ML20137J055
| ML20137J055 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/01/1997 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137J058 | List: |
| References | |
| COMSECY-96-063, COMSECY-96-63, DSI-14, SECY-96-063-C, SECY-96-63-C, NUDOCS 9704030208 | |
| Download: ML20137J055 (11) | |
Text
..
Ap:-il 1, 1997 SECY NOTE:
The following documents are being released to the public at this timer 1.
Text of DSI 14 (Public Communication Initiatives) 2.
Staff Requirements Memorandum dated March 14, 1997.
3.
Views of Chairman Jackson dated January 16, 1997.
(
4.
Views of Commissioner Rogers dated January 15, 1997.
5.
Views of Commissioner Dicus dated January 10, 1997.
6.
Views of Commissioner Diaz dated January 28, 1997.
7.
Views of Commissioner McGaffigan dated February 3, 1997.
W L.
John C. Hoyle Secretary of the Commission 030048 1
0 l}
9704030208 970401
(
PDR NRCSA I 7
PDR 14 hI,lilllII,Ilps,18,lligglg
Public Communication initiatives S==ary Analysis of Comments s
3.11 PUBLIC COMMUNICATION INITIATIVES (DSI 14)
' f -M-M3 b,g k['
l 3.11.1 The Direction-Setting issue and the Options yg:
. a.
What approach should NRC take to optimize its comunication with the publig?g 3
.s f@g Option 1:
Continue Existing Approach la: Focus on Maximizing Effectiveness and Economy g
Place a Priority on Early Identification of Public
. v>
Option 2:
Methods for Public Interaction
.d N
- cc %
Option 3:
Place a Priority on Expanding General Public Outreach i
e 3.11.2 Commission's Preliminary Views The NRC should place a priority on early identification of public concerns and mathods for public interaction in making regulatory decisions that are likely to generate substantial public interest or concern (Option 2). This approach is consistent with NRC's Principlac of Gecd Regulation. The NRC should interpret the term "public" in its broade:,t sense, understand who our various publics are, and focus on what they need in order to facilitate interaction and dissemination of infomation. For this purpose, the public includes private citizens, interest groups, licensees, States, media, Congress, the executive branch, and the international community. Recognition should be given to both bilateral formal and informal comunication, and particular attention should be given to review and improvement of formal communication. The appropriate role of technology as a facilitating / enabling device should be carefully examined within this context (e.g., particular care should be given to considering the forms of information dissemination such that the NRC does not eliminate paper in f avor of electronic comunication without full consideration of the public's ability to access information electronically).
Although there should be centralized planning and coordination of a methodology for anticipating and involvini the public in regulatory matters and decisionaaking, responsibility for implementing the methodology should reside with the program offices. The roles of the line organization and the Office of Public Affairs in facilitating public responsiveness should be clearly understood.
In addition, the NRC should focus on maximizing effectiveness and economy in its existing program for public communication (Option la), and in anticipating and involving the public (Option 2). As initial steps, the NRC should develop a consistent methodology, and coordinated planning for implementation of this approach, focus on examining the effectiveness and efficiency of activities that are of highest cost, and perform better assessments of proposed improvements to the existing approach. The NRC will consider the effectiveness and efficiency of certain formal forms of comunication such as Freedom of Information Act requests in a manner consistent with the law. The Comission would envision establishment of a coordinating group and development of a plan to implemen', this philosophy.
Page 3-103 Phase !! Stakeholder interaaion Report
Public Communication Initiatives gummary magitT6fLwHanezs 3.11.3 Summary of Comments I
A.
Significant/Important Comments Directly Affecting the Preliminary Views or the Direction-Setting Issue Only three comments--from the Illinois and Texas regulators and the Oregon Office of Energy--supported the Commission's Preliminary Views as the sole course of action. Most commenters preferred some combination of Options la, 2, and 3.
These comments :re summarized below in Section 3.11.3.B.
Several commenters suggested improvements in existing practices.
Since most of the suggestions concern ways to engage the public early in the regulatory process, the suggestions are summariz M here.
They can be addressed by the staff during development of plans to implement the Comission's final decision on this DSI.
The Need for Broad Participation: A representative of the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power (ECNP) said that some environmentalists did not want to attend the meetings because they were called " stakeholder" meetings, and there is concern that such sectings, along with " reg neg" approaches and advisory committees of citizens, are attempts to exclude many and co-opt the few who can afford to attend such meetings.
The agency must seek broad public involvement. 0AS said that the NRC can benefit from the experience and expertise of the Agreement States in identifying and resolving issues.
More Public #eetings: An anonymous commenter made several suggestions for using public meetings to inccease the NRC's visibility, and to demonstrate its willingness to listen to the public:
Each time a plant is put on or taken off the " watch list", the Chairman should hold a public meeting near the plant, to explain the action and respond to questions; whenever a facility is the subject of controversy, the Chairman or a Commissioner should hold a public meeting near the facility to respond to questions; when a Commissioner visits a nuclear power plant, the Commissioner should hold a public evening meeting to explain the role of the NRC and resp,nd to questions; the Comission should meet annually with environmental /public interest groups, as the NRC does with the industry and Agreement States. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and ABB-CE suggested that resident inspectors or site project managers might conduct monthly public meetings.
Better Public Meetings:
Some commenters urged that the Commission continue to look for more satisfactory ways tc conduct public meetings. Two of the commenters--a New Jersey regulator and the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD)--said that technical vocabulary, microphones, and stenographers can intimidate some people. A third commenter, Eric Hartmann, 1
urged that there be adequate time before a meeting for citizens to peruse available infortnation and comment on it in writing, and for the staff to digest the comments.
Early involvement in Information Notices and the Like: NEI and most of the industry commenters urged that the Commission allow the industry affected by something like an information notice to at least review it to make sure that issues are correctly identified, that the industry is available to the public to add clarification, and that the industry is informed of the notice before it is released. These commenters said that, if the agency does not allow some early form of involvement by the industry, and the agency disseminates some l
0 I
Page 3-104 Phase 11 Stakeholaer interaction Repon
Public Communication initiatives Sw-m*y Analysis of Conunents erroneous information, the agency will make things worse by confusing the NEI said public--the recent bulletin on heavy loads being a case in point.t the information notice in draft form in the P&lic N.aent Room (PDR), and In this notifying the public that the agency will take acti::. in 30 days.
In a way, the agency can maintain an arm's-length relation with the industry.
similar vein, Yankee Atomic Electric argued that industry input into 1
rulemakings based on research should be sought while the research is going on, to assure that the industry more readily adopts changes in the regulations.
However, the National Mining Association (NMA), while encouraging early public y
involvement, argued that in some circumstances, especially when preliminary ideas end data are the focus of dialogue between the NRC and ifcensees, public involvement can have a " chilling" effect.
An anonymous commenter said that some public frustration arises Nearings from the NRC's application of Federal Court tests of standing to intervene in NRC proceedings. Some perceive these tests as an indication that the Commission is not interested in public participation. This commenter urged that the agency modify 10 CFR Part 2 to permit legislative hearings, to increase public participation and reduce the chance of unnecessary delay in The comenter pointed out that the NRC has already argued licensing actions.
in court that the Atomic Energy Act would permit such hearings in place of trial-type hearings.
Yankee Atomic Electric echoed this preference for more The utility argued that the Commission should very informal processes.
" aggressively" review the hearing process with a view to establishing a risk-informed hearing process, in which less formal procedures would be used for lesser risks.
The 2.206 Process: Representatives of NNSN D.N.A.C. and Public Citizen said that it is essential in the 2.206 process that the NRC assign an independent reviewer to look at the NRC's handling of the issue raised by the petition.
The comenters said that petitioners often use 10 CFR 2.206 not for licensing act. ion but rather to oring about a good review of the NRC's own work on a They said that it is impossible to ask the person who did the matter.
original work to review his or her own work, and that the result of doing so is that the NRC's response to a 2.206 petition becomes too adversarial.
Yankee Atomic Electric agreed that having 2.206 petitions reviewed by the
(
l employees whose work is questioned by the petition raises questions of The utility said that having 'icensee assertions that a staff objectivity.
action is a backfit reviewed by the staff that developed the action raises the same questions. The utility suggested having the Committee to Review Generic Requirements or the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) review both 2.206 petitions and licensee backfit claims.
Examining the Appropriate Role of Technology: Most commenters expressed appreciation for the large amount of information that the agency inakes available on the World Wide Web and in the Federal Register, but 0AS, Yankee Atomic i,lectric, and the representative of the ECNP urged the agency to j
remember that too few people have access to the Web or read the Register.
The representative of ECNP said she thought she had noticed a decline in the i
availability of paper copies of information from the agency. Yankee Atomic Electric urged that the agency continue to make printed copies available to people without access to computers or a PDh. The Oregon Office of Energy and a representative of Clark County, Nevada, suggested advertising public meetings in local newspapers. NEI said that whoever examines the appropriate use of a given technology should not be the same person who developed the l
Page 3-105 Phase 11 Staleholder Interaaion Report
[
Public Communication Initiatives
, gummary Anchysis of7 Comments l
technology. An NRC employee said that, despite new technology, the Office of Public Affairs (OPA) will still need to be on the front line, expanding contacts with media and advocacy groups and keeping agency management informed of media and public concerns.
The same commenter said that, if there is in the Commission's Preliminary Views a subsumed agenda for transferring regional OPA jobs to Rockville, the Commission should consider whether such a transfer would accomplish the early identification of public concerns.
Role of OPA: The representative of Clark County, Nevada, said that OPA should develop public communications plans that are similar to what advertising agencies develop. The same commenter urged more use of radio, television, videos, and meetings with editorial boards. NEI wondered whether OPA's broad responsibilities might serve as the basis for reducing the lack of integration in the NRC's comunications with the public.
Timeliness: Yankee Atomic Electric argued that a priority should be placed on timeliness of decisions. The commenter argued that it does no good to identify public concerns if they are not resolved in a timely way. The commenter pointed to the decommissioning and decontamination rulemaking as an example of a lack of timely resolution.
ACRS Membership: An anonymous commenter urged appointing a technically qualified, public interest / environmental group representative to the ACRS.
- riting Style: A few comenters, mainly from State agencies, said that the agency must first learn to write and package material in a way that stimulates interest. These same comenters pointed to the writing style of the issue paper on DSI 14 as an example of how not to package material. Two commenters from Oregon State agencies ran the issue paper through some writing software that concluded that understanding the paper required 20 years of formal education. The comenter argued that such a writing style is a bar to public communication and suggests to readers that they are not smart enough to appreciate what the agency says. The representative from Clark County, Nevada, said that public information should be directed to the average person's level of understanding without talking down to anyone.
In a similar vein, NEl said that the information the agency distributes should be useful and understandable, and that the agency should have greater sensitivity to the
" impact of its communications on a generally non-expert audience."
B.
Comments on Other Options Most commenters, particularly the industry and the Option 2 1s Not Enough:
States, favored Option 3, or some combination of Option 3 with one or more of the other options.
Commenters thought that such an approach would give the agency greater flexibility to respond to needs, help participants understand each other, move the NRC toward informed decisions, and help the public understand the regulatory process and rsdiation in general.
Eighty percent of the work, a Colorado regulator said, is in answering the questions, What is my risk? and How safe is the facility? The OAS said that the NRC cannot leave it to industry and professional groups to "get the message out", and that the agency's outreach effort needs to be directed to schools, community meetings, and legislative hearings, as well as to the newer electronic media. The National Mining Association said that the need for effective communication will increase substantially as the NRC develops risk-informed, performance-based regulation.
Phase 11 Stakeholder interaction Report Page 3-106
Public Communicatiom initiatiws Summary Analysis of Comments The commenters argued that the anency could pley a necessary, non-promotional, tutorial role of informing the public about the agency's programs (according to surveys by NEI, few people even know the agency exists, and sister agencies do not understand its processes), publishing information that benefits everyone, and correcting data. The commenters said that the industry could not perform all the educational work, because its efforts would be viewed as self-serving.
A representative of Southern California Edison said that, without an agency effort, public ignorance would make problems for the industry and perhaps even make the industry impossible.
NEI thought that the NRC could avoid being promotional by being more accurate.
NEI suggested, for example, that the NRC could point out the agency's role in the improvement in the level of safety in the last 15 years, and that, when explaining an event, the agency could try to be more accurate in characterizing the significance of the event. NEI argued that, if the agency is in the public eye only when there has been an event or a non-compliance, then the agency will be on the defensive and it will be hard to persuade the For example, NEI said, the agency's public that the agency is effective.
public notices focus on enforcement, and so non-compliance is what the public attends to; the public is therefore left with the impression that the agency is ineffective.
CORAR went so far as to suggest that the agency should play a more active role in communicating information on the " valuable products [that licensees provide) that improve the quality of life in ways that the public may not either recognize or be willing to accept."
NEI suggested an integrated " performance-based" public An Integrated Program:
communications program that focused on effectiveness, and established measurable goals and benchmarked them against some private sector efforts.
NEI suggested that the NRC should form an assessment team that includes public sector communications organizations, looks at their experiences--what worked and what did not--and conducts some baseline surveys to find out what the public knows about the agency.
Some commenters from Colorado--two from the State regulator and the other from Public Service of Colorado--said that the agency could look to efforts there, The two public and one private, for models of communication with the puolic.
commenters said that Public Service of Colorado (PSC) had a program that was a l
model for informing the public about decommissioning; the company created a common language that enabled the process to be understood more widely; the company worked for years to establish a good relation with the community; it disseminated a newsletter that let the public know what the company was going to do, it participated in local festivals, etc. The representative of PSC said that DOE's Rocky Flats has improved greatly in the last 10 years or so, from giving no information to inundating the public with it, and as a result One of the the facility has been successful in increasing public confidence.
Colorado State regulators suggested reviewing the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) community involvement at Superfund sites.
An NRC employee urged better coordination with EPA on public communications about such issues as high-level waste disposal, and said that the NRC should encourage the indiistry to play a more proactive role in public communications.
The same commenter suggested that the NRC should consider whether to seek a l
l non-fee-based appropriation for its public communications programs.
I Page 3-107 Phase 11 Stakeholder Interaaion Repon l
Public Communication initiaisves Summary Analysis of Comments CORAR and Amersham Corporation said that public conceros strauld be addressed in a way that is "commensurata with the level of risk involved", rather than with the level of public concern.
These commerters said that the agency places too much emphasis on events or ronerns wilt, rF?ativeb insignificant risks.
Stakeholders' Advisory Board:
A represenatioe of the tu tirm of Carter and Hernman suggested the formation of a stakeholders' advarry Nard, like DOE's Environmental Management Advisory Board, which ahises an Arcistant Secretary on public involvement and stakeholder issues.
ABB-CE reconsnended that such committees be formed to help the Commission consider optiens and plan implementation of the direction chosen by the Comission.
Let Citizens Manage Public Communications:
Marvin Lewis urged placing the agricy's public comunication initiatives in the hands of the Nuclear Information Resource Service, or the commenter, to increase public involvement.
Another Option: One NRC employee said that, for the sake of completeness, the issue paper should have considered an option that reduced the amount of public involvement or information.
C.
Comments on Important 0missica Scoping Process for the Strategic Assessment: The representative from the law firm of Carter and Hernman said that, at an early stage in the. strategic assessment, the agency should have conducted a scoping process like the one required under the National Environmental Policy Act. The commenter said that such a process would have given the public a greater sense of participation in the assessment. The representative of the ECNP said that the Commission's withholding of eight papers on DSIs was " proof that the NRC has no intention of abiding by the [public communications) policy it claims."
Other Public Process: An NRC employee said that the paper should have considered certain other agency efforts that serve both safety and communication functions--for example, the 2.206 process, the environmental impact statements under 10 CFR Part 51, and the hearing requirements in 10 CFR Part 2--and the impacts of the options on tl se processes.
Objectives for Comunication: The CRCPD, a New Jersey regulator, and an NRC employee said that the Commission's decision on options for public communication needs to be driven by a Commission decision on the fundamental objectives for public communication.
Is the objective to inform the public, i
involve the public, reduce litigation, obtain information, identify new issues, or influence public sentiment, or some or all of these? NEI and ABB-CE said that the paper and the Commission's preliminary views should have acknowledged that "an overarching goal of its strategic assessment [is] the need to establish the credibility of the agency." The representative of the ECNP said that one goal of public communications is "to listen to and act upon the recommendations that [ citizens) submit to it."
Costs and Benefits: NEI, ABB-CE, and Yankee Atomic Electric said that the paper should have defined clearly the costs and benefits of each of the j
options. According to NEI, much of the information l
Page 3-1M Phase 11 Stakeholaer interaaion Repon
1 Public Communicatloa initiatives j
Summary Analysis ofComments the agency issues is of little value to the public. The utility urged the agency to realize that public involvement, "while important, does not ensure safety."
The " nub of the matter", according to a representative of
- fxed #essage:
Michigan State University, is that the agency sends a mixed message--it says that small doses have little if any effect, and we know this is true, but then The commenter the agency penalizes licensees for any small contamination.
said that, until the agency stops regulating to a level below any known risk, the public won't trust the agency or the industry because of this mixed message.
Citizens' Suits: The representative of the ECNP said that the 2.206 process does not work, that the power to bring " citizens' suits", such as the environmental statutes provide, would enhance the public's sense that there is a potential for effective involvement. [Under most of the environmental statutes, if the EPA is not enforcing a provision of environmental law against a certain regulated party, any citizen may sue that party in Federal District Court for non-compliance with the provision.]
"Accountabi7/ty" for Comments: The Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals (CORAR) and Amersham Corporation said that the agency needs to find ways to ensure that members of the public are " accountable" for their comments and the information they provide. CORAR was concerned that l
informal methods of participation can be exploited by persons expressing
" irrational viewpoints" rather than well-founded, technically based arguments.
In a similar vein, an NRC employee said that the agency needs to find ways to deal with the few members of the public who " inordinately detain" NRC staff from attending to more important risks.
NEI said that the paper should have discussed the Emergency Informatfon:
NRC's role "in communicating to the public and working with licensees in the emergency public information area."
D.
Comments on Internal / External Factors Pursuing the Impossible 7: An NRC employee suggested that the ager:cy may be The commenter claimed that the fate of the "Below hoping for too much.
Regulatory Concern" Policy Statement showed that only extraordinary efforts can guarantee that every group fully understands all the ramifications of The commenter said that such efforts would every action the agency proposes.
not be warranted.
i E.
Comments on Staff Requirements Memorandum Questions In its preliminary yiews, the Commission did not pose any additional questions for public comment.
3.11.4.
List of Commenters WRITTEN COMMENTS 1.
October 4,1996, Kenneth Clark, USNRC 2.
October 8, 1996, Breck Henderson, USNRC Page 3109 Phase !! Stakeholder Interaction Report
Public Communication initiatives Sununary Analysis of Comments i
l 3.
October 11, 1996, Eric Hartmann 4.
October 21, 1996, Organization of Aoreement States (Robert Quillin) 5.
October 24, 1996, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection i
(Rich Janati) 6.
October 28, 1996, Washington State Department of Health (Terry Frazee) j i
7.
November 3, 1996, Marvin Lewis a
i 8.
November 4,1996, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (Diane Tefft) 9.
November 5,1996, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (Philip Stoffey) 10.
November 5, 1996, Anonymous 11.
November 7,1996, Mississippi State Department of Health (Robert Goff) j 12.
November 7, 1996, Organization of Agreement States (Robert Quillin) 13.
November 13, 1996, Oregon Office of Energy (David Stewart-Smith) 14.
November 14, 1996, Oregon Department of Human Resources (Ray Paris) 1 15.
November 14, 1996, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (M.K. Batavia) 1 16.
November 21, 1996, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (Ronald l
Wascom) 17.
November 21, 1996 Georgia Department of Natural Resources (Thomas Hill) i i
18.
November 21, 1996, Utah Department of Environmental Quality (William Sinclair) 19.
November 2?.,1996, South Carolina Eiectric & Gas (Gary Taylor) 20.
November 27, 1996, Nuclear Energy Institute (Thomas Ryan) 21.
November 27, 1996, Texas Department of Health (Richard Ratliff) 22.
November 27, 1996, Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (William Dornsife) 23.
November 27, 1996, Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals (Roy Brown) 24.
December 1,1996, Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power (Judith Johnsrud) 25.
December 2, 1996, SENTINEL, Amersham (Cacnleen Roughan) 26.
December 2, 1996, Michael Weber, USNRC Page 3-110 Phme 11 Stakeholder interaaion Report
Public communication Initiatives
. E=l y' nalysis of comments 27.
December 2,1996, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
]
(Jill Lipoti) 28.
December 2, 1996, Yankee Atomic Electric (Jane Grant) 29.
December 2, 1996, Maryland Department of the Environment (Roland
]
Fletcher) 30.
December 2,1996, Mallinckrodt Medical (Ashok Dhar) 31.
December 2, 1996, ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Systems (Charles Brinkman)
December 2,1996, Clark County, Nevada, Department of Comprehensive 32.
Planning (Dennis Bechtel) 33.
December 2,1996, National Mining Association (Richard Lawson) 34.
December 2, 1996, Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (Thomas Ortciger)
ORAL COMMENTS i
Washington, D.C. (October 24-25, 1996) pages 40 - 64 1.
John Carter, law firm of Carter and Hernman 2.
Richard Ratliff, Organization of Agreement States 3.
Judith Johnsrud, Environmental Coalition on Nu:: lear Power 4.
Dennis Bechtel, Clark County, Nevada 5.
Jane Fleming, NNSN D.N. A'.C.
6.
Jim Riccio, Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project Colorado Springs, C0 (October 31-November t, 1996) pages 67 - 83 1.
Stephen Floyd, Nuclear Energy Institute 2.
Ashok Dhar, Mallinckrodt Medical 3.
William Sinclair, Organization of Agreement States t
4.
Thomas Tipton, Nuclear Energy Institute 5.
Michael Holmes, Public Service of Colorado 6.
Kenneth Weaver, Colorado and Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors Chicago, IL (November 7-8, 1996) pages 46 - 70 1.
Kristin Erickson, Michigan State University I
Page 3-111 Phase 11 Stakeholder interaction Report l
-.Public Conununication initiatim....
. -. -. -. _. ~. -- -.
Summary Analysis of Comments 1
[
2.
T. Derrick Mercurio, Southern California Edison 1
l 3.
Mark Doruff, Amersham Corporation
]
4.
Tom Tipton, Nuclear Energy Institute 1
i i
9 i
1 i
i i
~
f
?
i 1
d j
(
i i
i 1
1 ai' 3
a 4
i s
J i
6 i
I
^
i f
J j
t i
s 1
i s
?
i I
i t
t i
1' l
1 Page.1-112 Phase 11 Stakeholder Interaction Report
..