[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55176-55177]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-26487]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 1999 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 55176]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 2
Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance
of Orders; Public Meeting
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting on potential changes to NRC hearing
process.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has recently initiated a re-
examination of the processes and procedures for making the various
kinds of decisions that require a ``hearing''. This re-examination will
eventually result in a proposed rule noticed in the Federal Register
for public comment. However, in order to have the benefit of early and
interactive comment on the rulemaking issues before the NRC staff
drafts the proposed rule for Commission consideration, the NRC is
convening a public workshop to solicit the views of persons
representing the interests that may be affected by the rulemaking. The
public workshop will be held at the Commission's headquarters in
Rockville, Maryland, on October 26 and 27 (\1/2\ day), 1999. Francis X.
Cameron, Special Counsel for Public Liaison, in the Commission's Office
of the General Counsel, will be the convenor and facilitator for the
workshop.
DATES: The public workshop will be in Rockville, Maryland on October
26, 1999 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. and on October 27, 1999 from 8:30
a.m. to 12:15 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The public workshop will be held in the Commission's hearing
room at NRC Headquarters at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-
2738.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francis X. Cameron, Special Counsel
for Public Liaison, Office of the General Counsel, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Telephone: 301-415-1642.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The legal foundation for the NRC regulatory
process is the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The Act provides that a
``hearing'' (or in some cases, the opportunity for a hearing) is
required for certain agency actions, but does not specify what kind of
a hearing should be held. The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC),
predecessor to the NRC, took the position that by a ``hearing,'' the
Atomic Energy Act meant a formal hearing, resembling a courtroom trial,
with testimony given under oath and an opportunity for the parties to
cross-examine the other side's witnesses. At the time, Congress and the
AEC were focusing on the procedures for licensing the construction of
nuclear power plants. Over time, however, it became apparent that the
same format may not be ideal for all types of Commission proceedings
and that the Atomic Energy Act generally does not require a formal,
courtroom trial-type hearing. Consequently, the NRC developed new, less
formal procedures for some types of proceedings.
In early 1999, the NRC's General Counsel sent a detailed memorandum
to the Commissioners (SECY-99-006, ``Re-Examination of the NRC Hearing
Process'') discussing legal requirements for NRC hearings and policy
considerations to be taken into account in any revision of the NRC
hearing process (the document is available to the public at the NRC's
Website, www.nrc.gov, and is also available from the agency contact
identified at the beginning of this Notice). The General Counsel's
memorandum made no recommendation for revision of the hearing process,
instead laying out the pros and cons of different approaches. In
response to this memorandum, the Commission has directed the NRC legal
staff to initiate a rulemaking to evaluate what changes should be made
to the NRC hearing process. One of the primary issues for evaluation is
the Commission's desire generally to move toward less formal
proceedings. In initiating the rulemaking, the Commission recognized
that it would be important to have the benefit of the expertise and
concerns of those who may be affected by this action early in the
rulemaking process. The public workshop is designed to solicit those
views to assist in the formulation of the proposed rulemaking.
The objective of the public workshop is to bring together
representatives of the interests affected by the rulemaking to discuss
their views on the rulemaking issues in a ``roundtable'' format. In
order to have a manageable discussion, the number of participants
around the table will, of necessity, be limited. The Commission,
through the facilitator for the meeting, will attempt to ensure broad
participation by the broad spectrum of interests affected by the
rulemaking, including citizen and environmental groups, nuclear
industry interests, state, tribal, and local governments, and experts
from academia and other agencies. Other members of the public are
welcome to attend, and the public will have the opportunity to comment
on each of the agenda items slated for discussion by the roundtable
participants. Questions about participation may be directed to the
facilitator, Francis X. Cameron.
The workshop will have a pre-defined scope and agenda (set forth
below) focused on the major policy issues in regard to potential
revisions to the NRC hearing process. However, the meeting format will
be sufficiently flexible to allow for the introduction of additional
related issues that the participants may wish to raise. Although there
are important legal issues on the scope of the Commission's authority
to revise its hearing process in particular ways (discussed in SECY-99-
006), the purpose of the workshop is to hear the views of the
participants on the policy issues surrounding the value of implementing
various types of revisions, assuming for purposes of discussion that
the Commission has the legal authority to revise its processes. The
agenda for the workshop is set forth below.
Agenda
Tuesday, October 26, 1999
8:30 a.m.--Welcome, Groundrules, Agenda Overview, Introduction of
Participants
F.X. Cameron, Facilitator
9:00 a.m.--Overview of NRC Hearing Process
Lawrence Chandler, Associate General Counsel for Hearings,
Enforcement and Administration, NRC
9:30 a.m.--Emerging issues in addressing the degree of formality in
agency adjudications
[[Page 55177]]
Professor Jeffrey Lubbers, Washington School of Law, American
University. See Attachment 2, SECY-99-006
10:15 a.m.--Break
10:40 a.m.--What are the desired objectives or ``performance goals'' of
the NRC hearing process? For example, SECY-99-006 suggests five
performance goals (fairness, substantive soundness, inclusiveness,
efficiency, and transparency). Are there other goals or objectives? Are
any of these objectives more important than others?
Participant discussion
12:00 Noon--Lunch
1:15 p.m.--What are the attributes of a formal versus an informal
hearing process? What are the defining characteristics of formal
processes? Informal processes? For example, are discovery and sworn
direct and cross-examination of witnesses solely attributes of formal
processes or can they also fit into the spectrum of informal hearing
processes?
Participant discussion
2:15 p.m.--What are the different ``models'' or variations of an
informal hearing process? What are the advantages and disadvantages of
each of these models? See Attachment 4, SECY-99-006.
Participant discussion
3:00 p.m.--Break
3:30 p.m.--How do formal and informal processes compare in achieving
the desired objectives of the NRC hearing process? How much do
opportunities for cross-examination and discovery contribute to the
hearing process? What factors, for example, complexity and difficulty
of the case, experience of litigants, might influence how effectively
the goals or objectives are achieved? How much is the cost to
participants of different kinds of hearings a consideration?
Participant discussion
5:00 p.m.--Preview of next day's discussion
5:15 p.m.--Adjourn
Wednesday, October 27, 1999
8:30 a.m.--Comparison of formal and informal processes: Summary
discussion by participants
9:30 a.m.--Is the informal or formal process more appropriate for one
type of NRC licensing action than another? For example, what process is
more appropriate for enforcement proceedings? The high-level waste
repository proceeding? Initial licensing of power reactors and fuel
cycle facilities? License amendments? What criteria should guide this
decision? Can the selection of process be done on a case-by-case basis?
By whom? At what stage of the proceeding?
Participant Discussion
10:15 a.m.--Break
10:30 a.m.--Are there improvements that can be made to the Commission's
formal hearing process? Are there improvements that can be made to the
Commission's informal hearing process? Are there issues that the NRC
should address regardless of whether an informal or a formal hearing
process is used, e.g., who presides? exercise of greater control by the
``presiding officer''? role of limited appearances? standing?
Discovery, cross-examination? Electronic filing? What about appeals? Is
an appeal ``of right''? To the Commission? Discretionary review?
Participant Discussion
Noon--Wrap up: Final comments, next steps
12:15 p.m.--Adjourn
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 4th day of October, 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Karen D. Cyr,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 99-26487 Filed 10-8-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P