ML19253D140

From kanterella
Revision as of 07:59, 4 January 2025 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Advises That SECY-80-548 Re Petition for Rulemaking Is Being Returned W/O Action.While Believing Petition Should Be Denied,Commission Requires Revision Per Comments
ML19253D140
Person / Time
Issue date: 02/05/1981
From: Chilk S
NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To: Dircks W
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
Shared Package
ML19253D139 List:
References
REF-10CFR9.7, RULE-PRM-2-10 NUDOCS 8103300243
Download: ML19253D140 (3)


Text

f,e" ""%'o, Enclosure G UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMVISSION IN RESPONSE

^,

cf n

REFER TO S80-548

$c e.E W ASHIN GT ON, D.C. 20555 O

U

[

/[

February 5, 1981 ACTION:

Shapar Cys:

Dircks OF FICE OF THE Corng))

SECRETARY p g gq Shields MEMORANDUM FOP:

William J.

Dircks, Executive Director for Operations fs f

Fx3M:

Samuel J.

Ch.lk, Secret SU1 JECT:

SECY-80-548 - DnCKET NO M-2-10, PETITION FOR RULEMAKING hILED BY THE i

CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARD REQUESTING MENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 2 This is to advise yoi that the subject paper is being returned to the staf: without action.

While believing that the p. :ition should ae denied, the Commissitn requires revision of the proposed Not.ce of Denial of Petition for Rulemaking in accordance with the following comments:

1.

The Commission understands that this proposal flows from an excellent informal public meeting held in Nebraska that successfully resolved some issues that otherwise would have ended up in NRC's hearing process.

Apparently the Citizens Group Chairman asked NRC staff to get this process used more often by the NRC--this led to the petition.

NRC should take steps to emulete the Nebraska procr~s.

Therefore, the staff should prepare a resrat.= along the lines of the attached outline.

2.

The response should also include:

a.

A statement to the effect that the uncertainties arising from the Sholly decision need to be resolved before NRC can re-examine its regulations and that budgetary constraints make it impossible to hold all meetings near the site.

b.

A description of the open 7.ieetings policy and the Palo Verde experience.

The Office of the Executive Legal Director was informed of this action by telephone February 5, 1981.

CONTACT:

E.

W. McGregor (SECY) 41410

\\

s103300

2 It is requested that you submit a revised paper for the Commission's consideration, based on the foregoing comments to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. March 13, 1981.

(ED0 Suspense:

" arch 6, M31)

Attachment:

As Stated cc:

Chairman Ahearne Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Hendrie Commissioner Brcliord Commission Staff Offices Executive Legal Director

l l

I.

Use of Informal Proceedings I

A.

Short description of Fort Calhoun experience--acknowledging its usefulness.

j B.

A short discussion of other instances in which infomal meetings have been used (Marble Hill, TMI, South Texas, Indian Point).

7, i

C.

An explanation of why this cannot be mandatory in all instances.

i; 3

D.

However, encouragement of its use and if possible a general I

statement of policy in support of such meetings (where appro-priate? when interest is shown?

some other standard?

include 1

a statement encouraging convenient times and places).

II.

Further Details of Petition and NRC Practice--Basically a Cleaned Up Version of this Response i

A.

Request hearing through no participation--more neutral discussion of the basis for requiring an interest (i.e., less emphasis on differing views since there is no requirement that a party's interest be adverse to the staff or the licensee, and in fact for enforcement proceedings we have not allowed certain types of differing views).

B.

Service of notice.

C.

General distribution of documents.

D.

Address issue o# site and time for maetirgs and hearings not cevered above--note the proposed rule requires hearings at "a site... reasonably calculated to make [ hearings] reasonably accessible to the majority of persons potentially affected" rather than "onsite."

E.

Any other open items.

-w

.,