ML20212C653
| ML20212C653 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/23/1999 |
| From: | Travers W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-99-214, SECY-99-214-01, SECY-99-214-R, NUDOCS 9909220063 | |
| Download: ML20212C653 (26) | |
Text
a.. u u.... n......... m.,
./.
2 AELEASED TO THE PDR f
,l f
/77 NZd
- s.,7./,/
^le inkis a
POLICY ISSUE August 23, 1999 (Notation Vote) sycy_,,_214 FOR:
The Commissioners FROM:
William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
OPTIONS FOR PROCEEDING WITH NRC'S EFFORTS REGARDING THE RELEASE OF SOLID MATERIALS PURPOSE:
To inform the Commission of staff interactions with public interest, citizen, and environmental groups and request Commission approval of an altemative approach for proceeding with NRC's efforts for release of solid materials.
1 l
BACKGROUND:
In a memorandum dated July 23,1999, the staff informed the Commission that the first of four facilitated public meetings scheduled to discuss an issues paper on the release of solid materials (clearance) would be postponed. The reason for this was that several key stakeholder groups indicated that the short interval between the publication of the issues Paper in the Federal Reaister (64 FR 35090) on June 30,1999, and the August workshop did not allow adequate preparation and participation. Postponing the first of the four workshops to a later date would allow all stakeholders to adequately prepare for a comprehensive discussion of the issues surrounding the potential release of solid material. Therefore, the enhanced participatory process is planned to begin with the meeting in San Francisco, California, scheduled for September 15-16,1999.
CONTACT: Patricia K. Holahan, NMSS/IMNS (301) 415-8125
.\\
{
j 'k
\\
l 9909220063 990823 "d W - V' PDR SECY 99-214 R PDR
The Commissioners 2
As part of the ongoing convening process for the public meetings, the facilitation team identified a great deal of dissatisfaction and concern among the public interest, citizen, and environmental (hereafter referred to as citizen) organizations about whether the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is open to hearing the full range of perspectives regarding release of low-level radioactive solid materials, in addition, these organizations expressed a strong desire for
{
ensuring: (1) ongoing involvement throughout the decision-making process, and (2) NRC's response to all the issues raised by all stakeholders. As a result, the facilitation team invited the public interest groups to a consultation meeting in which Chairman Dicus and the NRC staff were invited to share NRC's intent, concerns, and opportunities for public interaction.
DISCUSSION:
The consultation meeting with the citizen groups was held on August 5,1999. Although a number of the invitees did not participate (for rationale, see e-mail dated July 29,1999 (Attachment 1)], three did attend this meeting: (1) Dr. Judith Johnsrud of the Environmental
)
Coalition of Nuclear Power, Sierra Club; (2) Mr. Ray Shadis of the Friends of the Coast Opposing Nuclear Pollution; and (3) Mr. Michael Veiluva of the Westem States Legal Foundation (by phone). Mr. Shadis submitted a written statement (Attachment 2). The attendees raised a number of issues and concerns to the Chairman, the NRC staff, and the facilitation team -- which are summarized in Attachment 3. They indicated that citizen organizations were still not going to participate in the facilitated public meetings.
As a result of this meeting, interactions with other stakeholders, and coordination with the facilitation team, a number of options for proceeding (Attachment 4) have been developed.
Option 1 would continue the process described in the issues Paper (i.e., conduct workshops currently scheduled for September to November 1999 using the issues. Paper as the basis for discussion). Option 2 would continue the currently scheduled workshops but would modify the approach and agenda to include a fuller discussion of the scope of the issue and alternatives.
Option 3 would modify the process by not using the issues Paper as the basis for the workshops. Direct interaction with stakeholders would be the basis for developing a stakeholder process and meeting agenda. Option 4 would discontinue Commission-directed activities at this time, cancel scheduled workshops, and re-focus on developing more technical information.
The staff believes that Option 3 would provide the best opportunity to get maximum input from all interests, while still continuing to address solid materials issues. In this option, NRC would alter the current structure, agenda, and schedule for the public meetings and interact with all stakeholders to obtain perspectives about the nature, extent, and implications of the solid materials issue. This would include clarifying that all options would be considered in the decision-making process and solicit input on other related issues.
RESOURCES:
Resources to proceed witn any of the options are currently budgeted.
f
The Commissioners 3
QQQRDINATION:
The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection to the proposed recommendation.
The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed the Commission paper for resource implications and has no objections.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Commission:
1.
Aporove the recommended Option 3 as described above.
2.
NOTE:
Note the dates for the San Francisco meeting are September 15-16,1999. Because of the lead time necessary to provide appropriate public notice and conduct logistical
)
arrangements for such meetings, either under Options 1 or 2 or possibly 3, the staff requests receiving the earliest possible notice from the Commission regarding any direction for schedule or conduct of the meetings.
t
&*TT U^
A William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations Attachments:
- 1. E-mail dtd July 29,1999
- 2. Written Statement from RShadis
- 3. Summary of Consultation Meeting August 5,1999
- 4. Facilitation Team Report Commissioners' completed vote sheets / comments should be provided directly to the office of the Secretary by COB J
Thursday, August 26, 1999.
Commission Staff Office Comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT August, 25 1999, with any information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
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
.J
9 1
i ATTACHMENT 1
~
l From:
" Barbara Stinson" <bstinson@merid.org>
To:
" Patricia Holahan" <PKH @nre. gov >, " Donald Cool" <D...
Date:
Tue, Aug 3,1999 4:13 PM
Subject:
~ FW: Aug. 5 Consultation Meeting
---Original Message--
From: Diane D'Arrigo [mailto:disned@ ige.org)
Sent: Friday, July 30,1999 5:24 PM To: bstinson@merid.org; miesnick@merid.org; Chip Cameron Cc: dadelman @ nrdc.org; wsif @ earthlink. net; dianed @ nirs.org; johnsrud @csrlink. net; can @shaynet.com; neis @ forward. net; diochbaum @ ucsusa.org; pmorman @ elpc.org; whauter@ citizen.org; velluvawstf@earthlink. net
Subject:
Re: Aug. 5 Consultation Meeting July 29,1999
Dear Ms. Stinson,
Mr. Lesnick, Mr. Cameron:
We cannot participate in the August 5 meeting or any meeting that supports the free release and recycling of radioactive materials and waste. We will not participate in any meeting for which there is no clear, acceptable goal and agenda in advance (at which point three weeks notice must given to the parties).
The Nuclear Regulatory # ommission should be regulating and isolating radioactive materials and wastes from the environment and the public, not legalizing radioactive releases into the marketplace, consumer products, and the environment.
Our response to the proposed rule on radioactive releases is NO, do not release radioactive waste from regulation; isolate it from the marketplace and the environment.
If you want public involvement, it must be on regulating and isolating radioactive wastes and recapturing those which have already been released.
The societal goalis to prevent releases of radioactivity and unnecessary exposures, not to facilitate them.
Sincerely, Citizens Awareness Network-Debby Katz Env'tal Coalition on Nuclear Power, Sierra Club-Dr. Judith Johnsrud Environmental Law and Policy Center-Peter Morman Georgians Against Nuclear Energy-Glenn Carroll Natural Resources Defense Council-David Adelman Nuclear Energy information Service-David Kraft
Nuclear information and Resource Service-Diane D'Arrigo Physicians for Social Responsibility-Dr. Robert Gould Public Citizen-Wenonah Hauter Union of Concemed Scientists-David Lochbaum
' Westem States Legal Foundation-Mike Veiluva, Jackie Cabbasso cc: NRC Commission Chair Greta Dicus Tutti Tischler wrote:
--> I rent this out via fax last week and wanted to make sure everyone got it.
~
> As a reminder, responses are due by Wednesday, July 28,1999.
> MEMORANDUM To:
Invitees to'NRC Consultation Meeting
> From:
Barbara Stinson and Mike Lesnick
Subject:
' August 5th Consulting Meeting
> Date:
4
. July 23,1999
. > As discussed this week and last, we are rescheduling the NRC consultation
> meeting. NRC would like to invite public interest, citizen and
> environmental organizations who are interested in discussing relevant issues
> to a face-to-face meeting with the NRC staff responsible for the Solid
> Material Release Rulemaking on Thursday, August 5,1999, from 9:00 a.m. -
> Noon. The meeting will follow the guidelines mentioned in Meridian's last
~ fax of July 16 postponing the first consultation meeting. Please complete
> the attached response form as to whether or not you will attend, and if you
> need travel support. Travel support is available on an as needed basis;
> travel support guidelines are available from Tutti Tischler by calling
> 970-513-8340 x252. Travel arrangements can be made through Meridian's
> travel agent upon receipt of Response Forms. Please fax back your
> information, if you require hotel accommodations.
> We would appreciate speaking with each of you over the next week to
> establish an agenda that will make best use of everyone's time. Mike and
> Barbara can be reached according to the following schedule:
> 7 Monday-Tuesday: Barbara in the Colorado office at 970-513-8340 x203.
> Mike is on travel.
> 7 Wednesday: Mike and Barbara are on travel, but messages can be left at
- > their respective offices.
- > 7 Thursday: Mike can be reached at his office at 615-353-0854. Barbara is
> on travel.
> 7 Friday: Mike and Barbara in their respective offices.
> We look forward to talking with you further, Meridian institute Response Form NRC Consultation Meeting - August 5,1999 in Rockville, MD
> Please fill out the following response form and retum it to Tutti.
Tischler -
> via facsimile'970-513-8348 or via email <ttischler@merid.org> by
^
' Wednesday,
> July 28,1999.
> Meeting Date: Thursday, August 5,1999
> Name:
Yes, I will be attending the August 5th Meeting.
No, I will be unable to attend the August 5th Meeting.
Yes, I will need support for my travel.
i
O ATTACHMENT 2
)
l i
=
~
)
l FRIENDS OF THE COAST
~
OPPOSING NUCLEAR POLLl] TION Post Office Box 98. Edgecomb. Maine 04556 207-882-6000 EXCERPTS FROM ALBERT SCHWEITZER'S STATEMENT OF APRIL 23,1957 "I raise my voice, together with those of others who have lately felt it their duty to act, in speaking and writing, as wamers of the danger. My age and the sympathy that I have gained for myself through advocating the idea of reverence for life, permit me to hope that my appeal may contribute to preparing the way for insight so urgently needed...
That radioactive elements created by us are found in nature is an astounding event in the history of the earth. And of the human race.
To fail to. consider its importance and its consequences would be a folly for which humanity would have to pay a terrible price.
Excenned kom CLOUDS FRoM NEVADA - a special report on the AEC Weapons Tentmg Program by PaulJacobs and incbudedin HEALTH EFFECTS of LOW-LEVEL RADIA TION-Proceedangs of the 1979 Congressional
- Kennedy" Hoenngs on the eNects of weapons fenout in Utah and eisewhere - SerialNo.96 - 41 August 5,1999 USNRC Chairman Greta Dieus NRC Staff NRC Consultation Meeting Rockville, MD.
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT Chairman Dicus, NRC Staff Members, Members of the Public in Attendance, Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you this morning. My name is Raymond Shadis. I am a resident of Edgecomb, Maine. I am a founding member in 1980 of the Maine Nuclear Referendum Committee and a founding member in 1995 ofFriends of the Coast-Oooosinn Nuclear Pollution. From 1982 until January 1998, I served as a trustee of the New Ennhnd Coalition on Nuclear Pollution. I presently serve as a staff person for the New England Coalition and as a spokesman for Friends of the Coast. I also serve on Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company's Community Advisory Panel on Decommissionine.
I would like, for the record, to state my understanding of the nature of this meeting and my reasons for participating.
)
n
)
l Fri:nds of the Coast-NRC Consultation Meeting - August 5,1999-Rockville, MD.
2 f
As you know, participation in this meeting with " NRC staff responsible for the Solid Material Release Rulemaking"' has been rejected on principle by the entirety of the public interest and environmental advocacy community initially identiRed by NRC and j
invited. Their reasons for rejecting the invitation are clearly stated in an e-mail letter to j
Ms.Stinson, Mr. Lesnick (ofMeridian Institute) and Mr. Cameron USNRC, dated July 29,1999.2
)
At the risk ofclaborating on the obvious, I will tell you many in the community believe
.that this meeting, like so many other similar meetings in the past, is intended to pave the way for a regulatory initiative already charged with momentum and seeking only some plausible justification for a predetermined goal. So many, if not all such initiatives in the past decade, have had one unifying theme. That theme appears to be to make life easier
- for the nuclear industry even at the cost of decreased safety margins and increased nuclear pollution.
Informed by twenty years of experience in NRC proceedings, I do not wholly disagree with that perception. For example, to say, as NRC does, that fire barriers which are inflammable are as safe as those which are fire proof, does not pass the straight-face test.
To offer that radiological site release criteria slackened over staffrecommendations reflect the rulemaking input of the "public" strains credulity. Time and again, it appears common-sense input is ignored, put away, or thwarted and rarely on the side of engineering conservation, caution, or environmental stewardship.
In my own experience, upper echelon spokesmen for the NRC have, time and again, out ofignorance or malice, made promises to the public regarding NRC process that have no bearing in truth or reality. A transcribed recording of a presentation made by Dr. Carl J.
Paperiello, Director of the Office ofNuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards to an audience in Wiscasset, Maine on July 20,1999 has the following regarding final site release:
l 1
The public has hearing rights, they can demand a full adjudicatory hearing over whether or not the licensee meets that limit...If you, the public, disagree that they meet the limit, all you have to do is send a letter, " We want a hearing...." You don't have to hire an attorney.
You may wish to. Many people do. We provide the hearing board.
As a staff member of an organization which had to spend upwards of $30.000 just to gain intervenor standing in the Yankee Rowe License Termination Plan, I could not rank NRC's representation on the ease of getting a hearing very high in truth or candor.
' Meridian Institute memorandum to invitees to NRC Consultation Meeting from Barbara Stinson and Mike Lesnick, July 30,1999.'
2 Copy and Response ( July 30,1999) attached. With concurrence from Mr. Cameron, I assume the conditions of this response as a good faith contract from NRC regarding the conduct and utilization of this process.
l
r Friends of the Coast-NRC Consultation Meeting - August 5,1999-Rockville, MD.
3 However, notwithstanding the above reservations and examples, I believe it better to converse than not converse. Mr. Chip Cameron of the NRC has assured me that the conduct and utilization of this meeting will not support my singular wariness or the suspicions I share with those advocates refusing to participate. If any one from NRC cannot give that same assurance I would appreciate their qualifying statements at this point. (pause).
Thank You. This much should also be obvious. What I,or other attendees, may have to
, say in this meeting cannot be weighed against the eloquent silence of those who refinsed to participate.
' That said, I propose we adopt the following topics for discussion:
- 1. Reduction or cessation of the solid waste stream now flowing into the open environment.
- 2. Recapture and isolation of material previously released to the environment.
- 3. Rejection of any additional schemes (over and above the fuel cycle) which propose trading revenue for dose (at any ratio).
- 4. Regulatory goals (and potentially, standards) which limit or reduce the total curie count ofreactor-derived radionuclides released to the biosphere without respect to concentrations.
- 5. ' Materials with detectable levels ofreactor-derived radionuclides must be isolated and consigned to appropriate waste storage facilities.
- 6. Bringing NRC's radiological site release criteria into line with EPA guidance.
- 7. Consideration of the impact ofreactor derived radionuclides on the entire biosphere (for its own sake).
8.
Adoption of an overall operating philosophy that less man-made radio-pollution is tter than more man-made radio-pollution. Understanding that once materials are e
free-released, no accurate system exists for tracking total individual exposure or total effects. Risk, in many cases, can no longer be quantified.
- 9. Dropping the "either, or," approach to impacts. Does assuming "we," the nuclear industry" impacts the environment or somebody else does, assume NRC has options for industries it does not regulate, or that other industries (under their appropriate regulators) cannot be made to run cleaner? Must NRC admit that free-released radioactive material, evaluated on its own, has no attached societal benefit?
On behalf of Friends of the Coast and th'e New England Coalition, I am now prepared to hear how the staff proposes to address these topics.
I thank you for your attention.
No Recipient, Fwd: Re: [ Fwd: Aug. 5 Consulta To:
From: Raymond Shadis <shadis@ime. net >
Subject Fwd: Re:[ Fwd: Aug. 5 Consultation Meeting]
Cc:
Bec:
l Attached:
l
>> July 29,1999
Dear Ms. Stinson,
Mr. Lesnick, Mr. Cameron I
>>We cannot participate in the August 5 meeting or any meeting that
>> supports the free release and recycling of radbactive materials and
>> waste. We will not participate in any meeting for which there is no
{
>> clear, accopiatile goal arm:1 agenda in advance (at which point three weeks
>> notice must given to the parties).
>>The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be regulating and isolating
>> radioactive materials and wastes from the environment and the public,
>>not legalizing radioactive releases into the marketplace, consumer
>> products, and the environment.
>>Our response to the proposed rule on radioactive releases is NO, do not
>> release radioactive waste from regulation; isolate it from the
>> marketplace and the environment.
>>lf you want public involvement, it must be on regulating and isolating
>> radioactive wastes and recapturing those which have already been
>> released.
>>The societal goal is to prevent releases of radioactivity and
>> unnecessary exposures, not to facilitate them
>> Sincerely,
>> Citizens Awareness Network-Debby Katz
>>Env'tal Coalition on Nuclear Power, Sierra Club-Dr. Judith Johnsrud
>> Environmental Law and Policy Center-Peter Morman
>> Georgians Against Nuclear Energy-Glenn Carroll
>> Natural Resources Defense Council-David Adelman j
>> Nuclear Energy Information Service-David Kraft
>> Nuclear information and Resource Service-Diane D'Arngo
' >> Physicians for Social Responsibility-Dr. Robert Gould
>>Public Citizen-Wenonah Hauter
>> Union of Concerned Scientists-David Lochbaum I
Printed for Raymond Shadis <shadis@ime. net >
1 l
4 i
JUL.30.1999 3:49PM tERIDlAN NO.883 P.3/3
Dear Folks,
Thank you for your email yesterday regarding the August 5 meeting. We have to admit to being a little surprised - largely because the August 5 meeting's goal is to pluvide an opportunity for a direct, face to face discussion with NRC staff on the issues you have raised. That is, your concem that the agency should be regulating and isolating radioactive material and wastes from the environment and the public, to recapture past releases and to prevent future releases of radioactivity and unnecessary exposures. It seemed to us that a short session where the NRC staff and you could talk directly about your topic could be a productive action.
It is our understanding that the NRC staff have been asked to evaluate whether there should be some type of rulemaking in the future (if at all), and, if there is to be a rulemaking, to solicit input as to what attematives and analysis should be considered. A regulation could potentially, directly, address the issues you are concemed about such that they could bc codified in a regulation, but pmcedurally, someone necds to publicly advocate for this position. We saw this meeting as an opportunity for a direct conversation between you and the NRC staff about this at a substantive as well as procedurallevel with no strings attached.
We apologize if our email and fax communications were not as clear as they needed to be, but we genuinely believe what you are suggesting is what was to be discussed in the meeting on August 5. The intent was to meet the request we have heard based on the conversations with you to date. We hope the mccting can go forward as plaimed.
Michael Lesnick, Meridian Institute Barbara Stinson, Meridian Institute Chip Cameron, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
9 e
ATTACHMENT 3
Brief Summary of Feedback from Consultation Meeting on NRC's Effort for Release of Solid Materials The following provides a brief summary of a consultation meeting held with the citizens, public interest, and environmental (public interest) organizations. This meeting was one of a number of meetings and communications with many stakeholder groups that have been conducted by the facilitation team in the last two months.
Backaround
. At the consultation meeting held 8/5/99, several public interest groups expressed their a.
concems about release issues and the ongoing enhanced participatory proce'ss:
O Commission should allow no releases of material from nuclear power facilities.
O in addition, Commission should be considering recapture of (look for, find, and recover regulatory control of) previously released or abandoned material.
O
. With the NRC mission of adequately protecting human health and the environment, NRC should be attempting to regain control of material and reduce the risk of additional exposures, not look for ways to further introduce contaminated materials into commerce.
O Issues Paper (published in FR 6/30/99) appears to reflect a momentum towards allowing further releases into the environment. It should be set aside and a revised paper should be pursued.
O Commission should consider the apparent shift of the intemational community towards greater protection (non-fatal and non-cancer low dose health effects; consideration of entire biosystem; additive impacts of radiation and other environmental contaminants). In particular, it was suggested that a number of papers presented at the Second Intemational Symposium on Ionizing Radiation in Ottawa, Canada (May 10-14,1999) provided some new perspectives regarding environmental protection approaches for nuclear facilities.
O Citizen groups do not have sufficient resources for or access to medical, biological, and genetic expertise on health effects and other components of the ecosystem to allow them to participate in discussions on these issues.
O' NRC's provision of information and access to web-based information is inadequate and not user friendly.
O Participation in a previous series of workshops for the NRC's license termination (decommissioning) rule was not beneficial to the citizen groups because the final Decommissioning Criteria rulemaking did not at all address their concerns.
O' Timeline for meetings and workshop activities have provided inadequate notice for citizen group's to prepare for participation in this series of workshops.
1 Recommendations of public interest groups:
O NRC should clarify th'at its primary concern on this issue is with protecting public health, safety and the environment.
O NRC should clearly demonstrate interest in citizen group's concerns and: 1) step back from the current Workshop purpose,2) allow parties to participate in clearly defining the r 'id materials problem, and 3) solicit potential solutions without the presumptic- ' 2 rulemaking.
O NRC should step back from the current schedule of workshops to allow for development of an appropriate process and full participation in addressing these issues.
O NRC should withdraw the issues Paper and alter the Commission's June 30, 1998, direction to the staff so that it is clear there are no presumptions about managing the solid materials issues. NRC should expand the issues Paper to include alternatives on recapture and, in addition, should reevaluate the air and liquid releaso limits in Part 20.
O Reg Guide 1.86 is considered to be ' antiquated' as a basis for adequately protecting human health, safety and the environment. NRC needs to review the basic assumptions of radiation protection and establish a new baseline.
O NRC should conduct meetings with the public interest community to design the best approaches to providing public access to information on site-specific and other activities, u
blRC should form an Office of Public Advocacy to serve the public's needs.
'e i
i e
ATTACHMENT 4
9..
/lH! :_
Meridian Institute
[h(!{ Z Connecting PeopleTo Solve Problems
' Q ;;
7 Options Analysis Related to Solid Materials Workshops Draft Document - Not for Attribution 8/11/99
- 1. Introduction This paper is intended to accompany an NRC staff memo to the Commissioners summarizing the feedback NRC staff have received directly from citizen and public i
interest organizations via written communications, and an August 5,1999 consultation meeting regarding the Solid Materials issue and the proposed Enhanced Participatory Workshops. This paper is meant to provide additional background about the current context and climate regarding the Solid Materials issue, and to outline a range of options with recommendations. Recommendations are based on Meridian Institute's consultations and interviews with a cross-section of stakeholders including: citizen and public interest organizations. various licensees, agreement states, state environmental regulators, labor unions, other affected industries, other federal agencies, local public and private sector solid waste managers, tribes, researchers, and others. Given the focus of the NRC staff summary of the August 5 meeting, this paper focuses almost exclusively on the issues raised by citizen and public interest organizations. Meridian draws upon consultations with other stakeholders to evaluate options, where appropriate.
Overall, it is Meridian Institute's intent to provide the Commissioners a recommended approach that: recognizes the Commission's obligation to carry out its statutory requirement of protecting public health, safety. and the environment; gathers the information necessary for the Commission to address this issue in a credible and timely manner; and, allows the Commission to carry out that mission with a decision credible to the broadest range of stakeholders possible. The facilitation team recognizes that this analysis of potential public involvement approaches is above and beyond the requirement of NRC to provide a notice and comment process in a formal rulemaking procedure.
- 11. Framine the Current Context The NRC staff paper reflects on the staffs' impressions of key requests made by citizen organizations regarding the substantive issues and public involvement process associated with the Solid Materials Workshops. It is useful that the document is accompanied by direct written communications from citizen organizations themselves so that key issues 1
are articulated directly, and are not interpreted either by NRC staff or Meridian Institute -
' the organizations speak for themselves.
However, in order to assist the NRC staff and Commissioners in evaluating next steps,
- Meridian is providing its sense of some of the issues of the cunent dynamic with citizen and public interest groups. Please note that what follows is our impression based on what
. individuals 1 ave communicated to us directly. This paper is not meant to replace the important diaet communications offered by the citizen and public interest community.
. A. Recent History Contributing to the Current Context
- 1. Historical Procedural Concerns The interviews and assessment conducted by Meridian Institute's neutral facilitation staff focused directly on the issue of the solid materials problem, and the Enhanced Participatory Workshops proposed in the federal register (64 FR 35090) on June 30,1999 (Federal Register Notice - FRN). However, perceptions about the agency's public involvement activities over the last several years have impacted stakeholders' views about both of these, especially for the citizen and public interest organizations. We will report on some of our findings on the procedural concems.
Several stakeholders (across diverse interests) pointed out that the NRC has begun, on a selected basis, to initiate more innovative approaches for: sharing information with interested parties using electronic and other methods of distributing information; convening meetings or workshops with stakeholders on specialized topics; and establishing procedures for ongoing involvement by stakeholders throughout the NRC decision-making. In addition, several stakeholders noted that selected NRC staff and -
Commissioners have begun to establish ongoing working relationships across aJ1 stakeholder groups which has somewhat increased communication and the level of trust.
However, many of those who mentioned these recent, positive developments, also pointed out that the application of these approaches, while very welcome, are not yet typical. Therefore, this higher quality ofinteraction, involvement, and relationship building is inconsistent through NRC. In addition, several stakeholders (again, across diverse interest perspectives) pointed out that there is a special challenge stakeholders face _given the relationship between the staff and Commission. Specifically, people expect that the substantive input, time and energy they spend, in good faith, participating in staff-sponsored, public involvement processes will be taken into account in eventual Commission decisions - the final decisions.
The themes noted above provide an important backdrop to the poignant procedural problem currently impacting the solid materials issue and involvement process. This problem, noted primarily by citizen and public interest organizations, focuses on the last time the NRC conducted enhanced participatory workshops. These took place in 1993 on the Site Clean-Up Criteria Rulemaking. Many citizen and public interest organizations 2
indicated that they participated actively and in good faith in those seven intensive workshops, held early in the decision-making process. They reflect, however, that, from their perspective, their participation did not lead to further involvement, or to tangible evidence that the issues they raised were taken into account in the period following the issuance of the proposed rule. Ser al citizen and public interest organizations pointed out that while they welcomed being. nvolved early in the decision-making process, many ended up feeling frustrated and disr.ppointed that they were not involved in or informed adequately about NRC's progress daring the following three years. Most that we talked to stated their belief that their perspective appeared to be ignored by the staff and Commission when the decision on the final rule was reached. The twenty or so organizations we intersiewed indicated that they were dramatically disappointed with the final rulemakinj; outcome. Many citizen representatives pointedly stated that while they recognize that involvement does not necessarily have to equal adopting all of one interest groups' ideas as stated, there must be some acknowledgement that the issues were heard, and if not used, at least noted with some explanation as to why. Otherwise, participation becomes meaningless, with no tangible link to the issues of concern (which is the reason stakeholders contribute their time to participation).
- 2. Historical Substantive Concems The release of solid materials issue is an extremely sensitive issue in the citizen and public interest group community. It is perhaps one of the most sensitive radiation protection issues as witnessed by the public reaction to the NRC's Below Regulatory Concern policy initiative. Citizen and public interest organization representatives contacted during the convening process almost universally began each conversation expressing a desire that the NRC needs to do all it can to protect human health and the environment, and that this implies eliminating release of and containing radioactivity.
Often, this led to discussion of the below regulatory concern (BRC) policy of the late 1980's and related issues. This reference point appears to influence how many of those from the citizen and public interest organization community perceive the current problem of solid materials management. That is, representatives of the citizen and public interest community believe that the NRC is predisposed to addressing this issue by allowing the increased release of materials which is largely driven by licensee cost considerations.
They believe that consideration of other altematives, particularly those relating to containment and recapture, will not receive due consideration.
The NRC staff memo and the direct communications from citizen and public interest organizations already outline the key substantive concerns for these groups. However, it is important to note that during the Meridian convening process, the facilitators consistently heard from citizen and public interest representatives that they believe that the actions taken since the late 1980's have consistently shown a strong tendency toward release of material. It is their perception that any other viewpoints and actions (e.g., no release approaches) have not been taken as seriously, as is necessary in decision-making on these matters. Several of those contacted in the citizen and public interest community 3
have indicated that given this tendency, there is a strong sense that the agency will again be predisposed to addressing the solid material issue in a similar fashion.
B. Recent Actions on the Solid Materials Issue and Proposed Workshops There are several dimensions to current perceptions of citizen and public interest organizations about the " launch" of the Solid Materials initiative and the assessment of whether they should participate or not. The perceptions are a mix of substantive and procedural observations, and the current marginal trust and relationships affect people's perceptions of the NRC's intent. Citizen and public interest group representatives have indicated to Meridian Institute and NRC staff that they believe that the NRC has already determined that a dose-based rule (at an anticipated unacceptable level) will be developed
- as a consequence of the current agency process. This perception is associated with three factors: 1) the June 30,1998 Staff Requirements Memo; 2) the Issues Paper published in
- the Federal Renister (FRN) on June 30,1999 (64 FR 35090) and 3) the title, timing, and framing of the Enhanced Participatory Workshops outlined in the June 30,1999 FRN.
Those we have communicated with in the citizen and public interest community (and selected others from other interest perspectives) perceive that the June 30,1998 SRM to i
staff commits the agency and staff to a pre-judgement that there will be an NRC rple-making on this issue, and that the staffis directed to pursue approaches that allow for increased releases oflow-level materials. Intended or not, the June 30,1998 SRM signaled to the public interest and citizen organizations that the agency would not be open to a full discussion from all interests about the nature of the solid materials problem, nor of the full range of potential solutions. For the citizen and public interest community, the solutions that require careful consideration are associated with the primacy of human
' health and the environment, and the need to restrict release, closely regulate contaminated materials, and to re-capture materials wherever possible. These concems are more adequately outlined in communications from citizen organizations and are summarized in the staff memo.
The FRN outlined in some detail the NRC staffs perceptions about the nature, extent, and implications of the problem, and the associated challenges and options for addressing the problem. Many in the citizen and public interest community (as well as other
~ stakeholders) have indicated that while this may be the staffs analysis and understanding of the problem and potential solutions, it is not as complete a treatment of problems and
- potential solutions as it could be. Also, the FRN announces a series of workshops for the staff to engage with stakeholders that were scheduled to begin five weeks from the time ofpublication.
Based on feedback Meridian Institute and NRC staff received, the issues paper is perceived by those in the citizen and public interest community as a biased analysis on potential solutions to solving the solid materials problems, including whether or not a rule 4
F
.r should be developed even though it includes a prohibition option. The issues paper is not believed by these stakeholders to have given the full range of alternative solutions fair and equitable treatment.
In addition to the sub'stantive questions raised by the FRN, the workshops announced in the June 30,' 1999 FRN resulted in concerns within the citizen and public interest community. For example, the title (i.e., Enhanced Participatory Workshops) caused many to question the value of becoming involved, given the experience with the last Enhanced Participatory Workshop process of the site clean-up rule which offered early, but not ongoing involvement. The compressed timeline to prepare for the first workshop 3
(i.e., five weeks), as well as the time in between each of the four workshops (i.e.,2-4
]
' weeks), was viewed as offering limited time for citizen and public interest organizations, as well as selected other stakeholders (e.g., public and private sector solid waste landfill operators, tribes, state environmental regulators) to adequately participate.
Representatives have suggested that they need more time to better understand and reflect i
upon the nature of the problem and potential solutions or they face the prospect of participating without adequate ability to interact in a complicated and important discussion. Finally, the FRN indicated that the workshops would be considered part of the NEPA " scoping" process associated with federal rule-making activities. This action suggests to stakeholders that a rulemaking is a forgone conclusion. In general, the proposed process tends to exacerbate the citizen and public interest organizations' perception of the Commission's predisposed intent to allow the greater release of materials.
At the time of this summary, August 11,1999, the citizen and public interest community has clearly signaled that the combination of the above discussed factors leads them to a decision to avoid participation in the NRC's currently configured and timed workshops.
]
Options for Consideration
~
Given these observations, a number of altemative actions have been developed for consideration by the NRC. These options have been structured to be distinct and to provide a basis for proceeding in different directions.
- 1) No Action - Continue the Enhanced Participatory Workshops as currently timed and structured. This option indicates that the Commission intends to proceed based on the June 30,1998 SRM and the issues paper in SECY-99-098 and will accept
- participation in the scheduled workshops as stakeholders see fit. This approach indicates no need to respond to requests for more time for preparation nor does it indicate a need to clarify or address the perception of pre-judgement.
O -
Conduct first Enhanced Participatory Workshop, in San Francisco 9/15-16/99, and continue with schedule for three additional workshops O
Agenda for Enhanced Workshops would remain unchanged O
Workshops would include scoping process for GEIS 5
)
O No changes to issues paper (June 30,1999 FRN) or June 30,1998 SRM O
Could continue development of technical information O
Almost a certainty that public interest organizations will not participate given the range of problems outlined earlier regarding timing, perceptions regarding the agenda and focus of the workshops, and perceptions regarding the SRM and FRN indicating pre-judgement O
Several other interest groups may choose not to participate due to inadequate preparation time and potential lack of public interest involvement
- 2) Modify Meeting Agenda - Continue the current schedule of the four public meetings with a modified approach and agenda. This option addresses some of the problems outlined earlier in this paper. It does not address the problems with timing or the GEIS Scoping. It does address some of the problems associated with the June 30,1998 SRM, and attempts to address some of the perceptions that a rulemaking and release of materials are a forgone conclusion. It provides for alterations to the workshop approach and agenda to inch'Je a full discussion on the scope of the problem and equal treatment of all alternatives.
O Continue with scheduled public meetings in San Francisco 9/15-16/99 and the subsequent, scheduled meetings as well as the current project schedule O
Alter meeting agenda to allow for discussion of scope of problem and potential solutions (to include recapture), in addition to discussion of the issues paper (June 30,1999 FRN)
O Issue Commission clarification that the intent of the June 30,1998 SRM was to consider all alternatives, as noted by Commission approval of 1
issues paper (SRM dated June 15,1999)
O Could continue development of technical information O
Some interests likely to still have problems with timing and adequate l
preparation time O
Unlikely public interest groups will participate since the timing issues remain, as will perception that overall intent of Commission has not changed (only the agenda for one meeting or set of meetings)
- 3) Modify Process - The issues paper contained in the FRN, which represents the NRC staff's perception of the problem and range of solutions, would no longer serve as the basis for stakeholder meetings. Direct interaction with stakeholders would be the basis for development of a stakeholder process and meeting agenda which would enable NRC staff to hear from a wide range ofinterest groups about the nature, extent, and implications of the solid materials management problem and potential strategies to address those problems (including no release and recapture).
This approach does not preclude use and availsbility of the issues paper as a resource document for discussions for anyone who to use. This approach invites a more robust discussion and interaction about the problem and potential solutions than currently envisioned in the Enhanced Participatory Workshops and the issues 6
paper. It also directly clarifies the Commission's openness to hearing about a wide range of solutions to addressing the Solid Materials issue, as well as Commission flexibility on the timing of an appropriate stakeholder process.
O NRC staff continue to report to the Commission in spring of 2000 about the solid materials problem, potential solutions, and insight as to potential strategies to address the issue O
Requires revision of the stakeholder involvement process O
Facilitation Team and NRC staff, would continue consultations with interest groups to build communication, and discuss scope of problem, issues to be addressed, and appropriate stakeholder process O
Commission affirms new direction to staff to broadly examine the solid materials issues and clarify the Commission's intent that all alternatives, including prohibition of future releases and recapture, should be considered. Implicit in this option is that new staff direction would supercede the status of the June 30,1998 SRM O
Current issues paper is not the basis for stakeholder meetings, but is available as a resource and represents NRC staffs preliminary analysis of the problem and possible approaches to address the problem O
Could continue development of technical information O
Most likely option for obtaining participation of all interest groups in the stakeholder process, potentially resulting in most comprehensive input into Commission decision
- 4) Discontinue Commission-Directed Activities at this Time - Cancel staff direction to assess the nature of the problem of solid materials and the possible approaches to addressing the problem. Withdraw the request for staff to evaluate the advisability of proceeding with a potential rule on the Solid Materials issue.
Cancel all proposed stakeholder activities and re-focus on developing more technicalinformation.
O Continue development of technical information O
Rescind June 30,1998 SRM and issues paper (June 15,1999 SRM)
O Announce cancellation of Enhanced Participatory Workshops O
Work with EPA on development of a standard Facilitators' Evaluation and Recommendations Option #1 continues all activities as planned and stated in writing. This option does not call for any changes in the existing documentation and relies on the existing SRM and issues paper to show that the NRC is examining all alternatives. It does not address the timing or preparation issues, nor does it address the perception of pre-judgement by the Commission on this sensitive topic. It is Meridian's sense that this option is likely to be perceived by many stakeholders as unresponsive to the questions and concerns expressed 7
y to date, particularly those from the citizen and public interest organization community.
L
~ Participation from a broad range of stakeholders in the NRC-sponsored workshops would be highly unlikely. A surprisingly diverse set of interests have indicated that they believe it is not in the NRC's, nor in their own interest, to participate in workshops that do not have participation by all major stakeholders. If critical stakeholders are not
. involved in the consultation process, important information will be missing and the credibility of the process, and potentially the Commission's eventual decision, could be suspect.; This could indirectly impact the credibility of other Commission efforts as well.
' Optid#2 addiesses some of the procedural concerns raised by stakeholders by providing for some modification to the purpose of the discussions and the meeting agenda. It ignores the definitive concem that state environmental regulators, local solid waste managers, Tribes, union representatives and citizen and public interest groups have expressed that there is inadequate preparation time for workshops. Proceeding with the schedule of activities, but modifying the agenda, would probably gain the participation of some of the stakeholders, but probably not, in our opinion, an adequate range of the citizen and public interest community. Option #2 does attempt to demonstrate that all alternatives are under consideration by allowing for a discussion of the problem and potential. solutions to the solid materials issue. It retains the scoping element of the GEIS as well a' the issues paper which are perceived by some stakeholders as pre-judging the s
substance and outcome of the public meetings.
Option #3 might be the most responsive altemative that allows the Commission to receive information it needs in an appropriate and timely fashion. It allows for a period of time for the facilitation team and NRC staff to work with the diverse interests to revise and reframe the workshop approach and agenda to meet the needs ofNRC, as well as the major stakeholders. This option calls for the Commission to affirm a new direction by issuing a staff clarification that would supercede the existing SRM. This option eliminates the GEIS component of the stakeholder process for the time being since it
. would not be appropriate unless the Commission proceeded with development of a rule, j
Thefacilitation team recommends that the Commissionproceed with Option #3. This
- holds the greatest potential for broad participation by diverse interests. It is responsive to requests from many stakeholders for more time so that they can come prepared to discuss this sensitive issue with the NRC staff. Option #3 allows the Commission to directly
- clarify that it welcomes diverse input into its decision-making process and that it has not
. pre-judged its analysis of the problem or solutions. It removes the issues paper as the
- basis for stakeholder meetings, but allows the document to be used as a resource by those
. interested in the topic as they see fit. Finally, Option #3 provides the greatest potential for staff to engage with the widest range of stakeholders and provide robust information to
' the Commission in a timely manner as it decides how best to fulfill its responsibilities regarding this controversial and important topic.
Option #4 discontinues the Commission-directed activities _ outlined in the SRM as well as those discussed in the issues paper. This option cancels all currently scheduled 8
i
stakeholder activities but continues the development of the technical information, as well as the opportunity to seek collaboration with EPA. This approach may frustrate those stakeholders who consider this topic a very sensitive issue and who will request involvement in NRC-related activities in the future.
Conclusion The Commission has asked the staff to develop the information necessary to enable the NRC to address the very sensitive issue of solid materials management. Based on the facilitation tearn's interview and consultation effort, it appears that in order to proceed on this controversial topic in a timely, prudent, and credible manner, the Commission will require technical as _well as stakeholder input. As best we understand, NRC is developing some technical development on this issue. Accumulating the balance ofinformation from diverse interests requires interaction with the broadest range of stakeholders possible who bring important perspective and insight into the nature, the extent, and the various implications of this problem, as well as to the solutions. These include: different types of licensees.who manage the material on a day to day basis; other industries who may be effected positively or negatively by an NRC decision; local, state, tribal, and other federal agencies responsible for radiation, hazardous, and solid waste management; tribal governments; citizens who live near licensees and public interest organizations;, workers and organized labor unions; and others.
Based on the facilitation team's interactions with stakeholders across interests, the Meridian Institute facilitators recommend that the Commission consider modifying the existing schedule and framework in a reasonable way that encourages the maximum potential participation by stakeholders throughout the decisionmaking process. We recommend Option #3 because it clearly indicates that the Commission's intent is to sponsor an unbiased and inclusive substantive discussion of the problem and potential solutions. Given the controversial and complex nature of the issue, the long term credibility of decisions reached on this topic may, at least in part, rest on whether there was a fair and open opportunity to provide input and whether that input received due consideration.
9 9