ML20024H130
| ML20024H130 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/15/1991 |
| From: | Cameron F NRC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 SECY-91-132, NUDOCS 9105220271 | |
| Download: ML20024H130 (22) | |
Text
'
...................,,0.s REL EASED TO THE PDR l
e y%
s/ 7/q f c4 :
t-A av in e Lwq
....................eo.<
i g's,,... ".. J a
%+
5 POLICY ISSUE y,y 1s, 19,1 sccy_,1_132 (Notation Vote)
Egr:
The Commissioners Erom:
Francis X. Cameron Subiect:
EVALUATION OF THE FEASIBILITY OF INITIATING A CONSENSUS PROCESS TO ADDRESS ISSUES RELATED TO THE BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN POLICY Purnose:
To inform the Commission of the results of my evaluation of the feasibility of initiating a consensus process in the BRC Policy area and to request Commission consideration of a specific recommendation for initiating a consensus process in regard to the BRC Policy.
Backaround:
On July 3, 1990, the Commission published in the Federal Register its Below Regulatory Concern Policy Statement ("BRC Policy").
The BRC Policy establishes a policy framework for making decisions on whether to grant exemptions from Commission regulations in cases where radiation levels are so low that they do not require the imposition of regulatory controls to ensure protection of the public health and safety.
The BRC Policy provides guidance for making decisions on whether to grant specific exemptions in categories such as --
(1)
The release of sites containing residual radioactivity; (2)
The distribution of consumer products containing small amounts of radioactivity; Conte.ct:
NOTE:
TO PE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE WHEN F.
X.
Cameroa THE FINAL SRM IS MADE AVAILABLE.
492-1803 fj
}
9105220271 910515 PDR SECY i
9.1-132 PDR
/l
~
I 0
2 (3)
The disposal of certain wastes containing very low levels of radioactivity; or I
(4)
The recycling or reuse of radioactive materials that have very low levels of radioactivity.
g The July 3, 1990 Policy Statement was the culmination of a number of Commission efforts in regard to the below regulatory concern concept, including an August 29, 1986, Policy Statement establishing procedures for expeditious review of BRC waste stream petitions, as required by the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985; an October 17, 1988, International Workshop on Exemptions from Regulatory Control; a December 12, 1988, Advance Notice of a Proposed Policy Statement on Exemptions From Regulatory Control; and a January 12, 1989, public meeting on the Advance Notice of the Proposed Policy Statement on Exemptions From Regulatory Control.
Subsequent to the issuance of the July 3, 1990 Policy Statement, the Commission conducted a number of regional public meetings on the new policy.
The issuance of the BRC Policy resulted in widespread and intense public concern.
The public reaction resulted in the introduction of legislation on the national level, as well as legislation by a number of State and local governments, that would prevent the BRC Policy from taking effect.
In an effort to better understand the nature of these concerns, and to clearly communicate the basis for, and implications of, the BRC Policy, the Commission, decided, in response to a recommendation from Chairman Carr, to consider the-potential use of consensus-building techniques in the BRC area.
The goal of the Commission's consensus-building initiative was to identify issues,-clarify concerns, and, as appropriate, develop recommendations on potential revisions to the BRC Policy as it relates to issues involving exemptions for the disposal of wastes containing very low levels of radioactivity.
As a first step in this process, the Commission requested'that I evaluate the feasibility of using such techniques to address the BRC issues.
I was assisted in my evaluation by Mr. Howard Bellman, an independent
3 mediator and arbitrator with considerable experience and expertise in the design and implementation of consensus processes.
Discusq1oD:
In order to assess the feasibility of using consensus-building techniques in this area, I
conducted a series of interviews with the organizations and entities that would be affected by the BRC Policy.
These groups represent the range of interests that would be affected by the BRC Policy, such as state governments, local governments, federal agencies, industry, and public interest groups.
The groups that we contacted, or attempted to contact, were selected based on recommendations from the NRC staff, as well as by the identification of groups who had shown a previous interest in the BRC Policy by such activities as written comments, statements at public hearings, or litigation activities, and generally, through an analysis of who might either be significantly affected by the BRC Policy or likely to be influential in its ultimate implementation.
Due to the need to complete the evaluation fairly quickly, we were not able to conduct formal interviews with every group that might conceivably be affected by the BRC Policy, and who therefore might be a po<3ntial participant in any future consensus process. For example, we did not have an opportunity to formally interview representatives of Tribal interests nor representatives of labor unions representing workers involved in solid waste landfill operations.
The interests of these groups would need to be considered in the implementation of any consensus process that might be initiated in response to my recommendation.
Nevertheless, I believe that the sample we used is representative of the viewpoints of the broad interests that might be affected by the Policy.
The groups that we contacted are identified in Appendix A of this Paper.
I also provided background briefings to congressional staff on the feasibility evaluation.
To ensure a uniformity of coverage in our discussions with affected groups, we used roughly the same format for each interview.
The basic elements of this format were representations that--
e 4
our task is to evaluate whether any type of o
participative process is feasible at this point in time; o
we have no bias on the substantive BRC issues; the type of participative process we are o
evaluating includes a broad range of processes, from the traditional public comment /public hearing format at one end of the spectrum, to negotiation of a formal agreement, at the other end of the spectrum (we used the term "participative process" rather than "consensue-building process" to more accurately convey the idea of a broader range of potential processes than those solely focused on negotiating a formal agreement);
my charter from the Commission is to focus on o
the waste disposal aspects of the BRC Policy, but that my inquiry of affected groups must also include the question of what issues they feel should be addressed in a participative process, including the governmental " process" issues related to the need for national uniformity in the implementation of a BRC policy on a federal and state level; Within the above context, we explored with each group such issues as its-perspective on the BRC Policy, the type of participative process that might be feasible, the substantive issues that should be addressed by such a process and in what sequence, its interest in participating in such a process, other groups who shoulc participate in the process, and what might happen if a participative process was not implemented.
Based on an overall evaluation of these interviews, I have the following observations and conclusions--
There was substantial support in the groups o
we contacted for the Commission's consensus-building initiative.
Many groups were enthusiastic about the prospect of being able to participate in an effective dialogue on the development of a BRC Policy.
l l
l
5 In order for a consensus process to be o
effective, all of the groups to whom we spo):e urged that it is absolutely essential that representatives of all affected interests, including public interest groups (often referred to as environmental groups), be included in the process.
It seems clear that both sound policy and pragmatic analysis require that all affected and influential points of view be represented.
Short of such all inclusive breadth, only a coalition, rather than a consensus, may be developed.
Regrettably, after many attempts, I was not able to persuade the public interest groups who were the most active in regard to the BRC Policy, to talk with me about their views on a potential participative process.
The BRC Policy may have provided such organizations with opportunities that are very difficult to relinquish, such.as providing an issue on which to generate popular support.
Such organizations may also perceive the BRC Policy as strong reinforcement for their general criticism of_the NRC and its policies.
Consensus-seeking processes simply do not provide the organizational opportunities found in adversarial processes, including legislation and litigation.
l However, we did talk formally and informally, with other public interest groups.
Based on l
these conversations, I believe that if, and L
when, a specific proposal for a consensus process has been developed, public interest groups will seriously consider participating in the process.
Public interest groups must i
l be invited to participate in a manner that l
will not divorce them from their existing legislative and litigation alternatives.
It is entirely feasible for these groups to maintain legislative and litigation options and to participate in consensus building at the same time.
In addition, there are possible outcomes from a Commission consensus process that no current, or likely legislative efforts could possibly promise.
These include sound and generally accepted NRC policy toward the BRC concept; better relations among the participants, including
6 NRC, in tne future; and a revised attitude to participative processes in general by the Commission, o
Support for a consensus process arises from the widespread dissatisfaction with the process that was used to develop the BRC Policy.
Most groups believe that they had little effective input to the development of the Policy.
Although comments from affected groups were solicited by the Commission at several junctures in the development of the Policy, it is unclear to these groups how their comments were addressed by the Commission.
In some cases the process used for soliciting comments, particularly the regional public meetings conducted after the Policy was issued, was not considered a productive way in which to seriously address the concerns of affected interests. Although criticism was also expressed on the content of the BRC policy, the dissatisfaction with the process-assumed primary attention in our discussions.
Although the strongest negative statements o
about the DRC Policy have been expressed by the public interest organizations, this should not diminish the fact-that significant concerns were expressed on the industry side.
These organizations fear that the controversy created by the BRC policy may affect the regulatory status quo in regard to BRC exemptions.
We heard much questioning from i
these groups of the need to develop new BRC policy formulations in the first place, and l
strong criticism of the rationale articulated l
by the NRC to support various aspects of the BRC Policy and the processes by which the Policy was publicly discussed and presented.
o Several groups also applauded the Commission's objectives of attempting to address the-issue of "how safe is safe enough" and attempting to add consistency to the exemption process.
In addition, r.ost groups recognized,that even without the Commission's overarching BRC Policy Statement, BRC decisions would still need to be made by Agreement States and the NRC.
Even so, there was considerable comment on
7 the wisdom and need for issuing an overarching BRC Policy, particularly at a time when the national low-level waste siting process is at a politically sensitive stage, and in an environment where the implementation of the BRC Policy might substantially complicate the already tortuous task of siting local landfills, o
Many state officials, in particular, expressed a strong negative perspective on the Policy.
They believe that their challenging siting responsibilities, in both solid waste (non-radioactive) and low-level radioactive waste categories, have been further complicated by this episode.
They worry that implementation of the BRC Policy will subject them to even more political buffeting, and they hope that NRC will maintain a low profile respecting BRC for the near term, o
A common complaint was that clear and complete information on the implica*ians of the-BRC Policy was not developed or effectively communicated, for examplo, on such issues as the estimated quantity of BRC wastes that would be entering the solid waste stream,_or the importance of the BRC concept to the practice of nuclear medicine.
A number of groups expressed concern over the o
apparent disagreement on BRC policy among the Federal agencies, specifically EPA and NRC.
Although a few-groups expressed a preference for attempting to achieve a federal consensus in nonpublic meetings, possibly within the framework of an existing interagency organization, most groups did not believe that this type of nonpublic process was appropriate.
o Many federal, state, local, and industry groups expressed particular dissatisfaction with the perceived disregard for the problems of solid waste management, including siting, in the development of the BRC policy.
In many states this a major issue, and is particularly important to local government, which may be a-owner / operator or a permitting authority for a solid waste site.
8 o
Many of the groups that we contacted questioned the agency's full commitment to a consensus process.
These views do not rest exclusively within any one category of such potential participants, but were expressed to us by the industrial sector, state and federal government, and public interest groups.
For example, there is a certain amount of suspicion that this consensus-building initiative was motivated primarily by the need to forestall unfavorable federal legislation. Consequently, these groups were concerned with the Commission's commitment to a participative process.
Although, most groups recognized _the o
importance of the state compatibility issue relative to waste disposal, most also believed that if the Commission initiated an effective participative process that addressed the entire range of BRC issues, the national uniformity issue would assume lesser importance.
In addition, many Agreement States believed that the state compatibility issue in regard to BRC would better be addressed after the Commission addresses the general criteria for making compatibility decisions, as recommended in the Report of organization of Agreement States Task Force on Compatibility.
Several groups also noted the interrelationship between the activities covered by the BRC Policy, and did not believe that one activity -- waste disposal -
- should be addressed in a vacuum.
Almost all of the groups interviewed, o
including those that view the BRC policy concept favorably, recommended that the Commission should suspend the implementation of the Policy, either through a moratorium or a withdrawal, while the consensus process is being conducted.
Several groups expressed a willingness to o
assist in facilitating the representation of state governments in the participative process.
This is particularly significant because the State representation issue is complex. The States may be arrayed in categories by geographic location, economic circumstances, industrial composition, low-level waste compact membership, status as
9 Agreement States, etc. They may be validly represented by Attorneys General and Governors, not to mention legislative leadership.
Their executive branches include various perspectives including radiation control, environmental quality, health, and solid waste management.
This, in turn, suggests that state representation in the process must be designed to obtain the most authoritative overview, i.e.,
governors, and also to obtain categorical representation of governmental organizations such as the radiation control officials organization, the colid waste officials organization, low-level radioactive waste compact organizations, the agreement states organization, and so on.
Recommendation:
Based on my interviews with the affected groups,_I believe that a consensus process in respect to the BRC Policy is feasible.
There seems to be a broad enough base of support for such a process among the groups that we interviewed.
The primary objective of the process woald be the provision of advice by a consensus body to the Commission on the entire range of BRC issues.
The NRC will be the sponsoring agency for this consensus body, the recipient of any outcome or product, and a full-fledged participant in the consensus process.
The outcome of the process should be advice to the Commission, and not an outcome that amounts to the delegation of NRC authority, or the short-circuiting of any of the required procedures for public participation.
Likewise all must know that changes in Commission membership may occur and that such appointments may affect how the advice of the consensus group is acted upon.
Based on my interviews, it is evident that the lack of clear and effective communication among the affected groups, including the NRC, has contributed significantly to the present situation in regard to the BRC Policy.
This is true, not only in respect to the basic scientific information, but also in respect to information about the concerns and positions of the various affected groups.
There exists a certain insularity among the organizations that we contacted.
They seem less than fully aware of one another's
. - ~..
i 10 concerns or the factual bases for such perspectives.
Optimistically, it may be j
hoped that progress towards-consensus may derive from better data and position exchanges.
Perhaps current differences of i
opinion, apparently grounded on information deficits, may be surmounted by enhanced communication.
As I noted earlier,1there is a broad spectrum of consensus and agreement procedures ranging from the simplest public comment mechanisms; through public hearings and more interactive meetings;-to policy dialogues and forums among representatives or experts; to agreement-seeking structures such as negotiated rulemaking.
The state of the art does not1 include standard definitions for these procedures and it-is especially difficult to discern-distinct segments within the middle range.
That range, includes a variety of " third party" proceduros which do not seek a negotiated formal agreement.
The process I am recommending falls within this middle range of procedures.
This process would encourage an open dialogue among affected interests, with the goal of providing advice to the Commission on the full range of BRC issues.
l I_do not believe that a negotiated agreement, such as.a negotiated rulemaking, is-appropriate-in this case.
First of all, it has not.been established that a formal rule is the desired.or-necessary= outcome =in this case.
Second, as'a result of post-negotiation changes in the LSS rulemaking, there is a reluctance in-some. quarters to enter into another negotiated rulemaking at this time.
- Third, consensus in this. matter-will. require the participation of more entities than is-usually considered feasible in negotiated:rulemaking. Finally,- with a negotiated agreement, the interests that are involved in the process need to be-represented by organizations with binding authority.
This is unlikely-in this situation.
In regard.to the other end of-the L
- spectrum, public comment and public meetings L
were already used in the development of the BRC policy and have been subject to negative l
l l
11 perceptions.
Therefore,-moving to this end of the spectrum is also not appropriate.
Overcoming the history of the development of the BRC policy will require some " ownership" of the process beyond the Commission.
Due to the fact that consensus-building was initiated after the Commission has already established its BRC Policy, rather than before, and because of the credibility gap that may exist due to perceptions of the process by which the Policy was developed, I
believe that the consensus process must have some sponsorship and assurances beyond those of the Commission.
This is especially true if the environmentalists and some others are to be involved in the process, which is absolutely indispensable.
This sponsorship would be accomplished through a phased process beginning with the Commission convening a gathering of a core group of leaders from the highest levels of authority of representative interests, including the Commission.
For example, this gathering would involve such representatives as a Commissioner, a CEO, a governor, a president of an environmental organization.
The Commission would request the collaboration of this group in initiating the consensus process.- The meeting of this group would be on an informal basis and would include an open discussion of the general framework, constraints, and opportunities of a consensus-process.
This core group would, in turn, sponsor the convening of a somewhat larger, but still relatively small leadership group to serve as the steering committee for the consensus body.
At the meeting of this group, which would also include NRC participation, there would be balanced briefings by technical experts on all the ramifications of BRC policy-making, frank exchanges of position statements, and, ideally an agreement to move the consensus proces,s forward.
This would include-developing tentative goals in terms of the substantive issues, and preliminary agendas and schedules. Most important, it would develop a broad invitation list for the plenary consensus
t 12 body.
With the establishment of the steering committee, the nucleus group would be phased out of existence.
The plenary body would adopt procedural ground rules, including a mission statement specifying the ultimate substantive scope of the plenary body's activities.
Although the entire range of BRC issues would be open for consideration, the plenary body in developing the scope of its activities would have the flexibility to adopt certain premises which could for example, limit the discussion to only certain activities among the waste, consumer products, decommissioning, and recycling categories; or specify state compatibility _ levels for one or more of these activities in advance; or declare that sound policy does not necessarily require a single overarching policy statement; or recommend that another body, particularly an organization of scientists, advise the Commission on certain scientific conclusions, rather than developing such advice in the consensus process itself.
The plenary body would be a forum to develop the best possible sharing of information about the substantive issues in a nonadversarial forum. _Indeed, one of the very valuable yields of this consensus
_ process, even-if a consensus is not reached on each issue, will be to enlighten the Commission's decision-making process with clear and complete information.
Based on my interviews with the affected interests, I believe that it will be necessary for the commission to declare a i
moratorium on the implementation of the entire BRC Policy in order to demonstrate its commitment to the process and thereby E
encourage participation in the process.
As noted earlier, such a moratorium was suggested by a substantial number of groups, l
including those that are supportive of the l
BRC Policy.
Within this moratorium, it also will be essential that the Commission be able to continue activities necessary to protect the public health and safety, while at the same 1
l l
l 1
-. -.. -. ~. -
- -. - - -. - ~.
i
?
4 13 time allowing for the orderly continuation'of activities subject to Commission regulations.
Staff efforts must also continue on the development _of theLfundamental technical information necessary to prepare for future Commission decision-making in the BRC area, as well as to assist the deliberations of the consensus body.
Based on informal
~
discussions with the NRC Staff, I believe it would be feasible for the Commission to--
o defer any rulemakings or other actions which are based on the BRC policy;
^
continue to carry out formal licensing o
actions, such as site decommissioning or the granting of individual exemptions, based on existing relos, criteria, and
' practices, to the extent applicable.
The-Staff should keep the Commission informed of any significant actions of this type, including those.likely_'to cause controversy.
continue its technical investigations in o
the areas covered by the BRC Policy for use in the consensus process.
I have provided a brief analysis of how this would affect the specific elements:of the BRC Implementation plan in Appendix B.
It should be-very clear.to all parties.that, as conceived, the consensus process would
- expire if consensus cannot--be1 reached at the nucleus or steering committee'levelsLor if the-Commission'was unable to achieve a balanced membership on the nucleus or steering _ committee level due to the refusal-of'some groups to participate.
In this L
event, the Commission would. lift the moratorium on the implementation of the Policy.
Finally, neither the approach that I am recommending, nor any other, will succeed without the serious commitment and L
- wholehearted participation of the Commission.
Alternaftves:-
In arriving at'the above recommendation, I considered several-alternatives that I L
present here for the Commission's review, t
"iwv n--4, s e e.-.
m.
- see, e.
,w-,
,.w,
-e
,.m,.c-e w
e,-
rw-, ~ y i ve wm..
tg w-evcv r
~
14 No action.
Under this alternative the Commission would not implement a consensus process and would proceed to implement the BRC Policy as it is currently formulated.
Under this alternative, it is likely that implementation would be difficult because of public resistance and potential litigation; it would likely result in further erosion of good working relations with external groups and the loss of public confidence; the risk of federal legislation being enacted to revoke the policy would be increased.
Revise the Policy without usino a consensus crocess.
Under this alternative, the commission would not implement a consensus process, but would revise those aspects of the Policy that appear to be the most problemmatic, for example, strict compatibility in the waste disposal area.
Although, the state compatibility issue did serve as a lightening rod for public l
reLetion, interviews with affected groups indicate that this is symbolic of a general dissatisfaction with the process by which the overall policy was developed, as well as various aspects of technical rationale.
Support for this premise may be found in the House of Reprocentatives Report on the bill to-revoke the BRC Policy.
Although the text of the bill focussed on the waste disposal and state compatibility issue, the accompanying Report identified a comprehensive list of potential problems l
covering the entire policy.
See H.R.
Rept.101-967, Part I, 101st Cong., 2d Sess.
(1990).
Focus the consensus nrocess on a sinale l
issue.
This alternative would most closely L
follow the Commission's original intent in its' request that I evaluate the feasibility l
of a consensus process.
Although I repeatedly explored the option of focussing the consensus process on the waste disposal and state compatibility issue, most of the affected groups recommended that the consensus process should address the entire range of BRC issues.
This seems to reflect j
the dissatisfaction with the process by which
15 the policy was developed, as well as the dissatisfaction with the rationale provided for various aspects of the policy beyond the waste disposal issue.
Under this alternative, I would not be confident of active participation by many of the affected intereste.
In addition, such an approach would be unlikely to mitigate the problems that the Commission is presently facing in implementing the BRC Policy.
Finally, the time and resources required to initiate a consensus process on a single issue may not differ substantially from that required to address the full range of DRC issues.
Innlementation:
If the Commission adopts the above recommendation, the following steps should be taken to implement the recommendation--
o Issue a Federal Register Notice announcing the initiation of a specific consensus process.
The Notice will provide a summary of the background of the feasibility study; an explanation of why the Commission is initiating the process, i.e.,
to ensure that a BRC Policy is based on clear, open, and adequate communication on all issues; a statement of the Commission's commitment to the process including the declaration of a moratorium on the BRC Policy; a brief description of the consensus process; providing notice that the development of the first phase, the formation of a core group, will be undertaken; and stating the conditions under which the consensus process l
will continue.
If-and when Commission approval is forthcoming on the above recommendation, I will immediately draft the requisite Federal Register Notice and circulate it for staff review before forwarding it to the Commission for its approval.
1 4
16 Develop a detailed schedule and budget for o
all phases of the project o
Identify the interests that should be represented on the core group.
Initiate discussions with representatives of those interests to determine their willingness to participate and to determine who might represent them on the core group.
Schedule / Resources: Although I have not developed a detailed schedule and budget for this process, I have made a gross estimate of the time and resources required.
I anticipate that the entire process will run through the end of 1992, with the first milestone being the convening of the core group in September of 1991.
In terms of resource requirements, I would anticipate 2 FTE for project planning and management through the end of the project.
In addition, some amount of NRC staff resources will need to be devoted to the NRC's participation on the steering ccamir. tee and the plenary body.
Program manag. ament staff will need access to secretarial support.
Approximately $200,000 in r,rogram support funds will be necessary, primarily for the procurement of neutral convening and_ facilitation expertise but also for travel requirements.
Approximately
$25,000 of these program support funds would be required in FY 1991.
Franci X.
Cameron Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to SECY by c.o.b. Wednesday, May 29, 1991.
Commission staff office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT May 22, 1991, with an information copy to SECY.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC IG GPA REGIONS EDO SECY
-0 Appendix A CONTACTS WITH AFFECTED GROUPS STATE GOVERNMENT California Caren Trgovci.ch, Martha Gildart, Steve Austrheim-Smith, California Integrated Waste Management Board Don Womeldorf, Chief, Environmental Management Branch, Russ Huck of staff; Ed Bailey, Chief, Radiologic Health Branch, Department of Health Services Dan Nix, Acting Deputy Director, Energy Forecasting and Planning; Barbara Byron, Executive Office, California Energy Commission rch Tredenberg, California Legislature, Senato Committee on Toxics and Public Safety Management New York Eugene Gleason, Deputy Commissioner for Operations, New York State Energy Office Texas Dave Lacker, Chief, Bureau of Radiation Control, Texas Department of Health, and Ruth McBurney, Rich Ratljff of staff Hector Mendieta, Director, Plans and Programs Division, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, and Leonard Mohrmann, Chief,-Special Waste Branch, Surveillance and Enforcement Division,-Bureau-of Solid Waste Management, Texas Department of Health Robert Avant, Deputy General Manager, Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority Washington Terry Strong, Chief, Division of Radiation Protection, Department of Social and Health Services and staff; Eric Slagle, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Health Programs Elaine Carlin, Manager, Low-level Waste Management Program, Department of Ecology, and staff
Illinois Tom Ortciger, Director, Gordon Appel, Deputy Director, Wayne Kerr, Steve England, Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety, Massachusetts Carol Amick, Executive Director, Low-level Radioactive Waste Management Board Nebraska Kate Allen, Governor's Policy Research Office North Carolina John MacMillan, Executive Director, North Carolina Low-level Radioactive Waste Management Authority Pennsylvania Hilliam Dornsife, Chief, Division of Nuclear Safety, Bureau of Radiation, Department of Environmental Resources Colorado Bob Quillen, Director, Radiation Control Division, Department of Health Wyoming Roger Fransen, Office of the Governor, State Planning Coorinator's Office LOCAL GOVERNMENT Barbara Paley, Associate Legislative Director, National Association of Counties REGIONAL GOVERNMENT Don Womeldorf, Executive Director, Southwestern Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission Elaine Carlin, Executive Director, Northwest Low-level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission Barbara Sims, Chair, Midwest Low-level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission Kevin McCarthy, Chair, Northeast Interstate Low-level Rar'ioactive Waste Compact Commission
.m i
\\
4-Greg Larson, Executive-Director, Midwest Interstate Low-level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission Clark Bullard, Chair, Central Midwest Lcw-level Radioactive
. Waste Compact Commission Mike Mobley, Commissioner, Southeast Low-level Radiactive Waste Compact Commission GOVERNMENTAL ASSOCIATIONS Tom Curtis, Director, Natural Resources Group, National Governors Association Ann Hurley, National Association of Attorneys General, and representatives of the Attorney Generals from New York, Ohio, New Mexico, Minnesota, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and California Ron Ross, Program Manager, Western Governors Association, Cheryl Runyon, Dwight Conner, Jim Reed, Gordon Meeks, National Conference of State Legislatures Tom Kennedy, Executive Director, Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials Tom Hill, Chairman, Organization of Agreement States Bill Hull, Western Legislative Conference of the Council of State Governments FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Richard Guimond, Director, Office-of Radiation Programs, and staff, EPA Richard Lachler, Paul Cassidy, Deborah Gallman, Office of Solid Waste, EPA i
Andy Wallo, Lynn Fairobent, Rick Jones, Ed Regnier, Office of the Environment, DOE PUBLIC INTEREST l
l Tom Cochran, Dan Reicher, Natural Resources Defense Council Dr. Jan Beyea, Chief Scientist, National Audubon Society Susan Hiatt, Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy Judith Johnsrud, member Sierra. Club National Energy Committee; member Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Citizen's
4 Advisory Committee on LLW
- Jonathan Becker, Public Citizen
- Diane D'Arriga, Nuclear Information and Resource Service
- Lynn Thorp, Ron Riccio, Greenpeace
- Bill Magavern, U.S. Public Interest Research Group INDUSTRY Utilities Tom Tipton, NUMARC; Steve Kraft, Don Silverman, Kathryn Steckelberg, Mike Rossler, Edis3n Electric Institute; Tim Smith,1American Nuclear Energy Council; Cathy Roche, U.S.
Council on Energy Awareness Solid Waste Ed Repa, Director, Technical and Research Programs, National Solid Waste Management Association Fuel Facilities and Services Felix Killar, U.S. Council on Energy Awareness Regional Alan Pasternak, Technical Director, California Radioactive Materials Management Forum Janis Stelluto, Executive Director, NELRAD Medical Roy Brown, Manager, Regulatory Compliance, Mallinckrodt Medical Inc.; Bryan Baker, Manager, Environmental and Safety.
Regulatory Affairc, Mediphysics/ Amersham; Dr. Bob Henkin, American College of Nuclear Physicians; and Dr. Carol Marcus, UCLA-School of Medicine (these individuals represented the interests of such organizations as the American Association of Medical Colleges, the Society of Nuclear Medicine, the American College of Nuclear Physicians, and the American Hospital Association)
ASSOCIATIONS Dr. Genevieve Roessler, President, and Dr. Frank Masse, President-elect, Health Physics Society Despite repeated efforts, I was unable to persuade these groups to engage in a-discussion of the feasibility of a potential consensus process on BRC.
~ _ _ ~. _ _ _
O APPENDIX B
-Impact of a BRC Policy Moratorium on the BRC Implementation plan.
Based on my discussions with the technical staff, a moratorium on the BRC Policy would affect the BRC implementation plan in SECY-90-345, as modified by the Commission, in the following ways--
BRC waste disposal exemptions:
The Commission is already on record as deferring formal generic actions related to waste disposal.
Staff actions, such as reevaluations of computer codes, determinations of current waste practicos, etc., should continue in order to provide the consensus body with information on current and future types and characteristics of wastes.
Systematic review of existing exemptions:
The commission should defer any rulemaking actions to modify' current exemptions.
However, the systematic assessment should proceed to the extent that the modeling for current exemptions could be reexamined in the light of apdated scientific knowledge, and new determinations made of doses to individuals and populations as a result of the existing exemption provisions.
Rulemaking on residual radioactivity:
1 Formal publication of a proposed rulemaking on residual radioactivity should be deferred until the end of the consensus process.
Draft approaches to rulemaking could be developed, and discussions with the EPA continued in parallel with the consensus process.
Technical work to complete the modeling basis for residual radioactivity levels should be completed (NUREG/CR-5512), and the staff should use the modeling l
as an updated basis for case-by-case decisions on l
decommissioning.
Work on.a generic environmental impact statement and guidance documents which would support the rulemaking should proceed, since these documents will be needed to support eventual rulemaking irrespective of the details of a future consensus on the policy issues.
Re-evaluation of 10 CFR Part 40:
Staff effort to prepare a revision of 10 CFR Part 40 could continue.
Much of Part 40 goes well beyond the exemption issue, and considerable time will be
.. ~...
~
~. _ -
O needed to prepare the revision.
Although the concept of exemptions will need to be considered in outlining the approach to the revision of 10 CFR Part 40, no conclusions need to be reached on the treatment of 10 CFR Part 40 exemptions, pending the outcome of the consensus process.
An ANPR could be published soliciting comment on issues and general approaches to the revision without conflicting with the consensus process, so long as specific reference to the ongoing consensus process was made in the sections dealing with exemptions.
Comprehensive plan for radiation effects research:
The staff should proceed with development and implementation of research efforts in the radiation health effects area.
This information is fundamental to any discussion of BRC. issues.
Furthermore, the conduct of this research would not involve any of the issues that would be dealt with in the consensus process.
l