ML20044H000
| ML20044H000 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/28/1993 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-93-152, NUDOCS 9306070172 | |
| Download: ML20044H000 (9) | |
Text
WMMMM MM MM MMM /
77.
f7
//
//
e
\\
4 l
LL pnuco 4.
g'
~,
5
- ,E
\\...../
POLICY ISSUE SECv-93-1s2 May 28, 1993 The Commissi b b FOR:
FROM:
William C.
Parler General Counsel James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
ENHANCED PARTICIPATORY RULEMAKING PURPOSE:
To obtain Commission approval of a recommendation to increase the number of public scoping meetings on the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for the enhanced participatory rulemaking, and to inform the Commission of the staff's intent to inform the workshop participants and the public of the availability of the draft criteria for decommissioning that is submitted to the Agreement States for review.
l
SUMMARY
The staff plan in SECY-92-249 for conducting the enhanced participatory rulemaking to establish the radiological criteria for decommissioning provided for one public meeting in Washington, i
D.C.,
on the scoping process for the GEIS.
Subsequent to the Commission's approval of the plan, numerous requests were received from the citizen groups participating in the rulemaking workshops to expand the number of public scoping meetings and to extend the-length of the public comment period for the rulemaking issues paper beyond May 28, 1993.
After considering the potential benefits of expanding the number of scoping meetings and the comment period, as well as the effect on the rulemaking schedule and agency resources, the staff recommends that three additional scoping meetings be held and that the comment period for the workshops be extended to coincide with the completion of the GEIS scoping.
The staff also proposes to make available the staff considerations of workshop comments and draft radiological criteria for decommissioning to obtain early reactions from workshop participants and members of
Contact:
Francis X.
Cameron, OGC NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY 504-1642 AVAILABLE AT COMMISSION MEETING ON JUNE 4, 1993 l
Donald A. Cool, RES l
,-.._492.-3185 D
l 9 3 c M 7 0 I 4 2-. $, 4 l
=*
?
2 the public at the time the draft is provided to the Agreement States for review, i.e.,
before it is submitted to the Commission for review.
BACKGROUND:
In SECY-93-114, the staff provided the Commission with a status report on the enhanced participatory rulemaking to establish radiological criteria for decommissioning.
In that paper the staf f informed the Commission that the staff had received numerous requests during the rulemaking workshops for additional public scoping meetings on the GEIS for the rulemaking. Participants also requested an extension of the comment period on the rulemaking issues paper beyond May 28, 1993.
The staff committed to provide a recommendation to the Commission on the GEIS scoping issue in a supplemental paper submitted in preparation for the June 4, 1993 Commission briefing on the enhanced participatory rulemaking.
An extension of the public comment period to June 28, 1993 for the rulemaking issues was published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1993 (58 FR 29998).
DISCUSSION:
GEIS Scopina Meetinas The staf f recently completed seven regional workshops on the issues related to the rulemaking on the radiological criteria for decommissioning.
Although these workshops generated comments that are relevant to the preparation of the GEIS on the rulemaking, the workshops were not intended to be a substitute for the traditional scoping process that is conducted for an environmental impact statement on a proposed Commission action.
Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 51.26, the NRC is required to conduct a scoping process to determine the issues, methodologies, and extent of detail that should be addressed in any environmental impact statement (EIS).
Public meetings related to the scoping process are discretionary under the Commission's rules.
The staff plan in SECY-92-249 for conducting the enhanced participatory rulemaking provided for one public meeting in Washington, D.C., on the scoping process for the GEIS.
However, at each workshop, broad support was expressed by citizen groups and the public generally for additional scoping meetings.
In fact, several of these commenters recommended that a scoping meeting be held in every location where a workshop had been conducted.
Other participants, while favoring an increased number of scoping
- meetings, requested that the Commiscion hold the meetings in locations that were closer to the communities affected by decommissioning actions. Participants also expressed the view that conducting a single scoping meeting on the rulemaking would be inconsistent with the " enhanced participatory" nature of the rulemaking.
This support for additional meetings was primarily
A<
3 based on the policy and legal importance of the EIS process under the National Environmental Policy Act and the resulting need to ensure broad public participation in this process.
Although the NRC typically holds public scoping meetings on EIS's associated with individual facilities, the Commission's practice has been uneven in regard to public scoping meetings on EIS's associated with rulemakings.
For
- example, the Commission conducted the scoping process for the development of its low level waste disposal regulations in 10 CFR Part 61 solely through written comments (43 FR 49811; October 25, 1978).
Although several workshops were held in support of the low-level waste rulemaking, they did not focus on the scoping aspects of the GEIS under NEPA.
In regard to the Commission's 1988 rule on the general requirements for decommissioning, no public scoping meetings were held per se.
However, three state workshops and one public workshop were held to obtain comments on several issues, including the preliminary EIS issues.
Similarly, no meetings were designated as public scoping meetings on the license renewal rulemaking (55 FR 29964; July 23, 1990).
However, the Commission did conduct a public meeting on this rulemaking, which requested comment on, among other issues, alternatives for addressing NEPA issues (54 FR 41980; October 13, 1989).
The staff believes that the additional scoping meetings would aid in the gathering of comprehensive information on the scope of the GEIS.
It would also maintain the pattern of broad public participation that the Commission intended for the enhanced participatory rulemaking.
The focus of the GEIS scoping process will be different than the focus of the enhanced participatory rulemaking workshops and, as a result, the scoping meetings will not duplicate the Commission's efforts in the workshops.
Whereas the workshops focussed primarily on issues associated with the substantive outcome of the rulemaking, the scoping meetings will focus on what issues should be addressed in the GEIS, what methodologies should be used to address these issues, what level of detail should the GEIS contain, and how should the GEIS relate to the NEPA review on site-specific decommissioning actions.
A simple and straightforward process would be used for conducting the scoping meetings. This meeting format would begin with a brief overview of the workshops which have already been conducted, and the purpose and questions to be addressed in the GEIS scoping.
The remainder of the time would be allocated for individuals to express their views on the scoping issues.
The staff role throughout the meeting would be to explain the objectives of the rulemaking and the nature of the GEIS process, as well as to answer any questions that are relevant to the process.
The staff would ask questions of clarification when necessary, but would not be in the mode of discussion with meeting participants.
The meetings would be scheduled for one day in each of the four selected locations and would consist of two approximately 3 to 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> sessions, one in the
b 4
v i
afternoon and one in the evening.
The inclusion of an evening session is to facilitate participation of individuals who might i
otherwise not be able to attend due to job commitments, etc.
This approach would respond to the many requests'in previous meetings with members of the public.
Each session would be transcribed.
-[
The meetings would not require an external facilitator. The number of NRC staff actively involved in the meeting would be on the order of two to three.
The simplicity of the format is designed to minimize the NRC resources necessary to conduct these meetings, and t
to maximize the opportunity for public input.
Accordingly, the staff recommends that three scoping meetings be
'l held in addition to the meeting originally planned for Washington, D.C.
The staff recommends that the additional meetings be held in San Francisco, California; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and Cleveland, Ohio.
These locations, along with the Washington, D.C.
- meeting, will provide coverage for the entire country.
Several of the workshop recommendations on the need for additional scoping meetings emphasized the benefit of holding a scoping meeting in the vicinity of a major nuclear facility that was in the process of decommissioning.
The staff agrees that a scoping meeting near a facility that reflects the major issues that need to be addressed in the enhanced participatory rulemaking would bring a useful perspective to the scoping process. The staff selected the meeting i
I locations in Oklahoma City and Cleveland because of their proximity to active decommissioning projects.
There are several SDMP sites located near both cities.
In addition, the Sequoyah Fuels Facility in Gore, Oklahoma, is another large decommissioning project near Oklahoma City that is likely to raise a number of environmental l
issues (e.g.,
soil and groundwater contamination) associated with decommissioning.
San Francisco and Washington, D.C. were selected to provide appropriate geographical coverage, even though there are no SDMP sites near these locations.
I Each meeting will cost approximately $2000 to cover the rental of the meeting location, audiovisual equipment, and transcription. An
(
additional $3000 will be necessary for each workshop outside of Washington, D.C.,
to cover travel expenses for the NRC staff.
The staff proposes to hold the scoping meetings on an expedited schedule between July 15, 1993 and July 30, 1993.
This schedule i
will allow the staff sufficient time to make the logistical arrangements for the scoping meetings and to provide sufficient notice of the meetings in the Federal Register and in the local media.
A minimum of 30 days notice should be provided prior to the first GEIS scoping meeting.
The staff will also provide notice i
about the scoping meetings to the participants in the rulemaking workshops and other established networks and place a copy of the j
notice on the electronic bulletin board established for this i
rulemaking.
The additional meetings will have a small impact on the rulemaking schedule.
The time necessary to plan and hold the additional
fn 5
meetings and to analyze the additional comments from those meetings will add approximately six weeks. to the schedule.
A. revised schedule for the rulemaking has been provided in Attachment 1.
A number of participants and observers at the rulemaking workshops also requested the NRC to extend the public comment period on the rulemaking issues paper beyond the May 28, 1993, deadline.
This deadline was established in the Federal Register notice that announced the workshop process and availability of the rulemaking issues paper.
To date, despite the six. months available for; members of the public to review and comment on the issues paper, very few comments have been provided to the NRC other than through the rulemaking workshops.
In addition, a number of citizens groups and professional society representatives claimed that additional time would allow developme.nt of integrated comments based on the discussions at the rulemaking workshops.
The staff believes that the comment period should be extended.
An initial extension to June 28, 1993 was published in the Federal Recister on May 25, 1993 (58 FR 29998).
.If the number of scoping meetings on the GEIS is increased to four and the rulemaking schedule extended until the end of July 1993, the staff would propose to honor the request for additional review of the issues paper by further extending the period until July 30, 1993.
If NRC only conducts one scoping meeting in Washington, D.C.,
then no additional time would be granted.
If the Commission approves the additional scoping meetings and the extension of the public comment period, the staff will prepare and submit a Notice to the Federal Register for publication.
The Notice will state the Commission's intent to prepare a GEIS and address the schedule for the scoping meetings and the submission of i
written comments.
It'will also address other issues related to the j
scoping process, such as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the GEIS.
The staff intends to request that the Environmental Protection Agency be a cooperating agency.
EPA has been an active participant in the rulemaking workshops, and is proceeding with rulemaking and Federal Guidance development in parallel with the NRC rulemaking.
In addition, EPA possesses the statutory authority and special expertise which is considered necessary and appropriate for i
inclusion as a cooperating agency.
Furthermore, inclusion of the EPA as a cooperating agency will be another step in ensuring the development of consistent standards for decommissioning.
Release of the Draft Criteria ordinarily, public availability and review of a proposed rule prepared by the staff does not occur until af ter the Commission has reviewed and approved the draft for publication as a proposed rule in the Federal Register.
- However, because of the special l
6 relationship that the Commission has with the Agreement States, the staff's procedures now provide for review by the Agreement States of the draf t proposed rule before it is submitted to the Commission for review.
As a matter of practice, the draft has also been placed in the Public Document Room (PDR) at the time that it is provided to the Agreement States.
A time period of 45 days is generally allowed for Agreement State comments.
It is the availability of the draft proposed rule for Agreement State review that raises the issue of whether the Commission should take more affirmative measures to make the staff considerations of workshop comments and draft radiological criteria for decommissioning available to workshop participants and the public.
The staff believes that it would be appropriate for the Commission to take affirmative measures to make available the staff considerations and draft radiological criteria for information and comment by workshop participants and the public, particularly in view of the nature of the enhanced participatory process.
The involvement of the wide spectrum of interested parties involved in the workshops should provide the staff with some early reactions on how effectively the staff has evaluated and considered the workshop comments in developing the draft criteria. This early review would also provide useful information about the views of the Agreement States and other interest groups for the Commission's consideration at the time it reviews the draft proposed rule.
Accordingly, the staff intends to provide each workshop participant with a copy of the staff draft and to indicate that we would be receptive to any participant reactions to the draft criteria.
The draft would also be placed on the electronic bulletin board to increase its availability.
The time allowed for input would be limited to the 45 days which is presently being provided for Agreement State review of staff proposals.
It should be noted that the rulemaking schedule provided in SECY-92-249 did not account for the time period needed for Agreement State review because the current procedure was not in place at the time the schedule was developed.
However, the staff believes that this additional time will be necessary irrespective of whether other interested parties are invited to examine the staff's proposals.
The necessary
(
additional time has been reflected in the revised schedule provided in Enclosure 1.
t l
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Unless otherwise directed by the Commission, the staff plans the l
following actions:
l 1.
Conduct of four GEIS scoping meetings in Washington D.C.,
San Francisco, California; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and Cleveland, Ohio; and t
I l
t m
4 7
2.
Proceed with a new rulemaking schedule as presented in,
including extension of the public comment period on the rulemaking issues paper, scoping of the GEIS, and release of staff considerations and draft radiological criteria to the Agreement State worksho participants and other interested parties.
/V1r n.
m William Parler General Counsel
\\
A-a es M. T lor E ecutive Director for Operations Attachments:
1.
Revised Rulemaking Schedule 2.
Original Rulemaking Schedule SECY NOTE:
In the absence of instructions to the contrary, SECY will notify the staff on Monday, June 14, 1993, that the Commission, by negative consent, assents to the action proposed in this paper.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC OCAA OIG OPA EDO SECY
Y 8
ENCLOSURE 1 - RULEMAKING SCHEDULE COMPLETE PUBLIC WORKSHOPS ON RULE
- 5/7/93 C NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE GEIS; REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF GEIS
- 6/15/93 LETTER OF INVITATION TO EPA REGARDING COOPERATION ON THE GEIS
- 6/15/93 COMPLETE FOUR PUBLIC MEETINGS ON GEIS SCOPING
- 7/30/93 END WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD ON GEIS SCOPING
- 8/15/93 DRAFT REGULATORY ANALYSIS & GEIS COMPLETE
- 11/93 DRAFT CRITERIA TO AGREEMENT STATES, WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS, AND OTHER INTERESTED GROUPS
- 1/94 DRAFT REGULATORY PACKAGE TO OFFICE CONCURRENCE
- 4/94 (INCLUDES DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE ON DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE WITH THE REGULATION)
DRAFT REGULATORY PACKAGE TO EPA
- 4/94 DRAFT REGULATORY PACKAGE TO ACNW AND CRGR
- 5/94 DRAFT REGULATORY PACKAGE TO EDO
- 7/94 DRAFT REGULATORY PACKAGE TO COMMISSION
- 8/94 PUBLISH DRAFT RULE
- 9/94 PUBLISH FINAL RULE
- 9/95 1
{'y ATTACHMENT 2 - ORIGINAL RULEMAKING SCHEDULE ENCLOSURE H - RULEMAKING SCHEDULE WORKSHOPS AND COMMENT PERIOD COMPLETE --
5/28/93 NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (GEIS); REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF GEIS -- 6/4/93 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING ON GEIS -- 6/30/93 SCOPING PROCESS COMPLETE -- 7/15/93 NRC
SUMMARY
OF WORKSHOP COMMENTS COMPLETE -- 7/1/93 REGULATORY ANALYSIS COMPLETE -- 10/93 DRAFT GEIS COMPLETE -- 10/93 DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE ON DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE WITH THE REGULATION COMPLETE --
10/93 STAFF REVIEW AND CONCURRENCE ON DRAFT PROPOSED RULE AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS -- 11/93 STAFF REVIEW AND CONCURRENCE COMPLETE -- 2/94 DRAFT PROPOSED RULE AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO ED0 -- 3/94 DRAFT PROPOSED RULE AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO COMMISSION -- 4/94 PROPOSED RULE AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS PUBLISHED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT -- 5/94 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDS -- 7/94 FINAL RULE AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS -- 5/95
]