ML20212C545
| ML20212C545 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/26/1999 |
| From: | Merrifield J 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 9909220023 | |
| Download: ML20212C545 (2) | |
Text
'
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary l l FROM: COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD l
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-214 - OPTIONS FOR PROCEEDING WITH NRC.S j l
EFFORTS REGARDING THE RELEASE OF SOLID MATERIALS Approved x Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
a ,~ a Co%~,q ,
, l 4
I O
SIG @ E August 26, 1999 DATE Entered on "AS" Yes X No 99o922oo23 99o920 PDR COMMS IWtCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
5 Commissioner Merrifield's comments:
- I approve' option 2 with modifications in SECY-99-214. I would remove both the options paper -
- as a central focus of the meetings and the environmental impact scoping aspect from the workshops. The intent of these workshops is to discuss all concems with the potential release
. of formally contaminated solid material in order for the Commission to determine if rulemaking
. is appropriate, and, if appropriate, what should be the scope of the rulemaking. The purpose of the options paper was to provide a starting point for and facilitate discussion. However, the J options paper was not to limit the scope of the meeting. Environmentalist groups have stated that they believe the format of the proposed public workshops predetermines that rulemaking allowing release of materialis necessary and the only question really is the scope of the effort.
Therefore, they have refused to take part in the meetings. I do not believe it was the staff's intent to use the options paper in this manner; but if there is an incorrect public perception of the staff's intent, we should correct the situation. Option 2 would establish a meeting agenda somewhat independent of the options paper but, at the same time, recognize the existence of the options paper. I clearly support all options being discussed as input by all stakeholders, including the environmentalist groups, is important before the Commission makes a final decision.
! I was initially inclined to support option 3 but now believe option 3 may cause an unacceptable
[ delay. This is an issue of national significance which needs to be resolved one way or another l- in a timely manner. It would be best to resolve the issues with inputs from all stakeholders in l open and frank discussions. We should make a good faith effort to get all stakeholders to l participate and thoughtfully consider all input in reaching a final decision. However, we cannot l indefinitely delay addressing the problem because selected stakeholders will not attend l meetings. Therefore, I support option 2 because it will maintain the program on a reasonable schedule.
I commend the staff for bringing this issue to the Commission's attention. This particular staff effort is an important issue which is and will remain fairly controversial. Therefore, the staff should continue to keep the Commission informed of any significant development and request guidance when necessary.
f
'9 #
/ 4,3 UNITED STATES f , NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g g WASHINGTON,0.C. 20555-0001 September 20, 1999 SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO: William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations FROM: Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary (
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-99-214 - OPTIONS FOR PROCEEDING WITH NRC'S EFFORTS REGARDING THE RELEASE OF SOLID MATER lALS The Commission has approved option 1 of SECY-99-214, directing the staff to proceed with the enhanced participatory rulemaking plan and schedule already established, supplemented with l the following guidance.
l The Executive Director for Operations (EDO) shall keep the Commissioners fully and currently l informed of the status and progress of the enhanced participatory rulemaking process, especially of interactions.with stakeholders Under the supervision of the EDO, the Deputy l Executive Director for Operations for Materials, Research, and State Programs (DEDMRS) will l have direct oversight over activities related to this sensitive rulemaking process. The DEDMRS
! shall establish direct and frequently used lines of communication with the responsible NMSS management and staff.
In March 2000, concurrent with the staff's submission of the Commission Paper, mentioned in SECY-99-028, on the results of public meetings and the status of the technical analyses, the staff should brief the Commission on stakeholder reactions and concerns, the staffs recommendation on whether to proceed with rulemaking or other staff actions regarding release of solid materials, and the schedule for future staff actions on this effort.
The staff should continue using the current workshops as the scoping process for the draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS), as noted in the June 30,1999, Federal Reaister notice that announced the workshops.
If the Commission decides to proceed with rulemaking on the release of solid materials, after considering the March 2000 Commission Paper and briefing, the staff should plan to issue a preliininary version of the draft GEIS (through the Federal Reaister, the rulemaking web site, and other available means) and hold 1 or 2 stakeholder informational meetings to discuss the preliminary version of the draft GEIS. This will provide stakeholders with the necessary technical information, in advance, similar to the Part 35 revision effort, to allow'for meaningful participation when the draft GEIS is formally issued for comment.
MCOW '
I l
- l l
i cc: Chairman Dicus !
Commissioner Diaz l
! Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield OGC !
I CIO CFO OCA l OlG OPA Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
l I
l r
I-L.