[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