The agency is a friend of obfuscation even fro within:
OIG notes that NRC management has accepted, but uses
conditional language to articulate, the actions planned. This obfuscates the
agency’s intentions with regard to the recommendations.
You notice they release the letter after the 2.206 meeting.
April 14, 2014
Michael Mulligan
P.O. Box 161
Hinsdale, NH 03451
Dear Mr. Mulligan:
On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am responding to your email dated March 11, 2014 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML14076A060) to Chairman Macfarlane. Your letter was referred to me for reply. In your email, you expressed several concerns regarding the transparency of the NRC’s Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 2, Section 2.206 process (herein referred to as the 2.206 process). To summarize your concerns you requested that:
1. A NRC senior executive be assigned to help you navigate the NRC’s 2.206 process to
ensure openness, similar to the role of an ombudsman.
2. NRC employees be punished if they mislead a petitioner or withhold information from
inside the process, and that licensees should be held accountable by the NRC to answer your questions.
3. Petition review board (PRB) internal meetings should be open meetings that the public can observe.
4. The 2.206 process should be completely overhauled.
Thank you for sharing your concerns and recommendations.
Before I address each of your concerns, I would like to emphasize that the 2.206 process is
Wouldn't it be great if we knew what caused the 2.206 process to be brought into being.
Regarding your first concern, in lieu of an ombudsman, all 2.206 petitioners are provided with a NRC petition manager. The petition manager is generally a seasoned staff member
They know what i am talking about...the petition manage has two hats on. One giant hat that serves the agency and the licence and a itty bitty hat on that serves me. Right a employee who serves me and he is involve in getting me the information I want, not just within the 2.206 process. I got to be honest, the agency has given me unprecedented access to the inspector staff at Palisades. But again these employees serve the agency.
who is knowledgeable of the 2.206 process. In addition, a coordinator is involved in the review of every 2.206 petition, to ensure that the PRB members are implementing MD 8.11 as required. The coordinator is also available to address any concerns or questions that a petitioner may have on the process. Finally, each 2.206 petition is led by a senior level executive who serves as the PRB chairperson. If you have any concerns about the openness of the 2.206 process during the review of your 2.206 petition, please express any specific concerns with the PRB chairperson.
Regarding your second concern, you did not provide any examples in your email; however, if you have any specific concerns about information being withheld or NRC staff misleading a petitioner, please promptly advise the PRB chairperson for your 2.206 petition. The PRB chairperson ensures that these matters are referred to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), the Office of Investigations, or the Office Allegations Coordinator as appropriate. In addition, independent of the PRB, you can also submit any concerns that you have directly to the NRC’s OIG Hotline (1-800-233-3497).
Regarding your third concern, although the 2.206 process allows for more public participation than other NRC processes, it does not afford the public with the opportunity to observe he PRB closed meeting. This closed meeting supports the NRC staff’s ability to have an open dialogue with its technical experts and senior management to discuss the facts provided on each petition and to evaluate the petition against the criteria for review and rejection. The PRB often discusses pre-decisional (i.e., privileged) information related to inspections or investigations if this information is relevant to its review of the 2.206 petition. In order to preserve those privileges, the PRB meetings are not recorded and are closed to the public. Therefore, the PRB closed meeting would not be recorded and posted to the NRC’s public website, as you recommend. It is the petition manager’s responsibility to convey the outcome of the PRB’s internal meetings to the petitioner and to ensure that the petitioner is provided with opportunities to address the PRB if clarifications or additional information are warranted.
Regarding your final request for the NRC to overhaul the 2.206 process, I’d like to make you aware that a Federal Register notice (FRN) was issued on July 30, 2010, to inform members of the public about the NRC’s plans to revise MD 8.11. The FRN also requested comments from members of the public since the 10 CFR 2.206 process is a public process. All external comments received are currently being considered by the NRC to support a revision to MD 8.11. Although the public comment period has expired, the staff will consider your comments, which are similar to those already received by other members of the public, to glean any new insights to enhance transparency in the 2.206 process.
On behalf of the NRC, I appreciate your time and attention in reaching out to share your views on this matter.
Sincerely,
/RA?Jennifer L. Uhle, Deputy Director
for Reactor Safety Programs
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
No comments:
Post a Comment