Mathematically, 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.
U.S. NRC Blog 
It would be helpful if this was fleshed out a bit more.
The NRC 2.206 petition process is flawed. The petitioner is not permitted to engage the Petition Review Board in discussing the PRB’s decision making process. The process should be changed to allow a petitioner to question PRB members under oath before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board – and allow petitioners to bring expert witness opinions on the record.
Thomas Saporito
Senior Consulting Associate
Saprodani-Associates.com
Jupiter, Florida
Interesting. I never thought the public would have the ability to implement changes to the way this organization operates itself.