ML20045G086
| ML20045G086 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/23/1993 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-58FR34726, RULE-PR-2 2.206, NUDOCS 9307120072 | |
| Download: ML20045G086 (8) | |
Text
_ _.
4Q l r',-
r s
crte p yt 3<y72 d ~
9 9 -o1) 1 w t,
?
- IUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '93
'.' 23 : 2 21 10 CFR Part 2 S 2.206 Petitions Requesting Institution of a Proceeding.
i to "odify, Suspend or Revoke a License, or for Suen other i
Action as May Be Proper; Workshop i.3 E::CY
'!uclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTIO:I:
Notice of Workshop.
t
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is initiating a review of its regulations and practice governing petitions under 10 CFR S 2.206.
The first step in that process will be a public workshcp where participants from citizen's groups, industry, and government can exchange information on the objectives of the S 2.206 petition process, its effectiveness, and what, if any, revisions should be made to the process.
The workshop will be held in Bethesda, Maryland, on July 28, 1993, and ' Jill be open to the public.
DATES:
Wednesday, July 28, 1993, from 8:45 am to 5:15 pm at the ticliday Inn.Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda,
!aryland.
Phone: (301) 652-2000.
- h 9307120072 930623' D
PDR PR 2 58FR34726 PDR-
4 As discussed.later in this no*1ce, the'torkshop~ discussions will.
~
5 focus on the issues idencified in the cackground discussion paper i
developed by the NRC staff.
The Commission will accept written comments on the background paper from the public, as well as from workshop participants.
Written ccaments should be submitted-by
'j
.i August 27, 1993.
]
f ADDRESSES:
Send written comments en the backgrcund discussion paper to:
Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,.
l ashington, DC
- 0555.
ATTN:
Occketing and Service Branch.
I i
Hand deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, t
Maryland between 7:45 a.m.
and 4:15 p.m.
on Federal workdays.
The background discussion paper is available from Francis X.
Cameron (See "FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT").
.l I
I FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Francis X.
Cameron, Special.
j Counsel for Public Liaison and Waste Management, Office of the General Counsel, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory _Conmission, Washington l
D.C.
20555, Telephone: (301) 504-1642.
l i
t t
.f SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
i i
Background
i The 5 2.206 petition is the primary formal method for a member of-
,the public to request Commission review of a potential: safety 1
problem with an NRC licensed facility, outside of a licensing or 5
j h
..q
.i 3
f.-
~.
1
.l 3
1 1
rulemaking proceeding.
Any perren may file a petition under 10-l l
CFR 5 2.206 to request that the Commission institute a proceeding j
i to modify, suspend. or revoke a license, or for such cther action
)
I as may be proper.
This process provides.the public with a
,o mechanism to raise issues of concern, which cust then be. reviewed and addressed by the Commission's staff.
Except'as specifically j
i I
provided in the regulations, each S 2.206 petition is reviewed by the appropriate mejor program Office Director, who must either initiate the requested proceeding or issue a formal 2irector's-i Cecision providing 2 rpecific disposition of the issues raised in t
the petition 'ithir a " reasonable time."
If the Director finds l
f that the petition raises a substantial safety questien4 an
'i enforcement order will be issued or other appropriate action i
i taken, within the Director's discretion.
The 5 2.206 Petition Process Review and Workshop.
i The Commission-has approved the initiation of a review of its
~
regulations and practice governing petitions under 10 CFR S l
s 2.206.
The first step in this evaluation process will be a-public workshop where knowledgeable affected interests will share their advice and recommendations concerning the S 2.206 process i
with the !!RC staf f.
In addition to providing -an oppcrtunity for representatives of affected interests to comment on the 5 2.206 precess, the workshcp.will also provide an opportunity for' l
.)
participants from citizens' groups, industry, and government to 9
t 4
4 I
i excnange inf ormation on the cbjectives of the 5 2.206 process, l
its effectiveness, and what, if any, improvements could be made t: the process.
The Commission believes that, whatever the i
ultimate outcome of the Commission's evaluation of the 5 2.206 process, this educational aspect of the workshop will be valuable for all participants in terms of f estering a better understanding of the 5 2.206 process.
I
!".e ':RC has not re-examined tne 5 2.206 process in any systematic
+
lay since this provision <tas added to the Commissicn's regulations in 1974.
In addition, this process has been the cubject of longstanding criticism by citicens' groups.and by some-
.enbers of Congress, primarily because most 5 2.206 petitions are denied.
Therefore, the Commission believes that it is time to evaluate the S 2.206 process and to determine whether any changes should be made to that process.
This evaluation is also censistent with current Ccamission efforts'to enhance public participation in the Comnission's decisionmaking prccess.
The purpose of this review is to ensure that the S 2.206 process is an effective, equitable, and credible mechanism for the public to-prompt Commission investigation and resolution of potential' health and safety problems.
In addition, given the reality of shrinking rather than expanding resources, the Commission believes that the evaluaticn of the S 2.206 process.ust consider hcw to achieve a more effective 5 2.206 process ' tith equal or fewer resources.
s b
5 The cread fccus of the Commission's review cf the 5 2.236 process i
is to determine whether S 2~.206 has proven to be an effective mechanism, for not only' bringing potential safety problems to.the i
commission's attention, but-also ensuring that the Cori.ission has been responsive in evaluating any such potential safety problems.
The review of the 5 2.206 process will address such questions'as:
What is the objective of the 5 2.206 process?
Is it r.eeting this f
objective?
How can the 5 2.206 process be improved?
- s'this the nos: ef f ective mechanism to bring safety problems to the Cornission's attention?
What other mechanisms exist, such as, for example, the allegation management system, for bringing
' i i
safety problems to the Commission's attention?
How are these j
different from S 2.206 both in objective and procedure?- The
- I workshop will not only focus on these broad issues, but will specifically address the procedures that the Commission uses to i
evaluate 5 2.206 petitions.
The staff has identified three broad j
areas of potential improvement to the 5 2.206 process.1hich are discussed in more detail in the background discussion paper:
'1.
7 Increasing interaction with the petitioner; 2.
Focussing'on i
resolution of safety issues rather than on requesting enforcement action; and 3.
Categorizing petitions according to importance of issues raised.
Worr. shop' Format l
1 The workshop format is based on a "roundtable"- discussion of the.
i i
i w
-e,
i i
I 6
i t
relevant issues by invited participants 'and representatives of the NRC staff.
The workshop discussion will be guided by the workshops issues paper and the agenda set forth below.
The NRC l
has invited representatives from a broad spo:trum of affected l
interests wno are knowledgeable on the 5 2.206 process.
Participants have been invited from citizen groups, industry, j
e state government, and federal agencies.
The workshop is open to j
the general public and time has been set aside for comment and i
cuestions from the audience.
A member of the NRC staff will i
5 a
serve as
".e facilitator for the discussion.
A complete 1
transcript of the workshop will be taken.
i Workshop Acenda.
8:45am Welcome 4
Francis X.
Cameron, Office of General Counsel, NRC 9:00am Cpening remarks Dr. Ivan selin, Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9:30am Workshop format - objectives, agenda, groundrules 9:45am Participant introductions - name, affiliation, concerns 10:00am Histcrical overview of 5 2.206-f Martin G.
Malsch, Deputy General Counsel, Office of_
';eneral Counsel, NRC i
k 10:30am Ereak 10: 45am
- ntroductory discussion: Perspectives on the 5 2.206 process - What are the objectives of the 5 2.206
-s i
i f
4 i
t 1
process'? Do the current prccedures and process meet i
these objectives?
'Jhat is the relationship of the S.
l 2.206 process to other mechanisms for the public to 7
identify safety problems?
[
t 11:40am Public comment a
12:00pm Lunch 1:00pm Potential revisions to the S 2.206 process: Increased interaction between the NRC staff and the petitioner S
.:30pm Public ccament 1:;5pm Potential revisions to the 5 2.206 process: Shift the L
focus of S 2.206 petitions from.a: specific enforcement 6
action to the exploration and resolution of the underlying safety issue j
t 2:45pm Public comment 3:00pm Break 3:15pm Potential revisions to the S 2.206 process:
j Establishing categories of petitions according to.
significance of the issues raised and specifying i
different levels of internal review according to these categories 4:00pm Public comment 4:15pm Open agenda item for other issues 4: 45pm Schedule-for completion of the evaluation of the S t
2.206 process 5:15pm Closing renarks from participants i
i n
k
--r-m
-1,-
..c y-
.f I
4_.
3
-I f
Backgrcund Discussion Faper.
{
The ::F.C staf f has prepared a background discussion paper which will be provided to each potential workshop participant.
Additicnal copies will be available to members of the public in attendance at the workshop.
Copies will also be available'in advance f rom the !!RC staf f contact identified above.
In addition
{
to the ccaments c. the background discussion' paper provided at tne ;crkchop, the Ccrr.1csicn also invites written cor.ents on the issues, as noted under the heading " DATES".
r.
)*
l Dated at Rockville, MD this M ay of June
, 1993.
t i
For the fluclear Regulatory Commission.
[
k f
ohn C.
- Hoyle,
/ Assistant Secretary of'the Commission f
i l
D i
r i
rc-e
--, - - -