ML20212C538
| ML20212C538 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/21/1999 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Vietticook A NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212C516 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-99-214-C, NUDOCS 9909220022 | |
| Download: ML20212C538 (3) | |
Text
'
.4 4',
. NOTATION VOTE
/,
RESPONSE SHEET TO: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary FROM: COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-214 - OPTIONS FOR PROCEEDING WITH NRC.S EFFORTS REGARDING THE RELEASE OF SOLID MATERIALS Approved Disapproved X' Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
I approve Option 1. See attached comments.
A /- A SIG TURE [(/ U !
O [2,1911 DATE "
Entered on "AS" Yes X No
+
??? !a,Jii! =* ,
CORRESPONDENCE PDR l
p,, ..
s
.' ~
Commissioner McGaffiaan's Comments on SECY-99-214 I strongly disapprove Option 3 for the reasons described below and approve Option 1 to continue with the process previously laid out in the June 30,1998 staff requirements memorandum (SRM) on SECY-98-028.
I am committed to rulemaking in this area, as I said in my vote on SECY-98-028. The need for rulemaking has only been made more clear by recent events, such as the criticism directed in part at the Commission in Judge Gladys Kessler's June 29,1999 ruling in OCAW v. Pena, in which she stated: "The Court is further concemed by the fact that no national standard exists goveming the unrestricted release of volumetrically contaminated metals. Both EPA and NRC have attempted to develop Federal regulatory standards for volumetrically contaminated metals, but both agencies have tabled their efforts in order to focus on other concems." This agency has n9.t tabled its effort, as our June 30,1998 SRM and the actions taken since clearly demonstrate, but this was apparently not brought to the Judge's attention. Furthermore, next May, the nations of the European Union will put in place a 10 pSv/ year (1 mrem / year) clearance standard.
We have known from the outset that this will be a difficult rulemaking. The reason for the SECY paper is that certain public interest groups are now threatening to boycott our rulemaking process. That is their right, although it is not something which I welcome. I hope that they will reconsider.
However, Option 3 is not the way to bring these public interest groups into the process.
Option 3 would have the Commission walk away from its June 30,1998 SRM, walk away from the issues paper in the June 30,1999 Federal Reaister notice, and eliminate the Generic Environmental Impact Statement scoping component of the stakeholder meeting process. Surely, given our previously stated views, we could be accused of dissernbling in the name of stakeholder facilitation.
. An enhanced participating rulemaking is D9t a negotiated rulemaking. I note the public interest group criticism of the license termination rulemaking process reported in Attachment 4. I do not agree with their criticism that "their perspective was ignored by the staff and Commission when the decision on the final rule was reached." All comments were summarized in NUREG/CR-6353, which both staff and Commissioners reviewed. The Commission put the final rule SECY paper in the public domain for months as we deliberated on it. A public meeting was held with the Environmental Protection Agency in April 1997 to receive its'oornments on the paper and invite public comment. Finally, the rationale for the Commission's decision on the two most controversial issues - the rejection of a separate groundwater standard and adoption of the 25 mrem / year (as opposed to 15 mrem /yr) all-pathways standard - was clearly articulated in the regulatory analysis and accompanying generic environmental impact statement. If the initial stakeholder meetings in 1993 gave the impression that we were
J 2
engaged in a negotiated rulemaking, then the disappointment of these stakeholders is more understandable. The Commission clearly did not adopt their point of view on these controversial issues. In this rulemaking on the release of solid materials, we need to avoid mis-communication about the nature of the participatory rulemaking process, from the outset, while properly considering all comments.
I believe that Commissioner Diaz's recommendations for periodic Commission meetings at important milestones and for appointment of an ombudsman to head up this rulemaking effort will help prevent mis-communication as this effort proceeds. I concur in them.
O