U.S. NRC Blog

Transparent, Participate, and Collaborate

Tag Archives: nuclear

REFRESH: 2.802 vs. 2.206 — What’s the Difference?

George Deegan
Senior Program Analyst (Nuclear Materials/Waste Management)
 

refresh leafMathematically, of course, the answer is 0.596 – a tiny amount – but when referring to two different parts of NRC regulations, there’s a big difference. 10 CFR Part 2.802 and 10 CFR Part 2.206 both describe petition processes. However, 2.802 petitions are requests from the public for a new rule (regulation) while 2.206 petitions are related to enforcement actions.

My area, the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs (FSME), usually gets two to four 2.802 rulemaking petitions a year about medical or general license issues. However, petitions are also addressed in other offices, including the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. The basic steps for submitting petitions for rulemaking to the NRC are found in 10 CFR 2.802, with specific details on what to include in the petition documented in paragraph (c).

For information on the process for submitting a petition for rulemaking to the NRC, please visit this page, which also has a link to the NRC’s petition for rulemaking dockets.

The 2.206 process allows anyone to ask the NRC to take enforcement action against NRC licensees. Depending on the results of its evaluation, NRC could modify, suspend, or revoke an NRC-issued license or take other enforcement action to fix a problem. Additional information on how to submit a petition under 10 CFR 2.206, how the agency processes the request, and status information on 2.206 petitions we’ve received can be found at here.

There have been occasions where a petitioner has invoked the term “2.206” when the request was really a petition for rulemaking under 2.802. Unfortunately, this situation often delays the petition while staff members review the request and get it put into the right process.

The NRC’s petition process provides the public with a voice in how we regulate our licensees. Hopefully, this post clarifies which process is appropriate for a given situation and highlights the difference between the two numbers beyond 0.596!

“Refresh” is a new initiative where we revisit some earlier posts. This originally ran in June 2011.

NRC Shutdown: Day Two of Furloughs

Mark Satorius
Executive Director for Operations
 

As you know, the NRC was able to continue to keep its doors open a bit longer than the rest of the federal government. But yesterday, we, too, shut down due to the lapse in appropriations. Furlough notices were sent to all employees. At this time, only about 300 of our 3900 staff members are reporting to duty. That number includes the resident inspectors, who continue to do their job at the nuclear power plants in your communities.

It’s important to reiterate that while we continue to uphold our fundamental safety and security mission – and can bring workers back quickly in an emergency – there is important long-term work that just isn’t getting done.

All public meetings are suspended while the NRC is shutdown. Those already postponed or cancelled include both Commission meetings scheduled for next week (Oct. 16 and Oct. 18). Also postponed are the Waste Confidence meetings originally scheduled for the weeks of Oct. 14th and Oct. 21st. No decision has yet been made about other Waste Confidence meetings. As soon as we are back to work, we’ll begin planning for when the postponed meetings will be held.

Also postponed is the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearing originally scheduled to begin Oct. 16, in Houston, and the public meeting on performance at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant scheduled for Oct. 16 in San Luis Obispo, Calif.

In addition, we’ve had to temporarily suspend action on all pending licensing or enforcement matters before the licensing boards or Commission, with the exception of those related to the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding (as that work is funded by the Nuclear Waste Fund, not the general agency appropriation.) Those litigants have all been notified.

During the shutdown, we will continue to receive safety and security concerns via the web page and the hotlines listed here. The Inspector General’s Office also continues to function.

Unfortunately the NRC’s public website is not being updating during the shutdown. It is still accessible, though. Some key documents related to the shutdown include:

• the NRC’s shutdown plan, approved by the Office of Management and Budget;

press releases on postponed meetings: and

• a Regulatory Information Summary on our shutdown operations.

While no one knows how long the shutdown will last, the NRC staff is already making plans for a smooth, quick “restart” of the agency. While we know there will be some lag time between bringing all employees back and becoming fully functioning again, we want that lag to be as short as possible. We hope we are all back at work soon.

Community Leaders Get Invites to SONGS Small Group Discussions — Updated

Victor Dricks
Senior Public Affairs Officer
Region IV
 

inviteThis week, the NRC is sending letters to dozens of state and local government officials in California, as well as environmental groups and business leaders, inviting them to participate in small group discussions with NRC officials. The discussions will focus on the processes and activities we’re using to evaluate a possible restart decision on the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 2.

The NRC is offering these small group meetings as opportunities for productive discussions on how the NRC fulfills its regulatory mandate for protecting public safety and the environment. Those invited to participate are recognized as community leaders, who could then share the information with their constituency and the public at large.

These small group discussions will focus on process issues concerning the NRC’s review, rather than specific areas of the staff’s technical analysis. They do not replace the larger public meeting the staff will conduct. That meeting will occur after Southern California Edison has submitted, and the NRC staff has completed our inspection and technical evaluation of, SCE’s response to the NRC’s Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL).

This new effort will consist of multiple small group gatherings in California with state elected officials, local elected officials, environmental non-governmental organizations, and economic development, energy, and local union/building and trade representatives.

The discussion will include 15-20 participants with three to four NRC representatives and a facilitator. The NRC’s objective is to maintain the small group size to promote frank, two-way discussions and dialogue.

The discussions will be closed to public observation. The information discussed as part of this effort will be placed on the NRC SONGS special webpage prior to the discussions. No decisions about restart will be announced at these gatherings.

Note: Here are the titles and organizations of the folks invited to participate:

Local elected officials

The mayors of: Los Angeles, Mission Viejo, Santa Ana, Vista, Encinitas, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Solana Beach, Huntington Beach, Laguna Niguel, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Woods, Del Mar, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Dana Point, San Diego, Redondo Beach, Laguna Hills, Industry, West Hollywood, Escondido, La Habra, Covina, and Hesperia.

San Diego Unified School District, Board President

State Level

California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and California Assembly

Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations

Residents Organized for a Safe Environment (ROSE), Peace Resource Center of San Diego, Citizens’ Oversight, Sierra Club, San Clemente Green, San Onofre Safety, Democratic Party of San Diego, Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, Friends of the Earth, Committee to Bridge the Gap, DAB Safety Team, Earth Ocean Society, and Women’s Energy Matters

Economic Development, Energy and Local Unions

Business Manager UWUA, Local 246, SD Building & Construction Trades Council, IBEW Local 47, Orange County Taxpayers Association, Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce, Cypress College, Chapman University, Los Kitos Farm, Muni-Fed Energy, Southeast Community Development Corporation, California Small Business Association, Orange County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce, and Adams Real

Plus — four other individuals with unknown organizational ties

When Gauges Go Missing … UPDATED

Neil Sheehan
Public Affairs Officer, Region I
 

It’s easy to imagine the sense of distress that must have washed over a portable nuclear gauge user one recent morning when he realized the device he had stowed in the back of his truck was missing. The gauge had apparently tumbled from his vehicle as he drove along a road near Martinsburg, W.Va.

Despite the gauge user’s prompt retracing of his steps, the device was nowhere to be found and, as of today, has not yet been retrieved.

While the search goes on, some perspective is in order regarding the use of such gauges, which contain sealed sources of radioactive materials and are designed to take measurements of soil density at construction and other work sites. The reality is the loss of these portable gauges is an infrequent occurrence and that is due, in large part, to the requirements developed over time to avoid that from happening.

Indeed, NRC and Agreement State regulations clearly spell out the precautions gauge operators must take when the devices are not in use. (Agreement States are those that have signed an agreement with the NRC to regulate nuclear materials used within their borders for which the NRC would otherwise be responsible.)

For one thing, there is a security requirement that a minimum of two independent physical controls must be utilized to prevent unauthorized removal of a gauge when it is not under direct control and surveillance of company personnel. For another, there must be constant surveillance of a gauge when it is in an unrestricted area.

When violations of these requirements occur in non-Agreement States, the NRC will consider whether enforcement action is warranted. Agreement States will do the same in their jurisdictions.

What’s more, the NRC and Agreement States conduct typically unannounced periodic inspections of gauge owners to discern whether security and other requirements are being properly followed.

Provided the sealed source remains inside the shielded gauge, it should not pose a threat to the person or persons who have it in their possession. Nevertheless, the device needs to be back in the hands of personnel qualified to handle such material as soon as possible.

In a post-9/11 world, the NRC takes very seriously the security of radioactive materials, from nuclear fuel used in power reactors to small amounts of radioactive material housed in portable gauges transported on pick-up trucks.

05/17/2013 – Updated: There is now a happy post-script to the case of portable nuclear gauge that went missing earlier this month in West Virginia.

On May 3, a Pennsylvania firm doing work in the Mountain State reported to the NRC that a gauge had fallen off one of its trucks and could not be located. The NRC issued a press release on May 6 advising the public to be on the lookout for the device.  The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) put out its own release regarding the missing gauge on May 14, based on the fact that its owner, Valley Quarries, is headquartered in Chambersburg, Pa., and is licensed by the state.

A break occurred on May 15 when a Maryland resident contacted the DEP to say he had spotted the gauge along a roadside near Martinsburg, W.Va., and placed it in his trunk after deciding it must be something important. It apparently remained there until being handed over to the DEP and, in turn, to Valley Quarries.

The good news is that a preliminary evaluation has found the gauge was apparently not damaged. A service provider for Valley Quarries will confirm that is the case. n the meantime, the NRC’s inspection of the loss of the gauge is still in progress. As part of that review, the NRC and DEP teamed up for an inspection at the company’s headquarters late last week to evaluate safety and security protocols used by the firm with respect to its portable nuclear gauges.

When the NRC’s inspection is completed, the results will be made available to the public.

Q&A With NRC Kids: Radiation and Other Questions

Eliot Brenner
Director, Office of Public Affairs
 
One of the participants in the new video takes a question.

One of the participants in the new video takes a question.

Art Linkletter, a 1950s and ‘60s radio and television host, used to interview children for his show “Kids Say the Darndest Things.” In that spirit, at last year’s “Take your Child to Work Day” at the NRC, we seized the opportunity to see what kids knew about NRC and related matters – and make it into a video.

We asked: Do you know what radiation is? We got a variety of answers – some vague and some spot on (they’ve obviously been listening to their parents).

Then we asked: Do you know what has radiation in it? No, not candy, despite what the kids might think. But yes, bananas and salt, and it also comes from the sun and from the stars, as explained by the NRC expert who answered the question.

Other questions we asked include what do nuclear power plants generate and what is a regulation. We have a variety of NRC experts answering all the questions – and correcting a few misunderstandings.

We hope you enjoy the video, and that teachers and parents can use it to help explain nuclear matters to school-aged children. And we want thank all the kids who participated in this project.

 

Note: A revised, shortened version of the video is now up!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,510 other followers

%d bloggers like this: