session to answer any additional questions regarding foreign material caused by the failure of the impellers.

In regards to your concerns about why the broken vanes were not reported to the NRC through a licensee event report (LER) or event notification, the requirements for reporting events to the Enclosure 1 NRC are in accordance with 10 CFR 50.72, "Immediate Notification Requirements for Operating Nuclear Power Reactors,"

and 50.73, "Licensee Event Report System."

NUREG-1022, Revision 3, "Event Report Guidelines 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73" (ADAMS Accession No. ML 13032A220) contains guidelines that the NRC staff considers acceptable for use in meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73. Section 3.0 of NUREG-1022 provides examples and discussion of events that would require event notification or an LER. Region Ill monitors conformance to 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 through ROP activities and did not consider the impeller issues at Palisades to warrant notification in accordance with 10 CFR 50.72 and 50. 73. In regards to your concern about plant debris discovered in the primary side of the steam generators, specifically the impact of loose impeller pieces causing potential wear on the steam-generator tubes, Section 5.6.8 of PNP's technical specifications (TSs) requires the licensee to submit a steam-generator tube inspection report to the NRC in accordance with the steam-generator program specified in TS 5.5.8. This report includes the active degradation mechanisms (including wear from foreign objects, regardless of the objects' origin),

location and measured sizes of service-induced indications of degradation, and any corrective actions (e.g., tube plugging) taken in response to the inspection findings.

The NRC staff reviews these reports to ensure that the licensee is detecting potential tube degradation.

The NRC staff documents their review in a letter to the licensee, which was made publicly available in ADAMS. Concerns with the design and operation of the PCP impellers (Issue Nos. 7 and 8 of 2.206 petition dated March 5. 2014. and Issue Nos. 5, 6, and 7 of supplemental e-mail dated May 21. 2014) You raised the following concerns:

a. sequencing of the PCP during startup and shutdown conditions

b. potential erosion of the coolant piping walls from metal blade particles

c. failure of large pieces of the impeller The NRC staff notes that the requests regarding the above three concerns were not a request for an enforcement action and, thus, did not meet the acceptance criteria of MD 8.11. The NRC staff understands your concerns, notes that these concerns are closely related to two of the accepted requests (Numbers 1 and 2 above), and will take your underlying concerns into consideration during the review of the accepted requests.

Concerns with pieces of broken impeller causing fuel damage (Issue Nos. 1, 2. 3, and 4 of supplemental e-mail dated May 21, 2014) Many of your requests stem from your concern that broken pieces of impeller (small metal particles) can ultimately cause fuel damage. As a result of the October 2011 vibration event and the subsequent review of the licensee's operability determination, the NRC staff studied the following potential issues associated with broken impeller pieces of various sizes: a. their interactions within the PCP, including impeding flow, impacting other vanes, impeding pump coastdown, causing pressure-boundary damage, and causing Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) impacts b. their passing through a reactor coolant system's cold leg, including potentially impacting a resistance temperature detector (RTD) and causing pressure-boundary damage c. their passing through or lodging in the RV annulus, including causing pressure-boundary damage d. their behavior after leaving the RV annulus, including potentially causing interactions in the lower plenum, blocking flow channels, damaging fuel cladding, and jamming control rods e. the effects of a piece moving upstream of the PCP The NRC staff concluded that PCP impeller coastdown and the PCP pressure boundary are unlikely to be significantly affected; therefore, the FSAR analyses for core cooling and loss-of-coolant accidents are also unlikely to be significantly affected.

In addition, the NRC staff examined RTD interactions and concluded that damage to the RTD resulting from an impeller piece contacting the RTD is not a significant safety concern.

Dynamic flow analyses predicted that broken pieces from the pump would not contact the RTD. However, in the unlikely event that contact should occur, the worst case would result in a small opening in the reactor coolant system boundary, which is bounded by small-break loss-of-coolant accident analyses that have been conducted as part of the design-basis analyses.

The NRC staff concluded that, for several reasons, there were no significant safety concerns resulting from broken pieces of impeller causing fuel damage. Impeller pieces are likely to remain stuck at the flow skirt or at the bottom of the RV as evidenced by the discovery of previous pieces. Flow conditions are insufficient to elevate larger pieces that might pass through the gap between the flow skirt and RV wall to the lower core support plate. Should the impeller pieces be small enough to be transported up and through the gaps (a highly unlikely occurrence},

the impeller piece would have to become lodged in a position to cause erosion of the fuel cladding.

If this were to occur, the activity levels in the primary coolant system (PCS) would increase.

Radiation monitoring would detect this increase in PCS activity levels, and the reactor would be shut down in accordance with the licensee's technical specification 3.4.16, "PCS Specific Activity."

Requests for licensee information (Issue Nos. 4 and 9 of the 2.206 petition dated March 5. 2014) In regards to your request for Palisades to disclose internal Entergy reports regarding whether the PCPs were operated outside their design bases, the NRC staff does not require the licensee to disclose internal documents for public inspection as part of the 2.206 process.

As part of the inspection process under the ROP, Entergy documents have been, and will continue to be, reviewed, and any findings will be documented in the applicable inspection reports which are made publicly available.

In regards to your request for Entergy to explain their decision to conduct weld repair of the PCP impellers and details on how other plants have repaired their impellers, the NRC staff notes that this request is not a request for enforcement-related action and, thus, did not meet the acceptance criteria of MD 8.11. The NRC staff understands your concerns and notes that they are closely related to two of the accepted requests (Numbers 1 and 3 above). During the process of reviewing accepted request Number 1, the NRC will take your concerns into consideration.

ENCLOSURE 2 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. DOCKET NO. 50-255 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-255; Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Palisades Nuclear Plant AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: 10 CFR 2.206 request; receipt.

[7590-01-P]

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is giving notice that by petition dated March 5, 2014, as supplemented by e-mail dated May 21, 2014, Michael Mulligan (the petitioner) has requested that the NRC take enforcement action against Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., due to recent plant events and equipment failures at Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP). The petitioner's requests are included in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

ADDRESSES:

Please refer to Docket ID <INSERT:

when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document.

You may obtain available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID <INSERT:

NRC-20YY-XXXX>.

Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone:

301-287-3422; e-mail: Caroi.Gallagher@nrc.gov.

• 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 "ADAMS Public Documents" and then select "Begin Web-based ADAMS Search."

For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4 737, or by e-mail to pdr. resource@nrc.

gov. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this document (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced.

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

Notice is hereby given that by petition dated March 5, 2014 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 14071A006),

as supplemented by email dated May 21, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 14142A101),

and the petitioner's addresses to the Petition Review Board dated April 8 and September 3, 2014 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML 14143A212 and ML 14259A135, respectively),

the petitioner, has asked the NRC to take enforcement action against Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., due to recent plant events and equipment failures at PNP. The petitioner was particularly concerned with primary coolant pump (PCP) impeller pieces breaking off and lodging in the reactor vessel. The petitioner requests the following actions:

• Require PNP to open every PCP for inspection and clear up all flaws.

• Require PNP to replace the PCPs with a design for their intended duty.

• An Office of Inspector General (OIG) inspection on why there are different analysis criteria for similar PCP events between the NRC regions.

• A ten million dollar fine for these events.

• Intensify NRC monitoring of PNP, and return them to yellow or red status. As the basis for the request, the petitioner stated, in part, the following:

• The petitioner cited other recent plant events and equipment

failures, such as leakage from the safety injection refueling water tank, and flaws in the control rod drive mechanisms.

• The petitioner asserted the licensee and the NRC staff used non-conservative engineering judgment during the evaluation of the lodged PCP impeller piece and during the operability evaluation of the existing PCP impellers.

• The petitioner asserts that the NRC staff was not being aggressive in resolving plant equipment issues, not resolving PCP equipment issues uniformly across the NRC regions, and accommodating the nuclear industry.

The request is being treated pursuant to § 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (1 0 CFR), and has been referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). In accordance with 10 CFR 2.206, the NRC will take appropriate action on this petition within a reasonable period of time. The petitioner met with the NRR Petition Review Board on April 8 and September 3, 2014, to discuss the petition.

The Petition Review Board considered the results of that discussion in its determination of the petitioner's request for immediate action and in the establishment of the schedule for the review of the petition.

Dated at Rockville,

Maryland, this 251h day of September 2014. For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Daniel H. Dorman, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

ENCLOSURE 3 MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 8.11 U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

_ iTo:SubjectPurpose:TN: DT-00-20NRC Management Directives Custodians Transmittal of Directive 8.11, "Review Process for 10 CFR2.206 Petitions" Directive and Handbook 8.11 are being revised to addressstakeholder feedback and to improve clarity and make thehandbook easier to use. There are three major changes to thehandbook:

(1) the addition of an opportunity for petitioners toaddress the Petition Review Board after it discusses thepetition; (2) the deletion of criteria for technical meetings with the petitioners; and (3) the addition of a requirement to requestcomments from the petitioner(s) and affected licensee(s) onthe proposed director's

decision, with associated steps toresolve, and document the resolution of, those comments.

Office andDivision of Origin:Contact:Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Andrew J. Kugler, (301) 415-2828 orDonna Skay, (301) 415-1322Date Approved:

Volume:Directive:

July 1, 1999 (Revised:

October 25, 2000)8 Licensee Oversight Programs8.11 Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Availability:

Rules and Directives BranchOffice of Administration

.David L. Meyer, (301) 415-7162 orDoris Mendiola, (301) 415-6297OFFICE OF ADMINIS TRA TION TN: DT-00-20Significant Changes to the Management Directive 8.11Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions The entire document has been revised to improve clarity and make it easier to use. Inparticular, the handbook is now written with actions in chronological order. In addition tothose 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 meetingor 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 addressthe PRB and also allow petitioners to be assisted by a reasonable number ofrepresentatives.

• Deletion of the criteria for meetings between the petitioner and the staff. The staff willhold 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 thepetitioner 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.

• Revision of the timeliness goal to 120 days from the date of the acknowledgment letteruntil the date the proposed director's decision is sent out for comment.

Add a new goal of45 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 personsinvolved with petitions.

2 Review Process for10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Directive 8.1 1 Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Directive 8.11ContentsPolicy .; 1Objectives.

1Organizational Responsibilities and Delegations of Authority.

2Executive Director for Operations (EDO). 2General Counsel (GC). 2Office Directors.

2Regional Administrators.

32.206 PRB Chairperson.

3Associate Directors

-Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). 4Division Directors.

4Director, Division of Licensing Project Management (DLPM),Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). 4Applicability..

4Handbook.

.....................................................

4Definitions

............................................................

4References

...................................................

5Approved:

July 1, 1999(Revised:

October 25'2000) in U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Volume: 8 Licensee Oversight Programs NRRReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Directive 8.11Policy(8.11-01)

It is the policy of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to providemembers of the public with the means to request that the Commission take enforcement-related action (i.e., to modify, suspend, or revoke alicense, or for other appropriate enforcement-related action, asdistinguished from actions such as licensing or rulemaking).

This policyis codified at Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code ofFederalRegulations (10 CFR 2.206). The Commission may grant a request for action, inwhole or in part, take other action that satisfies the concerns raised bythe requester, or deny the request.

Requests that raise health and safetyand other concerns without requesting enforcement-related action willbe reviewed by means other than the 10 CFR 2.206 process.Objectives (8.11-02)

• To ensure the public health and safety, through the prompt andthorough evaluation of any potential problem addressed by apetition filed under 10 CFR 2.206. (021)* To provide for appropriate participation by a petitioner in, andobservation by the public of, NRC's decisionmaking activities related to a 10 CFR 2.206 petition.

(022)* To ensure effective communication with the petitioner and otherstakeholders on the' status of the petition, including providing relevant documents and notification of interactions between theNRC staff and a licensee or certificate holder relevant to thepetition.

(023)Approved:

July 1, 1999 1(Revised:

October 25, 2000)

I :-,Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Directive 8.11Organizational Responsibilities andDelegations 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 2.206petitions and, upon specific request from the staff in special cases orwhere 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) K>Office Directors (033)* Have overall responsibility for assigned petitions.

Because 10 CFR2.206 petitions request enforcement-related action, petitions areassigned to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, the Office ofNuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, the Office ofEnforcement, or the Office of the General Counsel.

Therefore, most of the actions described in this directive and the associated handbook apply only to those. offices.

(a)* Approve or deny a petitioner's request for immediate action. (b)* Sign acknowledgment

letters, FederalRegister notices and director's decisions.

(c)* Provide up-to-date information for the monthly status report on allassigned petitions.

(d)* Appoint a petition review board (PRB) chairperson.

(e)* Designate a petition manager for each petition.

(f)Approved:

July 1, 19992 (Revised:

October 25, 2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Directive 8.11Office Directors (033) (continued)

• Promptly notify (1) the Office of Investigations of any allegation ofwrongdoing by a licensee or certificate holder, applicant for alicense or certificate, their contractors, or their vendors or (2) theOffice of the Inspector General of any allegation of wrongdoing byan NRC staff person or NRC contractor, that is contained in apetition they may receive.

(g)* Provide a draft of each director's decisions to the Office ofEnforcement for review. (h)

• Designate an office coordinator for 2.206 petitions, if applicable.

(i)Regional Administrators (034)* As needed, provide support and information for the preparation ofan acknowledgment letter and/or a director's decision on a 2.206petition.

(a)* Make the petition manager aware of information that is received orthat is the subject of any correspondence relating to a pendingpetition.

(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 Service manager, who will-* Convene PRB meetings.

(a)* Ensure appropriate review of all new petitions in a timelymanner. (b)* Ensure appropriate documentation of PRB meetings.

(c)* Convene periodic PRB meetings with the petition managers todiscuss the status of open petitions and to provide guidance fortimely resolution.

(d)Approved:

July 1, 1999(Revised:

October 25, 2000) 3 A1I-Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Directive 8.11Associate Directors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)(036)Concur in each extension request from petition managers in theirorganization and forward the extension request to the Office of theEDO for approval.

Division Directors (037)Concur in each extension request from petition managers in theirorganization and forward the extension request to the Office of theEDO (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 DLPMstaff person.Applicability (8.11-04)

The policy and guidance in this directive and handbook apply to allNRC 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 theCommission modify, suspend, or revoke a license, or take any otherenforcement-related action that may be proper. The request must meetthe criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206 (see Part III ofHandbook 8.11).Licensee.

Throughout the handbook, any references to a licensee shallbe interpreted to include certificate

holders, applicants for licenses orcertificates, or other affected parties.Approved:

July 1, 19994 (Revised:

October25,2000)

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

Code of Federal Regulations-10 CFR 2.206, "Requests 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 tointervene."

Management Directives-

-3.5, "Public Attendance at Certain Meetings Involving the NRCStaff."-8.8, "Management of Allegations."

-12.6, "NRC Sensitive Unclassified Information SecurityProgram."

Memorandum of Understanding Between the NRC and theDepartment of Justice, December 12, 1988."Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances,".published quarterly asNUREG-0750.

Approved:

July 1, 1999(Revised:

October 25,2000)5 Review Process for10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook8.11 Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Parts I -IVContentsPart IIntroduction

...........................................................

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

...............................

1General Cautions (B) ....................

..............................

1Part IIInitial Staff Actions ......................................................

3NRC's Receipt of a Petition (A) ......................................

3Process Summary (1) ...............

3.............................

3Assignment of Staff Action (2) .......................................

3Office Action (B) ......................................................

4Petition Manager Action (C) .............

...............................

4K Part IIIPetition Review Board (PRB) ..........................

.7General (A) ..........................................................

7Schedule (1) ..............................

7Board Composition (2) .............................

.7Preparation for the PRB Meeting (B) ... 8Criteria for Petition Evaluation (C) ..11Criteria for Reviewing Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206 (1) ................. .11Criteria for Rejecting Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206 (2) .11Criteria for Consolidating Petitions (3) ..12PRB Meeting (D) .. .....................

13Informing the Petitioner of the Results (E) ..14Meeting With the Petitioner (F) ...................

14Response to the Petitioner (G) .........

.......................

15Requests That Do Not Meet the Criteria (1) ..15Requests That Meet the Criteria (2) ..................................

16Sending Documents to the Petitioner (H) .. 16Supplements to the Petition (I) ...........................

17Approved:

July 1, 1999(Revised:

October 25, 2000)

I X t aVolume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Parts I -IVContents (continued)

Part IVPetition Review Activities

..........................................

19Reviewing the Petition (A) .............................................

19Interoffice Coordination (1) .........................................

19Request for Licensee Input (2) ........................

........

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

20Additional Petition Review Board (PRB) Meetings (4) ...... ............

20Schedule (B) ............

20Schedle (B ........

...................................

2Keeping the Petitioner Informed (C) .22Updates to Management and the Public (D) ............

...................

22Part VThe Director's Decision

..........................................

24Content and Format (A) .............................................

24 VFinal Versus Partial Director's Decisions (B) ...........

...................

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

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

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

26Comment Disposition (F) ........................

27Issuing the Director's Decision (G) ...........

...........................

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

28Commission Actions (I) ........................

30Exhibits1 Simplified 2.206 Process Flow Chart .312 Petition Manager Checklist

.333 Sample Closure Letter for Requests That Are Not 2.206 Petitions

.364 Sample Acknowledgment Letter .375 Sample Federal Register Notice .38.6 Sample Director's Decision and Cover Letter .397 Sample Federal Register Notice for Director's Decision

.438 Sample Letters Requesting Comments on the ProposedDirector's Decision

.45Approved:

July 1, 1999iv (Revised:

October 25, 2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook' 8.11' Part IPart IIntroduction 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 theCommission take enforcement-related action.,

i.e., to modify, suspend,or revoke a license or to take other appropriate action. (1)Section 2.206 requires that the petition be submitted in writing andprovide the grounds for taking the proposed action. The NRC staff willnot treat general opposition to nuclear power or a general assertion of asafety problem, without supporting facts, as a formal petition under10 CFR 2.206. The staff will treat general requests as allegations orroutine correspondence.

Petitioners are encouraged to provide atelephone number or e-mail address through which the staff may makecontact.

(2)General Cautions (B)Management Directive (MD) 8.8, "Management of Allegations,"

provides NRC policy with regard to notifying the Office ofInvestigations (01) and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) ofwrongdoing matters, as well as initiating, prioritizing, and terminating investigations.

Each petition manager should become familiar with thecurrent version of MD 8.11 and this handbook and follow the policy andprocedures included in them when dealing with issues requiring OI orOIG investigations.

(1)Any mention outside NRC of an ongoing OI or OIG investigation, forexample, as an explanation for schedule

changes, requires the approvalof the Director, OI, or the IG, respectively.

(2)Approved: July 1, 1999(Revised:

October 25, 2000) 1

-lLVolume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part II IGeneral Cautions (B) (continued)

If the petition contains information on alleged wrongdoing on the partof a licensee or certificate holder, an applicant for a license orcertificate, their contractors, or their vendors, treat the petition, or therelevant part of the petition, as an allegation and promptly notify OI. Ifthe petition contains information on alleged wrongdoing involving anNRC employee, NRC contractors, or NRC vendors, promptly notifyOIG. (3)2Approved:

July 1, 1999(Revised:

October25,2000)

Volume 8,, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part IIPart IIInitial Staff ActionsNRC's Receipt of a Petition (A)Process Summary (1)After NRC receives a petition, the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) assigns it to the director of the appropriate office for evaluation and response.

The original incoming petition is sent to the office and acopy of the petition is sent 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 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 maynot cite 10 CFR 2.206 and may initially be directed to staff other thanthe EDO. In any of these cases, the staff person who receives thedocument should make an initial evaluation as to whether thedocument meets the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206 provided inPart III of this handbook. Staff persons who are uncertain whether ornot the document meets the criteria should consult their management or office coordinators for further guidance.

If a petition meets thecriteria but does not specifically cite 10 CFR 2.206, the staff willattempt to contact the petitioner by telephone to determine if he or shewants the request processed pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206. The staff maydetermine that a request forwarded for staff action is not a petition forenforcement-related action but, rather, a petition for rulemaking, forexample.

If there is any uncertainty about whether or not a request is apeiition under 10 CFR 2.206, it should be treated as one so that apetition review -board (PRB) can make its recommendations, asdescribed in Part III of this handbook.

(a)Approved:

July 1, 1999(Revised:

October25,2000)-

3 ALL.-Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part IINRC's Receipt of a Petition (A) (continued)

Assignment of Staff Action (2) (continued)

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) forassignment of action. Petitions also may be forwarded to the OEDOfrom the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel or from a Presiding Officer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.1205(l)(2).

The EDO will assigneach petition to the appropriate office for action. If the document doesnot cite 10 CFR 2.206 and does not meet the criteria for review underthat 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 beadded to the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System(ADAMS) by OEDO. OEDO will not declare these petitions officialagency records nor will it make them publicly available.

Those stepswill be carried out by the assigned office as described below. (c)Office Action (B)Upon receipt, office management will assign the petition to a petitionmanager.

(1)The Agency 2.206 Petition Coordinator (appointed by the Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation (NRR)), receives copies of all 2.206 petitions from OEDOand will add them to the 2.206 database.

(2)Petition Manager Action (c)The petition manager will promptly review the petition and determine whether or not it contains allegations or sensitive information.

The timingof this step is particularly important for petitions that are not addressed tothe EDO. Normally, these documents have been entered into ADAMSthrough the Document Control Desk (DCD) and are released to thepublic after a specified period of time. The delay allows the staff time toreview the petition for allegations or other sensitive information.

If thepetition manager determines that a document contains allegations orother sensitive information-,

he or she should immediately contact theADAMS Help Desk (301415-1234) to prevent releasing the documentto the public. (1)Approved:

July 1, 19994 (Revised:

October 25, 2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part IIPetition 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 assignedoffice, the petition manager will inform the petitioner by telephone that the 2.206 petition process is a public process in which the petitionand all the information in it will be made public. If the petitioner requests anonymity and that the petition not be made public, thepetition manager will advise the petitioner that, because of its publicnature, the 2.206 process cannot provide protection of the petitioner's identity.

In these cases, the petition manager must obtain theagreement of the petitioner as to how the matterwill be handled (i.e., asan allegation or not) and document the petitioner's agreement inwriting, usually in the form of a memorandum to file. In cases where thestaff identifies certain issues in a petition that it believes are moreappropriately addressed using the allegation

process, the petitionmanager will obtain the agreement of the petitioner as to how theseissues will be handled (i.e., as an allegation or not) and document thepetitioner's agreement in writing.

If all or part of the petition is treatedas 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 CFR2.206 petition, the petition manager will also discuss this issue with thepetitioner.

The petitioner may be able to help the petition managerbetter understand the basis for the petition or the petitioner mayrealize that a 10 CFR 2.206 petition is not the correct forum for theissues raised in the request.

Finally, the petition manager will offer thepetitioner an opportunity to have one or more representatives give apresentation to the PRB and cognizant supporting staff either bytelephone (or videoconference, if available) or in person. This is anopportunity for the petitioner to provide any relevant additional explanation and support for the request.

This type of meeting isdescribed in more detail in Part III of this handbook.

(3)After the initial contact with the petitioner, the petition manager willpromptly advise the licensee(s) of the petition, send the appropriate licensee(s) a copy of the petition for information, and ensure that thepetition and all subsequent related correspondence are made available to the public. (Note that if the petitioner wishes to have the requesthandled as an allegation, the request is no longer a 2.206 petition.)

Anyinformation related to allegations or other sensitive information thatApproved:

July 1, 1999(Revised:

October 25,2000) 5 I A-LVolume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs, Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part IIPetition Manager Action (C) (continued) make up a part of the petition will be redacted from copies sent to thelicensee or made available to the public. For allegations, the petitionmanager 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 issuesto 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 petitionmanager actions.

(5)K-6Approved:

July 1, 1999(Revised:

October 25, 2000)

-Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part IIIPart IIIPetition Review Board (PRB)General (A)Schedule (1)The assigned office holds a PRB meeting to review the 2.206 petition.

The PRB meeting is normally held within 2 weeks of receipt of thepetition.

The PRB meeting may be held much sooner if staff decisions are required on short-term, immediate actions (e.g., a request to shutdown an operating facility or prevent restart of a facility that is ready torestart).

In unusual situations, it may not be possible to hold themeeting in time to address any immediate action requests.

In thesecases, the staff will decide how any immediate actions requested will beaddressed and obtain appropriate management concurrence as soon aspossible.

If the staff plans to take an action that is contrary to animmediate action requested in the petition before issuing theacknowledgment letter (such as permitting restart of a facility when thepetitioner has requested that restart not be permitted),

the petitionmanager must promptly notify the petitioner by telephone of thepending staff action.,Board Composition (2)The PRB consists of(a)* A PRB chairperson (generally a Senior Executive Service manager)

(i)* A petition manager (ii)! Cognnt management and staf, as necessary (iii)* A representative from the Office of Investigations (OI), as needed (iv)* A representative from the Office of Enforcement (OE) and, forpetitions 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 I :EUVolume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part IIIGeneral (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 andassist in scheduling the review board meeting.

The petition manageralso will arrange for cognizant technical staff members to attend themeeting, as necessary, and prepare a presentation for the review board.In assigning technical staff members to the petition, management willconsider any potential conflict from assigning any staff person who waspreviously 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 thecriteria 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 ornot) (c)* Recommendations on whether or not assistance from 01, OE, orOGC is necessary (d)* A request for confirmation concerning referral to OI or the Officeof the Inspector General (OIG), as appropriate (e)* The proposed

schedule, including the review schedule for theaffected technical branches (f)The petition manager also will offer a meeting or teleconference between the petitioner and the PRB before the board reviews thepetition.

This meeting or teleconference, if held, is an opportunity forthe petitioner to provide any relevant additional explanation andsupport for the request in advance of the PRB's evaluation.

The staffwill hold this type of meeting if the petitioner desires it. If a decision.

isrequired on a petitioner's request for immediate action before thepetitioner's presentation can be scheduled, that decision will not bedelayed.

(3)Approved:

July 1, 19998 (Revised:

October 25, 2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part IIIPreparation for the PRB Meeting (B) (continued)

The petition manager also will invite the licensee to participate in themeeting or teleconference to' ensure that itunderstands the concernsabout its facilityor activities.

The PRB members may ask any questions needed to'clarify the petitioner's request. The licensee may also askquestions to clarify the issues raised by the petitioner.

Any member ofthe public may attend (or listen in by telephone for a teleconference) asan observer.

Meetings between PRB and the petitioner normally willbe held at NRC headquarters in Rockville,

Maryland, with provisions for participation by telephone or videoconference.

This public meetingor teleconference is separate from the (closed)

PRB meeting duringwhich the PRB members develop their recommendations with respectto the petition.

(4)The petition manager will ensure that all staff persons at the meeting orteleconference are aware of the need to protect sensitive information from disclosure.

Sensitive information includes safeguards or facilitysecurity information,

.proprietary or confidential commercial information, or information relating to an ongoing investigation ofwrongdoing.

(5)If 'the petitioner chooses to address PRB by telephone, it is notconsidered a meeting and no public notice is necessary.

The petitionmanager will establish a mutually agreeable time and date and arrangeto conduct the teleconference on a recorded line through the NRCHeadquarters Operations Center (301-816-5100).

The tape recording from the Operations Center is converted to a printed transcript that istreated as a supplement to the petition and is sent to the petitioner andthe same distribution as the original petition.

The petition manager willmake arrangements for transcription service by submitting an NRCForm 587 to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel or by sendingan e-mail. to "Court Reporter,"

giving the same information asrequested on the Form 587. (6)If the petitioner chooses to attend in person, the meetingwill take placeat NRC headquarters at a'mutually agreeable time. For the meeting,the petition manager will follow the prior public notice period andother provisions:

of Management' Directive (MD) 3.5, "PublicAttendance at Certain Meetings Involving the NRC Staff." However,time constraints associated with this type of meeting will often dictatethat the 10-day public notice period described in MD 3.5 will not beApproved:

July 1, 1999(Reused: October 25,2000) 9

--SiVolume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part IIIPreparation for the PRB Meeting (B) (continued) met. MD 3.5 allows for less than 10 days' public notice, if necessary, with appropriate management concurrence.

The meeting should benoticed as a meeting between the NRC staff, the petitioner, and thelicensee (unless the licensee chooses not to participate).

The licensee isinvited to participate, as in the teleconference described above, andmembers of the public may attend as observers.

The meeting istranscribed and the transcript is treated in the same manner as in thecase of a telephone briefing.

(7)The petitioner may request that a reasonable number of associates bepermitted to assist him or her in addressing PRB concerning thepetition.

The petition manager will (1) discuss this request with thepetitioner, (2) determine the number of speakers, and (3) allot areasonable amount of time for the presentation so that the staff canacquire the information needed for its review in an efficient manner. (8)At the meeting or teleconference, the chairperson will provide a briefsummary of the 2.206 process, the petition, and the purpose of thediscussion that will follow. The NRC staff and the licensee will have anopportunity to ask the petitioner questions for purposes of clarification.

PRB may meet in closed session before and/or after the meeting withthe petitioner to conduct its normal business.

(9)The requirements for scheduling-and holding the petitioner presentation may impact the established time goals for holding theregular PRB meeting and issuing the acknowledgment letter. Anyimpacts should be kept to a minimum.

(10)The petition manager will review the transcript and, where necessary, edit it to ensure it accurately reflects what was said in the meeting orteleconference.

Corrections are only necessary for errors that affect themeaning of the text of the transcript.

The petition manager is notexpected to correct inconsequential errors. (11)After editing, the petition manager will ensure that the transcript getsthe same distribution (petitioner,

licensee, publicly available, etc.) asthe original petition.

For meetings, this step should be accomplished byattaching the transcript to a brief meeting summary.

For-teleconferences, the petition manager may attach the transcript to amemorandum to file. (12)Approved:

July 1, 199910 (Revised:

October 25,2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part IIICriteria 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 andwhether 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 2.206if the request meets all of the following criteria-(a)

• The petition contains a request for enforcement-related actionsuch as issuing an order modifying, suspending, or revoking

alicense, issuing a notice of violation,withorwithout a proposed civilpenalty, etc. (i)* The facts that constitute the bases for taking the particular actionare specified.

The petitioner must provide some element of supportbeyond the bare assertion.

The supporting facts must be credibleand sufficient to warrant further inquiry.

(ii)* There is no NRC proceeding available in which the petitioner is orcould be a party and through which the petitioner's concerns couldbe addressed.

If there is a proceeding available, for example, if apetitioner raises an issue that he or she has raised or could raise inan ongoing licensing proceeding, the staff will inform the petitioner of the ongoing proceeding and will not treat the request under10 CFR 2.206. (iii)An exception to the first two criteria is any petition to intervene andrequest for hearing in a licensing proceeding that is referred to the10 CFR 2.206 process in accordance with 10 CFR 2.1205()(2).

These-referrals may be made when the petition does not satisfy the legalrequirements for a hearing or intervention and the Atomic Safety andLicensingBoardPanel or the Presiding Officerdetermines that referralto the 10 CFR 2.206 process is appropriate.

For these referrals, thesubstantive issues in the request for a hearing or intervention will beread as an implicit request for enforcement-related action, thussatisfying the criteria for treatment under the 10 CFR 2.206 reviewprocess.

(b)-Criteria for Rejecting Petitions Under 10 CER 2.206 (2)The staff will not review a petition under 10 CFR 2.206, whetherspecifically cited or not, under the following circumstances-Approved:

July 1, 1999(Revised:

October 25, 2000) 11 I AkL_Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part IIICriteria for Petition Evaluation (C) (continued)

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

The incoming correspondence does not ask for anenforcement-related action or fails to provide sufficient facts tosupport the petition but simply alleges wrongdoing, violations ofNRC regulations, or existence of safety concerns.

The requestcannot be simply a general statement of opposition to nuclearpower or a general assertion without supporting facts (e.g., thequality assurance at the facility is inadequate).

These assertions willbe treated as routine correspondence or as allegations that will bereferred for appropriate action in accordance with MD 8.8,"Management of Allegations."

(a)* The petitioner raises issues that have already been the subject ofNRC staff review and evaluation either on that facility, othersimilar facilities, or on a generic basis, for which a resolution hasbeen achieved, the issues have been resolved, and the resolution isapplicable to the facility in question.

This would include requests toreconsider or reopen a previous enforcement action (including adecision not to initiate an enforcement action) or a director's decision.

These requests will not be treated as a 2.206 petitionunless they present significant new information.

(b)* The request is to deny a license application or amendment.

Thistype of request should initially be addressed in the context of therelevant licensing action, not under 10 CFR 2.206. (c)* The request addresses deficiencies within existing NRC rules. Thistype of request should be addressed as a petition for rulemaking.

(d)Criteria for Consolidating Petitions (3)Generally, all requests submitted by different individuals will betreated and evaluated separately.

When two or more petitions requestaction against the same licensee, specify essentially the same bases,provide adequate supporting information, and are submitted at aboutthe same time, PRB will consider the benefits of consolidating thepetitions against the potential of diluting the importance of anypetition and recommend whether or not consolidation is appropriate.

Theassigned office director will determine whether or not to consolidate the petitions.

Approved:

July 1, 199912 (Revised:

October 25, 2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part IIIPRB 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 thecriteria for review as a 10 CFR 2.206 petition (see Part III(C) of thishandbook)

'(a)* Determine whether or not the petitioner should be offered or informed of an alternative process (e.g., consideration of issues asallegations, consideration of issues in a pending license proceeding, or rulemaking)

(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 acommitment is made by management and the technical review staffto respond to the petition inma timely manner (see Part IV of thishandbook for guidance regarding schedules)

(d)* Address the possibility of issuing a partial director's decision (e)* Determine whether or not the petition should be consolidated withanother petition (f)* Determine whether or not referral to OI or OIG is appropriate (g)* Determine whether or not there is a need for OGC to participate inthe review (h)* Determine whether or not the licensee should be requested torespond to the petition (i)* Determine whether or not the petition is sufficiently complex thatadditional review board meetings should be scheduled to ensurethat suitable progress' is being made ') 'The PRB meeting is a closed meeting, separate from any meeting withthe petitioner and the licensee,'during'which the PRB membersdevelop their recommendations with respect to the petition. At themeeting, the petition manager briefs PRB on the petitioner's request(s),

any background'information, the need for an independent technical review, and a proposed plan for resolution, including targetcompletion dates. The petition manager, with the assistance of theApproved:

July 1, 1999(Revised:

October 25, 2000) 13 I -_ AIL-Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview 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 thePRB meeting.

(2)The OGC representative provides legal review and advice on 10 CFR2.206 petitions.

OGC may be assigned as the responsible office for thereview, if appropriate.

(3)Informing the Petitioner of the Results (E)After PRB meets, and before issuing the acknowledgment letter, thepetition manager will ensure that appropriate levels of management (as determined by the assigned office) are informed of the board'srecommendations and that they concur. The petition managerwill theninform the petitioner by telephone as to whether or not the petitionmeets the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206, of the disposition ofany requests for immediate action, of how the review will proceed, andthat'an acknowledgment letter is forthcoming.

If the staff plans to takean action that is contrary to an immediate action requested in thepetition before issuing the acknowledgment letter, the petitionmanager must notify the petitioner promptly by telephone of thepending staff action. An example of a contrary action would be if NRCpermitted restart of a facility when the petitioner had requested thatrestart not be permitted.

The petitioner will not be advised of anywrongdoing investigation being conducted by 01 or OIG.Meeting With the Petitioner (F)After informing the petitioner of the pertinent PRB recommendations, the petition manager will offer the petitioner an opportunity tocomment on the recommendations..

This opportunity will be in theform of a meeting or teleconference between the petitioner and thePRB. If the petitioner accepts this offer, the petition manager willestablish a mutually agreeable date for the meeting or teleconference with the petitioner.

The petition manager also will invite the licensee toparticipate and will. coordinate the schedules and dates with thelicensee.

The meeting or teleconference should be scheduled so as notto adversely affect the established petition review schedule.

(i)<-'Approved:

July 1, 199914 (Revised:

October 25, 2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part IIIMeeting With the Petitioner (F) (continued)

This meeting or teleconference, if held, is an opportunity for thepetitioner to provide any relevant additional explanation and supportfor the request in light of PRB's recommendations.

The PRB membersmay ask questions to clarify the petitioner's request.

If staff decisions on any of the petitioner's immediate action'requests are requiredbefore the petitioner's presentation can be scheduled, those decisions will not be delayed.

The format of the meeting or teleconference, application of MD 3.5, transcription, etc., and the requirements to editand distribute the transcript are the same as for a meeting orteleconference held prior to the PRB's review of the petition.

(2)After this discussion, PRB will consider the need to modify any of itsrecommendations. The final recommendations will be included in theacknowledgment letter. The acknowledgment letter will address anycomments the petitioner made concerning the initial PRB-recommendations and the staff's response.

The petitioner will benotified promptly of staff decisions on any immediate action requests.

If the petitioner presents significant new information to the staff, PRBmay determine that this new information constitutes a new petition thatwill be treated separately from the initial petition.

(3)The requirements for scheduling and holding the petitioner presentationmay impact the established time goals for issuing the acknowledgmentletter. These impacts should be kept to a minimum. (4)

Response to the Petitioner (GAfter PRB finalizes its recommendations, the petition managerprepares a written response to the petitioner.

Requests That Do Not Meet the Criteria (1)If PRB, with office-level management concurrence, determines that thepetition does not meet the criteria for review 'as a 10 CFR 2.206 petition,the petition manager then prepares a letter that (1) explains why therequest is not being reviewed under 10 CFR 2.206; (2) responds, to theextent possible at that time, to the issues in the petitioner's request; and(3) explains what further'actions, if any, the staff intends to take inresponse to the request (e.g.'; treat it as an allegation or routinecorrespondence).

See Exhibit 3 for an example.

(a)The petition manager will attach the original petition and anyenclosure(s) to the Reading File copy of the letter. (b)Approved:

July 1, 1999(Revised:

October 25, 2000) 15 I- A t :Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part IIIResponse to the Petitioner (G) (continued)

Requests That Meet the Criteria (2)If the PRB finds that the petition meets the criteria for review as a10 CFR 2.206 petition, the petition manager prepares anacknowledgment letter and associated Federal Register notice (seeExhibits 4 and 5). The letter should acknowledge the petitioner's efforts in bringing issues to the staff's attention.

If the petition containsa request for immediate action by the NRC, such as a request forimmediate suspension of facility operation until final action is taken onthe request, the acknowledgment letter must explain the staff'sresponse to the immediate action requested and the basis for thatresponse.

(a)The petition manager ensures that a copy of this management directive and of the pamphlet "Public Petition Process,"

prepared by the Officeof Public Affairs, are included with the acknowledgment letter. Theacknowledgment letter also should include the name and telephone number of the petition

manager, identify the technical stafforganizational units that will participate in the review, and provide theplanned schedule for the staff's review. A copy of the acknowledgment letter must be sent to the appropriate licensee and the docket servicelist(s).

(b)The petition manager will attach the original 2.206 petition and anyenclosure(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 thepetition immediately.

In this case, the staff can combine the functions of the acknowledgment letter and the director's decision into onedocument.

A similar approach would be taken in combining theassociated Federal Register notices.

(d)Sending Documents to the Petitioner (H)If the PRB determines that the request is a 2.206 petition, then thepetition 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 forthe licensee(s) that is(are) the subject of the petition.

(a)Approved:

July 1, 199916 (Revised:

October 25,2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CER 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part IIISending Documents to the Petitioner (H) (continued)

• Request the licensee to send copies of any future correspondence related to the petition-to the petitioner; with due regard forproprietary, 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 distribution for other NRCcorrespondence relating to the issues raised in the petition, including relevant generic letters or bulletins that are issued during thependency of the NRC's consideration of the petition.

This does notinclude NRC correspondence or documentation related to an 01 orOIG investigation, which will not be released outside NRC without the approval of the Director, 01, or the IG, respectively.

(c)These three actions will remain in effect until 90 days after thedirector's decision is issued if the petitioner desires it. (2)Supplements to the Petition (I)A petitioner will sometimes submit a supplement to his or her petition.The petition manager will review the supplement promptly anddetermine whether or not it contains allegations or sensitive information.

If the supplement appears to contain information of thisnature, the petition manager must obtain the agreement of thepetitioner as to how these issues will be handled (i.e., as an allegation ornot) and document the petitioner's agreement in writing, usually in theform of a memorandum to file. If all or part of the supplement is treatedas an allegation, this 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 petition manager will also ensure the supplement receives thesame distribution as the petition and will forward a copy of thesupplement to the PRB members.

The PRB members will review thesupplement and determine whether they need to meet formally todiscuss it and, if so, whether or not to offer the petitioner an opportunity to discuss the' supplement with the PRB members before the boardreviews the supplement (see Part III(B) of this handbook).

In decidingwhether a'formal PRB meeting is needed, the PRB members willconsider the safety'significance and complexity of the information inthe supplement.

Clarifications 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 ongoingpetition review and no further action is necessary.

(2)Approved:

July 1, 1999(Revised:

October 25,2000) 17 I 2 tVolume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part IIISupplements 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 ornot) (a)* The supplement should be consolidated with the existingpetition (b)* To issue a partial director's decision (c)* Referral to OI or OIG is appropriate (d)* To revise the review schedule for the petition based on thesupplement (see Part IV of this handbook for guidance regarding schedules)

(e)* To send an acknowledgment letter for the supplement.

(Anacknowledgment letter should be sent if the supplement providessignificant new information, causes the staff to reconsider aprevious determination, or requires a schedule change beyond theoriginal 120-day goal. See Part III(G) of this handbook forinformation on acknowledgment letters.)

(f)* To offer the petitioner a meeting or teleconference with PRB todiscuss its recommendations with respect to the supplement.

(SeePart III(F) of this handbook for information on this type of meetingor teleconference.)

(g)If the staff determines that the schedule for the petition must beextended beyond the original 120-day goal as a result of thesupplement, the assigned office should send an acknowledgment letterto the petitioner, reset the 120-day clock to the date of the newacknowledgment letter, and inform the Office of the Executive Director for Operations (OEDO). (4)If PRB determines thatthe supplementwill be treated as a newpetition (i.e., not consolidated with the existing petition),

the assigned officemust contact OEDO and obtain a new tracking number in the WorkItem Tracking System. (5)Approved:

July 1, 199918 (Revised:

October 25,,2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part IVPart IV'Petition Review Activities Reviewing the Petition (A)Interoffice Coordination (1)The petition manager coordinates all information required for thepetition review.-

The petition manager also advises his or hermanagement of the need for review and advice from the Office of theGeneral Counsel (OGC) regarding a petition in special cases. Whenappropriate, an Associate Director in the Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation, a Division Director in the Office of Nuclear MaterialSafety and Safeguards,'or the"Director of the Office of Enforcement requests OGC involvement through the OGC special counsel assignedto 2.206 matters.

(a)All information related to a wrongdoing investigation by the Office of Investigations (OI) or the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), oreven the fact that -an investigation is being conducted, will receivelimited distribution within NRC and will not be released outside NRC without the approval of the Director, OI, or the IG, respectively (seeManagement

'Directive (MD)' 8.8). Within NRC, access to thisinformation is limited to those having a need-to-know.

Regarding a2.206 petition, the assigned office 'director, or his designee, maintains copies of any documents required and erisures that no copies ofdocuments related to an OI or OIG investigation are placed in thedocket file or the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) without the approval of the Director, OI, or the IG,respectively.

(b)Approved:

July 1, 1999(Revised:

October 25, 2000) 1 I Al.Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part IVReviewing the Petition (A) (continued)

Request for Licensee Input (2)If appropriate, the petition manager will request the licensee toprovide a voluntary response to the NRC on the issues specified in thepetition, usually within 30 days. This staff request will usually be madein writing.

The petition manager will advise the licensee that the NRCwill make the licensee's response publicly available and remind thelicensee to provide a copy of the response to the petitioner.

Thelicensee may voluntarily submit information relative to the petition, even if the NRC staff has not requested any such information.

(a)Unless necessary for NRC's proper evaluation of the petition, thelicensee should avoid using proprietary, or personal privacyinformation that requires protection from public disclosure.

If suchinformation is necessary to respond to the petition completely, thepetition manager ensures the information is protected in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790. (b)Technical Review Meeting With the Petitioner (3)A technical review meeting with the petitioner will be held wheneverthe staff believes that such a meeting (whether requested by thepetitioner, the licensee, or the staff) would be beneficial to the staff'sreview of the petition.

Meeting guidance is provided in MD 3.5. Thepetition manager will ensure that the meeting does not compromise theprotection of sensitive information.

A meeting will not be held simply*because the petitioner claims to have additional information and willnot 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 managerfinds that significant changes must be made to the original plan for theresolution of the petition.

Schedule (B)The first goal is to issue the proposed director's decision for commentwithin 120 days after issuing the acknowledgment letter. The proposeddirector's decision for uncomplicated petitions should be issued in lessthan 120 days. The second goal is to issue the director's decision within45 days of the end of the comment period for the proposedApproved:

July 1, 199920 (Revised:

October 25,2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part IVSchedule (B) (continued) director's decision. The actual schedule should be shorter if thenumber and complexity of the comments allow. The Office of theExecutive Director for Operations (OEDO) tracks the first target date,and any change of the date requires approval by the EDO. The petitionmanager monitors the progress of any PI investigation and relatedenforcement actions.

Enforcement actions that are prerequisites to adirector's decision should be-expedited and completed in time to meetthe 120-day goal. Investigations by OI and OIG associated withpetitions should be expedited to the extent practicable.

However, thegoal of issuing the proposed director's decision for comment within 120days after issuing the acknowledgment letter applies only to petitions whose review schedules are within the staff's control.

If issues in apetition are the subject of an investigation by OI or OIG, or a referral tothe Department of Justice (DOJ), or if NRC decides to await aDepartment of Labor

decision, the clock for the 120-day goal is stoppedfor the portion of the petition awaiting disposition by thoseorganizations.

The clock will start again when the staff receives theresults of the investigation.

If the staff can respond to some portions ofthe petition without the results of the investigation, then a proposedpartial director's decision should be issued for comment within theoriginal 120- days. When the staff receives the results of theinvestigation, it will promptly develop and issue a proposed finaldirector's decision for comment.

See Part V of this handbook for adiscussion of partial director's decisions.

(1)If the proposed director's decision cannot be issued in 120 days for-other reasons (e.g., very -complex issues),

the appropriate level ofmanagement in the assigned office determines the need for anextension of the schedule and requests the extension from the EDO. Inaddition, the petition manager will contact the petitioner promptly to explain the reason(s) for the delay and will maintain a record of thecontact.

(2)After the comment period closes on a proposed director's

decision, theassigned office -will review the comments received and provide theschedule to issue the director's decision to the Agency 2.206 PetitionCoordinator for inclusion in the next status report. (3)Approved:

July 1, 1999(Revised:

October 25, 2000) 21 a'Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part IVKeeping the Petitioner Informed (c)The petition manager ensures that the petitioner is notified at leastevery 60 days of the status of the petition, or more frequently if asignificant action occurs. If a significant action will be reported in themonthly status report prepared by the Agency 2.206 PetitionCoordinator, the petition manager will inform the petitioner before thestatus report is issued. The petition manager makes the status reportsto the petitioner by telephone.

The petition manager should speakdirectly to the petitioner if reasonably possible.

The petition managerkeeps up-to-date on the status of the petition so that reasonable detailcan be provided with the status reports.

However, the status report tothe petitioner will not indicate-

• An ongoing OI or OIG investigation, unless approved by theDirector, OI, or the IG (1)* The referral of the matter to DOJ (2)* Enforcement action under consideration (3)Updates to Management and the Public (D)On a monthly basis, the Agency 2.206 Petition Coordinator will contactall petition managers reminding them to prepare a status reportregarding 2.206 petitions in their offices.

The petition managers shoulde-mail the status report for each open petition; with the exception ofsensitive information as described below, to "Petition."

The Agency2.206 Petition Coordinator combines all the status reports, including staff performance metrics for petitions processed under 10 CFR 2.206for the current year, in a monthly report to the EDO from the Associate

Director, Project Licensing and Technical Analysis.

The Agency 2.206Petition Coordinator also ensures the document is added to ADAMSand made publicly available and e-mails a copy to "NRCWEB" forplacement on the NRC's Web site. (1)If the status of the petition includes sensitive information that mayneedto be protected from disclosure, the petition managerwill so indicate inthe e-mail and in the status report itself. Sensitive information includessafeguards or facility security information, proprietary or confidential commercial information, information relating to an ongoinginvestigation of wrongdoing or enforcement actions underdevelopment, or information about referral of matters to the DOJ andshould be handled in accordance with MD 12.6, "NRC Sensitive Unclassified Information Security Program."

The Agency 2.206-Approved:

July 1, 1999'22 (Revised:

October 25, 2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part TVUpdates to Management and the Public (D) (continued)

Petition Coordinator will protect this information from disclosure byplacing the affected status report(s) in a separate enclosure to thestatus report, clearly marking the status report to the EDO, andredactingthe sensitive information from the version of the report that ismade public. (2)The NRC's Web site provides the up-to-date status of pending 2.206petitions, director's decisions issued, and other related information.

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

Director's decisions are also published in NRC Issuances (NUREG-0750).

(3)Approved:

July 1, 1999(Revised:

October 25,2000)23 I ALL-Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part VPart VThe Director's DecisionContent and Format (A)The petition manager prepares the proposed director's decision on thepetition and the associated Federal Register notice for the officedirector'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 Kpetitioner and the licensee that will enclose the proposed director's decision and request comments on it (see Exhibit 8). These letters willbe routed with the director's decision for concurrence.

(1)The director's decision will clearly describe the issues raised by thepetitioner, provide a discussion of the safety significance of the issues,and clearly explain the staff's disposition for each issue. The petitionmanager will bear in mind the broader audience (i.e., the public) whenpreparing the explanation of technical issues. Refer to the NRC PlainLanguage Action Plan, available on the internal Web site, for furtherguidance.

In addition, the petition manager will ensure that anydocuments referenced in the decision are available to the public. If apartial director's decision was issued previously, the final director's decision will refer to, but does not have to repeat the content of, thepartial director's decision.

After management's review, the petitionmanager incorporates any proposed revisions in the decision.

(2)If appropriate, the decision and the transmittal letter for the director's decision or partial director's decision should. acknowledge that thepetitioner 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 foraction have not been granted.

(3)Approved:

July 1, 199924 (Revised:

October 25, 2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part VContent and Format (A) (continued)

If the Office of Investigations (OI) has completed its investigation of apotential wrongdoing issue and the matter has been referred to theDepartment of Justice (DOJ), the petition rninagerwill contact OI andthe Office of Enforcement (OE) to coordiniate NRC's actions. For petitions assigned to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR),the petition manager also will contact the NRR Senior Enforcement Coordinator.

The staff may need to withhold action on the petition inkeeping with the Memorandum of Understanding with DOJ. (4)If the results of a wrongdoing investigation by Ol in relation to thepetition are available, the staff will consider these results in completing the action on the petition.

.O must concur in the accuracy andcharacterization of the OI findings and conclusions that are used in thedecision.

(5)The petition manager will obtain OE's review of the director's decisionfor potential enforcement implications.

For petitions assigned to NRR,the petition manager also will provide a copy of the director's decisionto the NRR Senior Enforcement Coordinator.

(6)Final Versus. Partial Director's Decisions (B)The staff will consider preparing a partial director's decision whensome of the issues associated with the 2.206 petition are resolved inadvance of other issues and if significant schedule delays areanticipated before resolution of the entire petition.

(1)The format,

content, and method of processing a partial director's decision are the same-as that of a director's decision (as described above) and an accompanying Federal Register notice would still beprepared (see Exhibit 7). However, the partial director's decisionshould clearly indicate those portions of the petition that remain open,explain the reasons for the delay to the extent practical, and provide thestaff's schedule for the final director's decision.

If all of the issues in thepetition can be resolved

together, then the director's decision willaddress all of the issues. (2)Granting the Petition (c)Once the staff has determined that the petitionwill be granted, inwholeor in part, the petition manager will prepare a "Director's DecisionUnder 10 CFR 2.206" for the office director's signature.

The decisionwill explain the bases upon which the petition has been granted andidentify the actions that NRC staff has taken or will take to grant all orthat portion of the petition.

-The decision also should describe anyApproved:

July 1, 1999(Revised:

October 25,2000) 25 Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part VGranting the Petition (C) (continued) actions the licensee took voluntarily that address aspects of thepetition.

The Commission maygrant a request for enforcement-related action, in whole or in part, and also may take other action to satisfy theconcerns raised by the petition.

A petition is characterized as beinggranted in part when the NRC grants only some of the actionsrequested and/or takes actions other than those requested to addressthe underlying problem.

If the petition is granted in full, the director's decision will explain the bases for granting the petition and state thatthe Commission's action resulting from the director's decision isoutlined in the Commission's order or other appropriate communication.

If the petition is granted in part, the director's decisionwill clearly indicate the portions of the petition that are being deniedand the staff's bases for the denial.Denying the Petition (D)Once the staff has determined that the petition will be denied, thepetition manager will prepare a "Director's Decision Under 10 CFR2.206" for the office director's signature.

The decision will explain thebases for the denial and discuss all matters raised by the petitioner insupport of the request.Issuing the Proposed Director's Decision for Comment (E)After the assigned office director has concurred in the proposeddirector's

decision, the petition manager will issue the letters to thepetitioner and the licensee enclosing the proposed director's decisionand requesting comments on it. The letters, with the enclosure, will bemade 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 anopportunity to identify errors in the decision.

The letters will request aresponse within a set period of time, nominally 2 weeks. The amount oftime allowed for the response may be adjusted depending oncircumstances.

For example, forvery complex technical issues it maybeappropriate to allow more time for the petitioner and licensee todevelop their comments.

The letters, including the proposed director's

decision, should be transmitted to the recipients electronically or byfax, if possible.

(2)Approved:

July 1, 199926 (Revised:

October 25,2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part VComment Disposition (F)After the comment period closes on the proposed director's

decision, the assigned office will review the comments received and provide theschedule to issue the director's decision to the Agency 2.206 PetitionCoordinator for inclusion in the next status report. The petitionmanager will then evaluate any comments received on the proposeddecision, obtaining the assistance of the technical staff, as appropriate.

Although the staff requested comments from only the petitioner and the licensee, comments from other sources (e.g., other members of thepublic) may be received.

These additional comments should beaddressed in the same manner as the comments from the petitioner andlicensee.

A copy of the comments received and the associated staffresponses 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 petitionmanager will include in the director's decision a reference to the lettersthat requested comments and a statement that no comments werereceived.

(2)If the comments from the petitioner include new information, thepetition reviewboard will be reconvened to determine whether to treatthe new information as part of the current petition or as a newpetition.

(3)Issuing the Director's Decision (G)A decision under 10 CFR 2.206 consists of a letter to the petitioner, thedirector's decision,,

and the Federal Register notice. The petitionmanager will obtain a director's decision number (i.e., DD-YY-XX) from the Office of the Secretary (SECY). A director's decision numberis assigned to each director's'decision in numerical sequence.

Thisnumber is included on the letter to the petitioner, the director's

decision, and the Federal Register notice. Note that the director's decision itself is not published in the FederalRegister; only the notice ofits availability, containing a summary of the substance of the decision, ispublished (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 FederalRegister notice. If the staff's response to the petition involves issuing anorder, the petition man agerwill prepare a letter to transmit the order tothe licensee.

The petition manager also will include a copy of the orderApproved:

July 1, 1999(Revised:

October 25, 2000) 27 I XI-Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part VIssuing the Director's Decision (G) (continued) in the letter to the petitioner.

When the director's decision has beensigned, the petition manager will promptly send a copy of the decision, electronically or by fax if possible, to the petitioner.

Copies of thedirector's decision and Federal Register notice that are sent to thelicensee and individuals on the service list(s) are dispatched simultaneously with the petitioner's

'copy. Before dispatching thedirector's decision (or partial decision),

the petition manager willinform the petitioner of the imminent issuance of the decision and thesubstance of the decision.

The petition manager will also ask thepetitioner whether he or she wishes to continue receiving documents related to 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, thestaff forwards it to the Rules and Directives Branch, Office ofAdministration (ADM/DAS/RDB),

for transmittal to the Office of theFederal Register for publication.

The staff shall NOT include a copy ofthe director's decision in the package that is sent to RDB. RDB onlyforwards the Federal Register notice to be published.

(3)Administrative Issues (H)The administrative staff of the assigned office will review the 10 CFR2.206 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 thepetitioner, promptly dispatch the copies.)-(1)

• Rulemakings and Adjudications staff, SECY (a)* Five copies of the director's decision (i)* Two courtesycopies ofthe entire decision package including the distribution and service lists (ii)* Two copies of the incoming petition and any supplement(s)

(iii)* Petitioner (b)* Signed original letter (i)* Signed director's decision (ii)* A copy of the Federal Register notice (iii)Approved:

July 1, 199928 (Revised:

October 25, 2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part VAdministrative Issues (H) (continued)

• Chief, Rules and Directives Branch (c)* Original signed Federal Register notice only (do not includethe director's decision)

(i)* Five paper copies of the notice (ii)* A disk with a WordPerfect file that contains the FederalRegister notice (iii)The staff must fulfill these requirements promptly because theCommission has 25 calendar days from the date of the decision todetermine whether or not the director's decision should bereviewed.

(2)The staff will use the following guidelines when distributing copiesinternally and externally-(3)

• When action on a 2.206 petition is completed, the petition managerwill ensure that all publicly releasable documentation is available to the public in ADAMS. (a)* The assigned office will determine the appropriate individuals andoffices to include on the distribution list. (b)The administrative staff of the assigned office will complete thefollowing actions within 2 working days of issuance of the director's decision:

(4)* Provide one paper copy of the director's decision to the specialcounsel in the Office of the General Counsel assigned to 2.206matters.

(a)* E-mail the final version of the director's decision to the NRCIssuances (NRCI) Project Officer, Publishing Services Branch (PSB),Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO). If other information (opinions, partial information (such as errata),

or footnotes) isincluded in the e-mail, clearly identify the director's decision numberat the beginning of each file to avoid administrative delays andimprove the technical production schedule for proofreading, editing,and composing the documents.

In addition, send two paper copies ofthe signed director's decision to the NRCI Project Officer.

(b)Approved:

July 1, 1999(Revised:

October 25, 2000) 29 IL_Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Part VAdministrative Issues (H) (continued)

• E-mail a signed, dated, and numbered copy of the director's decision to "NRCWEB" for posting on the NRC's Web site. (c)The petition manager will prepare headnotes, which are a summary ofthe petition, consisting of no more than a few paragraphs describing what the petition requested and how the director's decision resolved orclosed out the petition.

The petition manager will e-mail the headnotes to the NRCI Project Officer, PSB, OCIO, for monthly publication inthe NRC Issuances, NUREG-0750.

The headnotes should reach PSBbefore 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 petitionmanager will remove the petitioner's name from distribution and/orthe service list(s) and inform the licensee that it may also stop sendingdocuments 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 reviewthe director's decision within 25 days of the date of the decision andmay 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 decisionwithin 25 days (unless the Commission extends the review time), thedirector's decision becomes the final agency action and SECY sends aletter to the petitioner informing the petitioner that the Commission has taken no further action on the petition.

Approved:

July 1, 199930 (Revised:

October 25,2000) cCCDt..u1\cn '.tn\000m#-I "_WO.1mlawU)S0nQsDFI-CD,C)!t _

cn1000)W0CDCLwoususIt01PaPF.-EDrAl00ulO oCDt'- >C A:_so:C((

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview'Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 'Exhibits Exhibit 2Petition Manager Checklist O Review the petition for allegations and sensitive material.

If sensitive, prevent releasing the document to the public. Also determine whether or not any immediate actions requested require expedited staffresponse.

o Contact the petitioner and discuss the public nature of the process.

Offer a pre-PRB meeting or teleconto the petitioner.

E Send a copy of the incoming petition to the licensee and Document Control Desk (Public),

withredactions as appropriate.

o If a pre-PRB meeting or telecon is held, notice it (meeting only) and arrange for it to be recorded andtranscribed (meeting or telecon).

Arrange the meeting and the PRB meeting which will follow it.E 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?

K) -Is there a need for immediate action (whether requested or not)?-Is there a need for OE, OI, OIG, or OGC involvement?

-What is your recommended approach to the response?

-What schedule is proposed?

o Hold the pre-PRB meeting or telecon.E Address the PRB at its meeting.0 Ensure assigned office management agrees with the PRB recommendations.

o Inform the petitioner of the PRB recommendations.

Offer a post-PRB meeting.E If a post-PRB meeting or telecon is held, notice it (meeting only) and arrange for it to be recorded andtranscribed.

Arrange the meeting and the PRB meeting which will follow itEl Hold the post-PRB meeting or telecon.O Address the PRB at its meeting.0 Prepare a meeting summary for the pre- and post-PRB

meetings, if held. This step is not required for atelecon.El Ensure the transcripts of the pre- and post-PRB meetings or telecons, if held, are added to ADAMSand made publicly available.

For meetings, this step can be done using the meeting summary.Approved:

July 1, 1999(Revised:

October 25,'2000) 33 u-iVolume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR-2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 ExhibitsExhibit 2 (continued)

E Ensure assigned office management agrees with the PRB final recommendations.

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

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

O Add petitioner to appropriate service list(s).O Issue acknowledgment letter and associated Federal Register notice.O If licensee input is needed, send a written request.0 If further petitioner input is needed, arrange for a technical review meeting.l Make periodic status updates to the petitioner.

0 Prepare the director's

decision, addressing:

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

El Send the proposed director's decision to the petitioner and licensee for comment.E After the comment period closes, give the schedule for the director's decision to the Agency 2.206Petition Coordinator for inclusion in the next status report.El Include comments received and their resolution in the director's decision.

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

E 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 Rulemakings and Adjudication Staff in SECY-Hand-carry the original signed Federal Register notice (ONLY), five copies of the notice, and a diskwiththe notice on it, to the Rules and Directives Branch. Do NOT include the director's decision in thispackage.Approved:

July 1, 199934. (Revised:

October 25, 2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 ExhibitsExhibit 2 (continued)

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

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

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

July 1, 1999.(Revised:

October25,2000) 35

-1 AL-Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 ExhibitsExhibit 3Sample Closure Letter for RequestsThat 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 referredto the Office of [insert]

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations.

Yourequest [state petitioner's requests].

As the basis for your request, you state that [insertbasis 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 forconsideration under 10 CFR 2.2061. OR [Our petition review board has reviewed yoursubmittal].

The staff has concluded that your submittal does not meet the criteria forconsideration under 10 CFR 2.206 because [explain our basis, addressing all aspects of thesubmittal and making reference to the appropriate criteria in this MD].[Provide the staff's response, if available, to the issues raised].

AND/OR [Explain whatfurther actions, if any, the staff intends to take in response to the request (e.g., treat it asan 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, 199936 (Revised:

October 25, 2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsRevew Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 ExhibitsExhibit 4Sample Acknowledgment Letter[Petitioner's Name][Petitioner's Address]

Dear Mr.:

Your petition dated [insert date] and addressed to the [insert addressee]

has been referredto me pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations.

You request [statepetitioner's requests].

As the basis for your request, you state that

[insert basis forrequest].

I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your effort in bringing thesematters to the attention of the NRC.[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 in establishing]

the schedule for the review of yourpetition].

Your request to [insert request for immediate action] at [insert facility name] is\ _J [granted or denied] because [staff to provide explanation].

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

[First and last name of petition manager]

to be the petition manager foryour petition.

Mr. [last name of petition manager]

can be reached at [301415-extension ofpetition manager]

Your petition is being reviewed by [organizational units] within theOffice of [name of appropriate Office].

[If necessary, add: I have referred to the NRCOffice of the Inspector General (OIG) those allegations of NRC wrongdoing contained in'your petition].

I have enclosed for your information a copy of the notice that is being filedwith the Office of the Federal Register for publication.

I have also enclosed for yourinformation a copy of Management Directive 8.11 "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206Petitions,"

and the associated brochure NUREG/BR-0200, "Public Petition Process,"

prepared by the NRC Office of Public Affairs.Sincerely,

[Office Director]

Enclosures:

Federal Register NoticeManagement Directive 8.11NUREG/BR-0200 cc: [Licensee (w/copy of incoming 2.206 request)

& Service List]Approved:

July 1, 1999(Revised:

October 25, 2000) 37 kLLVolume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 :Exhibits Exhibit 5[7590-01-P]

Sample Federal Register NoticeU.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docket No(s).License No(s).[Name of Licensee]

RECEIPT OF REQUEST FOR ACTION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206Notice 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 orlicensee name]. The petitioner requests

[state petitioner's requests].

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

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 actionoffice].

As provided by Section 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this petitionwithin a reasonable time. [The petitioner met with the [insert action office] petition reviewboard on [insert date] to discuss the petition.

The results of that discussion were considered in the board's determination regarding

[the petitioner's request for immediate action andin establishing]

the schedule for the review of the petition].

[If necessary, add] By letterdated ,the Director (granted or denied) petitioner's request for [insert requestfor 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 OneWhite Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

Maryland, and from theADAMS Public Library component on the NRC's Web site, http://wwwnrc.gov (the PublicElectronic Reading Room).FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Office Director]

Dated at Rockville, MarylandThis day of , 200X.Approved:

July 1, 199938 (Revised:

October 25, 2000)

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 ExhibitsExhibit 6Sample Director's Decision and Cover Letter[Insert petitioner's name & address]Dear [insert petitioner's name]:This letter responds to the petition you filed with [EDO or other addressee of petition]

pursuant to Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 2.206) on[date of petition]

as supplemented on [dates of any supplements].

In your petition yourequested that the NRC [list requested actions].

On [date of acknowledgment letter] the NRC staff acknowledged receiving your petitionand stated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 that your petition was being referred to me for actionand that it would be acted upon within a reasonable time. You were also told that [staffresponse to any request for immediate action].[You met with the petition review board on [date(s) of the pre-and/or post-PRBmeeting(s)] to clarify the bases for your petition.

The transcript(s) of this/these mreeting(s) was/were treated as (a) supplement(s) to the petition and are available in ADAMS forinspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North,11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

Maryland, and from the ADAMS PublicLibrary component on the NRC's Web site, http:llwwwnrcgov (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 theinformation provided was considered by the staff in its evaluation of the petition].

In your petition you stated that [summarize the issues raised].

[Briefly summarize thesafety significance of the issues and the staffs response].

[The NRC issued a Partial Director's Decision (DD-YY-XX) dated [insert]

which [explainwhat aspects of the petition were addressed].

[Explain which issues remained to beaddressed in this director's decision and briefly explain the reason for the delay on theseissues]].

The staff sent a copy of the proposed director's decision to you and to [licensee(s)]

forcomment 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 I J 11Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 ExhibitsExhibit 6 (continued)

[Summarize the issues addressed in this director's decision and the staff's response].

A copy of the Director's Decision (DD-YY-XX) will be filed with the Secretary of theCommission for the Commission to review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c).

Asprovided for by this regulation, the decision will constitute the final action of theCommission 25 days after the date of the decision unless the Commission, on its ownmotion, institutes a review of the decision within that time. [The documents cited in theenclosed decision are available in ADAMS for inspection at the Commission's PublicDocument Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),Rockville,

Maryland, and from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC's Website; 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 Director's Decision Under10 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 theattention of the NRC]. Please feel free to contact [petition manager name and number] todiscuss any questions related to this petition.

Sincerely,

[Insert Office Director's Name]Docket Nos. [ ]

Enclosures:

Director's Decision YY-XXFederal Register NoticeApproved:

July 1, 199940 (Revised:

October 25, 2000)

.-. I 1,Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 ExhibitsDD-YY-XXUNITED STATES OF AMERICANUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF [INSERT][Office Director Name], DirectorIn the Matter of ) Docket No(s). [Insert]))[LICENSEE NAME] ) License No(s). [Insert]* )([Plant or facility name(s)])

) (10 CER 2.206)DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206X> I. Introduction By letter dated [insert date], as supplemented on [dates of supplements],

[petitioner namesand, if applicable, represented organizations]

filed a Petition pursuant to Title 10 of theCode of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206. The petitioner(s) requested that the U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) take the following actions:

[list requests].

Thebases for the requests were -[describe].

In a letter dated [insert],

the NRC informed the Petitioners that their request for [listimmediate actions requested]

was approved/denied and that the issues in the Petition werebeing referred to the Office of [insert]

for appropriate action.[The Petitioner(s) met 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.

Thetranscript(s) of this/these meeting(s) was/were treated as (a) supplement(s) to the petitionand are available in ADAMS for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room,located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

Maryland, and from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC's Web site, http://www.

nrc.gov (the Public Electronic Reading Room)].[By letter dated [insert date], the NRC staff requested

[name of licensee]

to provideinformation related to the petition.

[Name of licensee]

responded on [insert date] and theinformation 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 [explainwhat aspects of the petition were addressed].

[Explain which issues remained to beApproved:

July 1, 1999(Revised:

-October 25, 2000) 41 Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 Exhibitsaddressed in this director's decision and briefly explain the reason for the delay on theseissues]].

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 tothem are included in the director's decision].

OR [The staff did not receive any commentson the proposed director's decision].

II. Discussion

[Discuss the issues raised, the significance of the issues (or lack thereof),

and the staff'sresponse with supporting bases. Acknowledge any validated issues, even if the staff or thelicensee decided to take corrective actions other than those requested by the petitioner.

Clearly explain all actions taken by the staff or the licensee to address the issues, even ifthese actions were under way or completed before the petition was received.

Thisdiscussion must clearly present the staff response to all of the valid issues so that it isclear that they have been addressed].

III. Conclusion

[Summarize the staff's conclusions with respect to the issues raised and how they havebeen, or will be, addressed].

As provided in 10 CFR 2.206(c),

a copy of this Director's Decision will be filed with theSecretary of the Commission for the Commission to review. As provided for by thisregulation, the decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days after thedate of the decision unless the Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of thedecision within that time.Dated at Rockville,

Maryland, this [insert date] day of [insert month, year].[Office director's name], DirectorOffice of [insert]Approved:

July 1, 199942 (Revised:

October 25, 2000)

Volume8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 ExhibitsExhibit 7[7590-01

-P]Sample Federal Register Notice for Director's DecisionU.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docket No(s).License No(s).[Name of Licensee]

NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 Notice is hereby given that the Director,

[name of office],

has issued a director's K..> decision with regard to a petition dated [insert date], filed by [insert petitioner's name],hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner."

[The petition was supplemented on [insert date,include transcripts from meeting(s) with the PRB]]. The petition concerns the operation ofthe [insert facility or licensee name].The petition requested that [insert facility or licensee name] should be [insertrequest for enforcement-related action].

[If necessary, add] The petitioner also requested that a public meeting be held to discuss this matter in the'Washington, DC, area.As the basis for the [insert date]

request, the petition&r raised concerns'stemming from [insert petitioners supporting basis for the request]. The

[insert petitioners name]considers such operation to be potentially unsafe and to bein violation of Federalregulations.

In'the petition, a number of references to [insert references]

were cited thatthe petitioner believes prohibit operation of the facility with [insert the cause'for therequested enforcement-related action].

-The petition of [insert date] raises concerns originating from [insert summaryinformation on more bases/rationale/discussion and supporting facts used in thedisposition of the petition and the development of the'director's decision].

Approved:

July 1, 1999(Revised:

October25,2000) 43 Volume 8, Licensee.

Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 ExhibitsExhibit 7 (continued)

[On [insert date], the petitioner

[and the licensee]

met with the staff's petition reviewboard]. [On [insert date of public meeting],

the NRC conducted a meeting regarding

[insertfacility or licensee name]. The(se) meeting(s) gave the petitioner and the licensee anopportunity 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] andthe licensee(s) responded on [date]. The comments and the NRC staffs response to them areincluded in the Director's Decision].

OR [The staff did not receive any comments on theproposed Director's Decision].

The Director of the Office of [name of office] has determined that the request(s),

torequire [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 inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at OneWhite Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

Maryland, and via theNRC's Web site (http:/lwwwnrc.gov) on the World Wide Web, under the "PublicInvolvement" icon.[Briefly summarize the staff's findings and conclusions].

A copy of the director's decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations.

As provided for by this regulation, the director's decision will constitute thefinal action of the Commission 25 days after the date of the decision, unless theCommission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the director's decision in that time.Dated at Rockville,

Maryland, this [insert date] day of [insert month, year].FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Original Signed By[Insert Office Director's Name]Office of [insert Office Name]Approved:

July 1, 199944 (Revised:

October 25, 2000)

.........

Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 ExhibitsExhibit 8Sample Letters Requesting Comments on the ProposedDirector's Decision(Note: For clarity, separate letters will need to be sent to the petitioner and the licensee.

This sample provides guidance for both letters.)

[Insert petitioner's address]

.Dear [Insert petitioner's name]Your petition dated [insert date] and addressed to the [insert addressee]

has been reviewedby the NRC staff pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations.

The staff'sproposed director's decision on the petition is enclosed.

I request that you providecomments to me on any portions of the decision that you believe involve errors or anyissues in the petition that you believe have not been fully addressed.

The staff is making asimilar request of the licensee.

The staff will then review any comments provided by youand the licensee and consider them in the final version of the director's decision with nofurther opportunity to comment.Please provide your comments by [insert date, nominally 2 weeks from the date of thisletter].Sincerely,

[Signed by Division Director]

Docket Nos. []cc w/o end: [Service List][Insert licensee's address]Dear [Insert licensee's name]By letter dated [insert date], [insert name of petitioner]

submitted a petition pursuant to10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations with respect to [insert name(s) of affectedfacilities].

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 that you believe involve errors or any issues in the petition that youbelieve 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 considerthem in the final version of the director's decision with no further opportunity to comment.Approved:

July 1, 1999(Revised:

October 25,2000) 45 kLJ11Volume 8, Licensee Oversight ProgramsReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions Handbook 8.11 ExhibitsK>-Exhibit 8 (continued)

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

[Signed by Division Director]

Docket Nos. [ ]cc w/encl: [Service List]-i46Approved:

July 1, 1999(Revised:

October 25, 2000).

ENCLOSURE 4 NUREG/BR-0200

---

resolution of the entire petition.

A finaldirector's decision is issued at theconclusion of the effort.The Commission will not entertain requestsfor review of a director's decision.

However,on its own, it may review a decision within 25calendar days.NRC Management Directive

8. 11, "ReviewProcess for IO CFR 2.206 Petitions," contains more detailed information on citizen petitions.

For a free copy of the directive, write to theSuperintendent of Documents, U.S.Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082,Washington, DC 20013-7082, or call 202-512-1800.

Electronic AccessThose parts of the monthly status report on2.206 petitions that are not of a sensitive nature, as well as recently issued director's decisions, and Management Directive

8. 11, areplaced on the NRC's web site at http://www.nrc.

gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/

petitions-2-206/index.html and in the agency'sPublic Document Room.Other Processes for Public Involvement In addition to the 2.206 petition process, NRChas several other ways that permit the publicto express concerns on matters related to theNRC's regulatory activities.

• The NRC's allegation process affordsindividuals who raise safety concerns adegree of protection of their identity.

• Under the provisions of 10 CFR 2.802,NRC provides an opportunity for thepublic to petition the agency for arulemaking.

• The NRC's licensing process offersmembers of the public, who arespecifically affected by a licensing action,an opportunity to formally participate inlicensing proceedings.

This processapplies not only to the initial licensing actions but also to license amendments and other activities such as decom-missioning and license renewals.

• For major regulatory actions involving preparation of environmental impactstatements, NRC offers separateopportunities for public participation in itsenvironmental proceedings.

• The public can attend a number ofmeetings including open Commission andstaff meetings, periodic media briefings by Regional Administrators, and specialmeetings held near affected facilities toinform local communities and respond totheir questions.

More information on these activities can befound in NRC's pamphlet

entitled, "PublicInvolvement in the Nuclear Regulatory Process,"

NUREG/BR-0215.

-IOffice of Public AffairsU. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Telephone 301-415-8200 or1-800-368-5642 NUREG/BR-0200, Rev. 5February 2003e OFFICE NAME DATE OFFICE NAME DATE M. Mulligan Again, I appreciate you bringing these matters to the attention of the NRC. Sincerely, IRA/ Daniel H. Dorman, Acting Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Disposition of Requests

2. Federal Register Notice 3. Management Directive 8.11 4. NUREG/BR-0200 cc: Listserv DISTRIBUTION:

Ticket: OED0-14-00145 PUBLIC LPL3-1 r/f RidsOcaMaiiCenter Resource RidsNrrLAMHenderson Resource RidsNrrDorllp13-1 Resource RidsRgn3MaiiCenter Resource RidsAcrsAcnwMaiiCenter RidsRgn3MaiiCenter Resource RidsNrrPMPalisades Resource RidsOgcMaiiCenter Resource RidsNrrMaiiCenter Resource RidsEdoMaiiCenter Resource RidsSecyMaiiCenter Resource RidsOeMaiiCenter Resource RidsAdmMaiiCenter Resource BMetzger RAnzalone RHaskell RWolfgang EGarmoe Wlyon DAiley SBurnell ADAMS Accession Nos. ML 14071A005 (Package)

ML 14071A006 (Incoming petition)

ML 14237 A726 (Acknowledgement Letter) ML 14237 A727 (Federal Register Notice) ML050900248 (NUREG/BR-0200)

ML041770328 (Management Directive 8.11) DORLILPL3-1/PM DORLILPL3-1/LA DPR/PGCB/PM*

JRankin MHenderson MBanic 9/3/14 8/29/14 9/5/14 RIII/DPR/BC*

DSS/SRXB/BC OGC EDuncan US hoop CHair 9/11/14 9/11/14 9/15/14 Tech Editor* JDougherty 9/9/14 DORLID Llund 9/15/14 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY RidsNrrOd Resource RidsNrrDorl Resource RidsOpaMail Resource RidsNrrDpr Resource RidsNrrDpr Resource RidsOpaMail Resource EBoston JKaizer BBickett LBanic *via e-mail FRN Editor* DORLILPL3-1/BC Cleatherbury DPelton 9/10/14 9/11/14 NRR/D DOorman 9/25/14