ML20235Z578
| ML20235Z578 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/16/1987 |
| From: | NRC - HIGH LEVEL WASTE LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM ADVISORY |
| To: | NRC - HIGH LEVEL WASTE LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM ADVISORY |
| References | |
| NACHLWLS, NUDOCS 8710210206 | |
| Download: ML20235Z578 (28) | |
Text
.--
i t
1 1
D: RAFT AGNNDA
- HLW Licensing! Support SystemcAdvisory Committee. Meeting L
September-'16-17, 1987-l l
The. Conservation'Foundati..on D
1250 Twenty-fourth Street, N.W.,
Suite 500.
Washington, D.C.
20037 21 Il 1
=DATE/ TIME ACTIVITY' f
a September'16' l
10:00 - 12:00 Introductions.and Opening Statements 1
Agenda Review
,q j
12:00 - 1:30 Lunch l
.l 1:30 - 5:00 Discuss Organizational Protocols.
September 17 I
'i j
9:30 - 12:00 Complete Organizational Protocols (If;Needed)
Development'offan' Issues.' List
~
12:00 - 1:00 Lunch l
1:00 - 4:30 Plan Agenda for Future' Meetings?
)
Discuss.Information and Training'Needs j
'i Scheduling and Location of Future Meetings' l
i 7
i 8710210206 871015 PDR ADVCM NRCZPDR
=
.,c
= -
t p..
, 4-
~
)
- (
1 LSS -- FRAMEWORK FOR. NEGOTIATIONS
' LSS THRESHOLD ISSUES LSS DOCUMENT ENTRY AND USE LSS ADMINISTRATION, OVERSIGHT.'AND' SECURITY j
LSS DESIGN PARAMETERS i
l 1
' l x
/
1 e
.W
. en fY.,*N',,
'/5 g
e
,g a
ps.,
i LSS THRESHOLD ISSUES WHAT ARE THE. OBJECTIVES FOR'THE.LSS WHAT TYPES OF RULE CHANGES'ARE NEEDED TO'ACCOEf0DATE THE LSS.
"A HOW. DO THE NRC RULEMAKING AND CURRENT DOE LSS EFFORTS RELATE TO ONE ANOTHER.
k l
\\
' l I
l 1
/
i f
l 3
'Y F
b.e g
- f V9 g
2.._
.n.
t.u.'..--.--~
- 4, 1
]
LSS. ENTRY AND USE
- .j WHAT DOCUMENTS'WILL BE ENTERED WHAT INFORMATION WILL BE ENTERED WHAT RULES APPLY TO DOCUMENT GENERATION WHAT RULES APPLY.TO DOCUMENTS PREVIOUSLY GENERATED WHO IS RESPONSIBLE.FOR DOCUMENT ENTRY j
WHAT QA/QC PROCEDURES APPLY TO DOCUMENT ENTRY I
i WHAT.ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR' ACCESS TO THE LSS WHEN WILL LSS BE AVAILABLE FOR ACCESS WHERE WILL LSS ACCESS TERMINALS BE LOCATED j
WHAT WILL ACCESS COST THE USER
-l
)
WHAT HAPPENS IF DOCUMENTS ARE NOT IN THE LSS WHAT HAPPENS IF LSS ENTRY PROCEDURES ARE NOT FOLLOWED
/
h 4
i,-
/;.
'd y
,. i,
i,
s
l
.-j i
y v.
-)
'f
'LSS ADMINI.STRATION,? OVERSIGHT AND' SECURITY
.)
i HOW AND BY WHOM.SHOULD THE'LSS BE ADMINISTERED.
I l-)
.j HOW SHOULD' COMPLIANCE WITH LSS-PROCEDURES BE' MONITORED'AND i
ENFORCED
?:
WHAT MEASURES ARE NECCESSARY FOR LSS SECURITY
,i 4
ia i
I
.l 1
i
-j e,
I y
y.if '
, s y
- +;<
'.',-s~.
. n,~.> + = y:,
l l
j 1
1 4
.l.
1
'LSS DESIGN PARAMETERS
-. c.
. --: _ c -+
SHOULD DOCUMENT ENTRY' PARAMETERS BE SPECIFIED.IN THE RULE ~
SHOULD TYPES OF FULL TEXT SOFTWARE / HARDWARE SYSTEMS:BE SELECTED a
.1 l
l q
6 l
/
l l
'ili
-1 l d's _
nD:Eu..,_.
>,,._sA__,
9
_i_
.7
.M~.'
?
The Conservation FoundMon -
August, 13,~1987 TO:
HLW' Licensing Support System Advisory Committee. Members.
FROM:
Howard Bellman,fTim Mealey and Matt Low
SUBJECT:
-Organizational Meeting p
As noted inLour previous mailing, theforganizational meeting for the "HLW Licensing" Support System Advisory 1 Committee" is scheduled for' September 16-17, 1987.
This memorandum'and the enclosed material arc intended to serve as a special reminder for-this meeting.
The meeting will be held at the offices'of The Conservation Foundation which are located at 1250 Twenty-fourth Street, N.W.,
Suite 500? Washington, D.C.
20037.
The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. on September 16th and end at'4:30'p.m. on September 17th.
For your convenience,-we have also enclosed a list of hotels in the general vicinity of The Conservation Foundation's-offices.
The attached agenda is labeled " preliminary" in order to-give Committee members an opportunity to suggest revisions,:
additions, or deletions before or at the start of each reeting.
For this first organizational meeting, we suggest that it begin with introductions and'brief opening statements:from any Committee member who wishes..These opening statements should not be any longer than five minuter.
We hope that this willEcreate i
an opportunity for memberr-to learn about each other's expectations and concarns about participating in this regulatory.
negotiation procesc.-
After completing these introductions and opening statements,.
we will review-the agenda for.the meeting and make:any changes.
that committee members feel are necessary.-.We should note;that the times listed for each of these agenda items are flexible and
{
are meant to serve aus a general milestones for the meeting rather, than strict targets.
Never'.heless, we hope to complete these first two activities by the lunch hour.
e i
The next item on the agenda is te develop a set of l
" organizational protocols" for the. committee..
The enclosed draft' organizational protocols are intendedito help launch the discussion on this topic.
They have'been drawn from the 1250 Twenty-TuunhStreet,NW Washington,DC20037 USA 202/2934800 Telex:64505 PANDA-
. ' Nfaaned ud bld Midhfe Fund '
f_
R 1
-2 q
protocols that.have been usedfin other.ragulatory negotiation efforts, but tailored to the uniquelaspects'of this-negotiation.
The draft is. intended to-help structure and. focus' the discussion of' organizational. protocols.
Please review it and' come prepared.to make suggestions aboutLany revisions, deletions,
-or additions you feel are necessary.
Itimay he helpful.to scan pages 12 and.13 of the convenor's Report-which' addresses procedural issues for these negotiations..
We hope to complete the discussion of. organizational.
protocols by the end of the day on September 16th.
- However, since.the primary purpose of.this: meeting is to agree on a set ~of' protocols, if the group is unable to reach'an. agreement by the end of the day on. September 16th,'.we will continue the discussion l
-on September 17th.
Of. course,.if the committee agrees earlier,.
l we.will s. imply move on to'the next. item on.the agenda.
We i
recognize chat some Committee members:may not be able.toLcommit.
themselves tofa' set of protocols without first checking-with' their organizations.
Thus, our primary objective for the l
September meeting will be a tentauive agraement on organizational protocols which will be made final at a subsequent meeting.
The.next item on the agenda is to develop a list of-
)
substantive issues that are of primary; concern to Committee i
members, and to begin to plan an overall agenda for the negotiations around this issues list.
There will be other l
opportunities to add to this list, but it would be helpful if you came prepared to identify the substantive issues that are of I
primary concern to you, and the order in which you think.these issues should be addressed.
Section VI of the Convenor's Report i
and the discussion of substantive issues included,in the NRC's-l Federal Register notice may help you prepare for this' discussion.
-l We will end the meeting by attempting to set some dates and l
1 locations for future meetings.
Please bring your calendar.
As a way to begin the scheduling process for future meetings, we.would like to propose a date for the second meeting of the Advisory Committee -- which will actually be a two-day. training session on negotiation skills building and the technical and legal; aspects of this particular rulemaking.
The dates we propose for this.
l two-day training secsion are October 13-14,'1987.
Please hold l
these dates if'possible and we will confirm thev at the September l
16-17 meeting.
We look forward to seeing you in Washington D.C. on September 16th and 17th.
l i
l l
A
6 August 13, 1987 1
l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION HLW LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM ADVISORY COMMITTEE l
(Suggested)
Organizational Protocols I.
MISSION STATEMENT A.
The HLW Licensing Support System Advisory Committee has l
been established by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
{
for the purpose of developing, through a process of negotiation, consensus revisions to the commission's rules of discovery to permit the use of an electronic information management system in
{
the licensing of the high-level nuclear waste repository.
l l
l l
l II.
DECISION MAKING A.
The Committee will operate by consensus, meaning that
)
Committee decisions can be considered to have achieved consensus i
only if there is no dissent by any member.
Thus, no member can
{
be outvoted.
Members should not block or withhold consensus
]
unless they have serious reservations with the approach or
{
solution which is proposed for consensus, l
i B.
Smaller work groups or subcommittees may be formed to I
address specific issues and make recommendations to the full Committee.
Work groups are open to any member of the Committee or his or her designee.
Work groups will operate by consensus.
Work groups are not authorized to make decisions for the Committee as a whole.
Werk group meetings will be held between the full sessions and each Committee member will be notified of all work group meetings.
C.
The facilitatory will be responsible for developing an agenda for all meetings of the full committee.
This agenda will be developed in consultation with the members of the Committee.
E.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Advisory l
Committee as a whole have the discretion to dissolve the l
committee if either determines that an impasse has been reached or that the activities of the committee are not being carried out in the public interest.
1 F.
Caucuses for the purposes of internal consultation and decision making can be called at any time by any member of the committee.
m.____
l-.
j S
III. PARTICIPATION A.
.The HLW Licensing Support System regulatory negotiation process includes three tiers of participation..The first tier.
consists of the Advisory Committee itself and the organizations and institutional entities who are represented in the membership of the Committee.
The second tier includes parties who it:is hoped will attend. committee meetings but who are not members of I
the Committee..The third tier includes the general public.
B.
First tier participants will identify a principal spokesperson and an alternate at'the start of the negotiations.
Spokespersons will serve as the official member of the Committee for this party.
Alternates will serve as spokesperson for that party in the absence of the principal spokesperson.
s C.
Several parties will' participate.on the Committee as members of a coalition.
All coalitions established pursuant to-these protocols will identify a principal spokesperson and.an alternate at the start of the negotiations.
Coalitions will hold a single " seat" on the Committee.
It is expected that these
]
coalitions will operate by consensus.
D.
Committee members may be represented in full Committee and work group sessions by alternates who will be considered to have the authority to commit parties'in the absence cf the=
l principal spokesperson, j
)
E.
Second tier participants will be encouraged to attend and participate in full Committee meetings and work group sessions.
The views of second tier participants will be
(
considered by the Committee in developing a consensus but shall not deternine whether a consensus has been. reached by the Committee.
1 F.
After the Committee has been formally established at its first organizational meeting, additional ' members may join the i
Committee only with the full concurrence of all Committee members and only if the request for membership falls within the confines of the FACA. Charter.
s Members may invite specialists to participate in full j
G.
committee cessions subject to Committee approval.
IV.
COMMITTEE MEETINGS l
A.
The negotiations will be conducted under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
All meetings of.the full Committee will be announced in the Federal Register prior to the meeting and will be open to the public.
l 1
=
'[.
1 B.
Committee' members.or their alternates commit to attend
~
all meetings of the full Committee.
-C.
Minutes of Committee ne'etings will be'kept by the facilitatory and be made.available to the public upon request i
after review and approval by'the Committee..
D.
Whenever possible, the Committee'chall choose. locations' for its meetings which result.in cost savings to as many members
~
as is possible.
V.
AGREEMENT' A.
If.a consensus' agreement is reached by~the Committee,-it
~
will take the form of a written statement that will be signed by all members.
The goal of-the Committee is for this written statement to include preamble and rule language ready for publication in the Federal Register, B.
If the committee reaches a consensus which includes preamble and rule language ready for publication in the Federal Register, the NRC will use this consensus language as'the' basis d
J for its notice of. proposed rulemaking.
Unlest otherwise agreed upon at the close of the negotiations, committ_a members will refrain from commenting negatively on the consensus-based notice of proposed rulemaking, so long as NRC uses the language
.{
developed by the Committee.
C.
To the extent the parties do not reach consensuc on some or all issues, NRC will draft a notice cf proposed rulemaking 1
consistent with any. agreements that were reached.
Committee members shall retain their right to comment negatively upon.one
]
or more aspects of a notice of proposed rulemaking, which are not based on a complete consensus of all members of the' Committee.
VI.
SAFEGUARDS FOR THE MEMBERS A.
All members must act in good faith In all aspects'of these negotiations.
B.
Specific offers or statements made during negotiations will not be used by other members or the organizations which they represent in any other forum or in litigation.
C.
Any member may withdraw from the negotiations at any.
time without prejudice.
D.
Personal attacks and prejudicial statements made by Committee members will not'be tolerated.
a
_4_.
(
E.
No discussions characterizing the position of any other member or the interest he or.she represents will be held with the press during the negotiations, even if a member' withdraws,cunless' that position is a matter of public record.
F.
All. members agree not to. divulge information shared by.
others in confidence even if they withdraw.
i VII. SCHEDULE A.
Unless otherwise agreed upon, ths. Committee.will meet 1
once per month in two-day meetings which will be held for a period of nino months starting on September 16, 1987.
]
I B.
Committee meetings will be scheduled with sufficient time between meetings to provide. members with an opportunity las conduct work group meetings and intra-coalition negotiations,.and i
to consult with and obtain advice, direction and instructions
-]
from their constituents / organizations to enable them to present i
proposals and make commitments at future Committee meetings.
j I
C.
Unless otherwise agreed upon, the negotiations will be i
completed by June 31, 1987.
VI.
FACILITATORY A.
Howard S.
Bellman will serve as the principal neutral facilitatory of these negotiations.
Mr. Bellman will be assisted by Timothy J. Mealey and Matthew A.
Low.
B.
The facilitatory will serve at the discretion of the Committee members.
They will be responsible for helping to i
ensure that the process runs smoothly, developing meeting
)
agendas, preparing draft and final minutes, and helping the l
parties resolve their differences and achieve a consensus on the issues to be addressed by the Committee.
C.
The facilitatory will be available to facilitate all
')
full Committee and work group negotiation sessions.
If requested' and as resources permit, the facilitatory will also be available to facilitate intra-coalition negotiation sessions and caucuses.
D.
The Conservation Foundation, through Howard S.
Bellman and Timothy J. Mealey, will provide general assistance and
)
logistical support to the Committee and any work groups that are established by the Committee.
l l
)
September 1987
)
PRELIMINARY PARTICIPANT LIST "HLW LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM ADVISORY COMMITTEE" q
i committee Members (including spokespersons and' coalition rambers) j Gail Chehak Natural Resources Coordinator National Congress of American Indians 804 D Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C.
20002 I
202/546-9404 Ronald T. Halfmoon f
Program Manager Nuclear Waste Program i
l Nez Perce Tribe P.O.
Box 305 Lapway, ID 83340 208/843-2253
)
Alice Hector Attorney Hector and Associates 820 Second St., N.W.
i Albuquerque, NM 87102 505/242-7600 j
Dan Hester Attorney for the Confedere.ted Tribes
{
of the Umatilla Reservation Fredericks &'Pelcyger i
1881 Ninth St.,
Suite 216 Boulder, CO 80302 303/443-1683 Renea Hicks Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General State of Texas Supreme Court Building P.O. Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711-2548 512/463-2012 or 463-2100 Terry Husseman Director Office of Nuclear Waste Managemetu State of Washington Mail Stop PV-11 Olympia, WA 98504 206/459-6670 tf.
1 i
1
-2
.a
's e
l Melinda Kasson l._
Staff Attorney Environmental Defense Fund 1405 Arapahoe Avenue
. Boulder, CO -80302
'303/440-49011 1
James Klienhans
~
Radioactive Waste Review Board State of Wisconsin
'620'S. Pinckway St.
Madison, 10[
53703 1
608/266-9810 Steven P. Kraft' Director Utility Nuclear. Waste Management Group Edison Electric Institute 1111 19th St.,
N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036-3691 202/778-6512 Robert R. Loux Executive Director Nuclear Waste Project' Office
' State of Nevada Capitol Complex Carson City, NV 89710 702/885-3744 Philip A. Niedzielski-Eichner Deaf Smith County Waste Deposit Impact Committee P.O.
Box 2277 Hereford, TX 79045 806/364-4445 Ben Oliver High-Level Nuclear Waste Office 355 West North Temple 3 Triad Center, Suite'330 Salt. Lake City, UT. 84180 801/538-5545 Joselyn F. Olsen Special Assistant Attorney General State of Minnesota Office'of Attorney General-520 Lafayette Road, Suite 200 St. Paul,'MN 55155 612/297-1075'
)
a l
David Ortman Friends of the Earth Northwest Office 4512 University Way, NE Seattle, WA 98105 4
206/633-1661 Walter Perry l
Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice State of Oregon i
Justice Building Salem, OR 97310 503/378-4620 Jerome Saltzman Director, Policy and Outreach Division Office of Civilian Nuclear Radioactive Waste Management U.S.
Department of Energy Forrestal Building Washington, D.C.
20585 202/586-1252 Lisa A.
Spruill Special Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General State of Mississippi Carroll Gartin Justice Building P.O.
Box 220 Jackson, MI 39205-0220 601/359-3680 Dean Tousley Associate Attorney for the Yakima Indian Nation Harmon & Weiss
{
2001 S Street, N.W.,
Suite 430 i
Washington, D.C.
20009-1125 1
202/328-3500 j
Brooks B.
Yeager Washington Representative l
330 Pennsylvania Ave., SE Washington, D.C.
20003 202/547-1141 i
l i
I
I 79 '
"Second Tier" Participants i
Edwyna G. Anderson Public Service Commission State of Michigan P.O Box 30221
- Lansing, MI 48909 517/334-6445 a.
Dixon Hoyle Nuclear Fuel Cycle Project Manager U.S.
Council for Energy Awareness 1 i 7101 Wisconsin Ave.
Bethesda, MD 20814 301/654-9260' Michael H. Mobley Director Division of Radiological Health Tennessee Department of Health and Environment 150 Ninth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37219-5404 615/741-7812 Cheryl Runyon e
National Conference of State ' Legislatures 1050 Seventeenth St., Suite 2100 Denver, CO 80265 303/623-7800 E
.I 1
(
s Y
l t
'r_.-___--_-_.-
m z
Y
.y
' ^
The ConservationFoundation q
,j 1
t
[
September, 1987' i
PROJECT DESCRIPTION.
I NEGOTIATEDRULEMAKINGONALICENSINGSbPPORTSYSTEM.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATOftt COYMISSION
\\
'Backgrou_nd y
y.
s Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act [NWPA)'of(1982, the Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for siting and drieloping the nation's first high-level nuclear,vaste repository and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is responsible for approving or disapproving the issuance'of'a license for the.
' repository.
The act also sets forth a p'rocedure and schedule. for these activities which, among other things, requires the NRC to make its final decision on the DOE; ion has been submitted.11c'erise application no later than three years after the applicat Due to its experience in licensing nuclear reactors, the NRC is concerned that it will not be able to meet its statutory deadline for licensing the high-Irrel waste -(HLW)' repository.
One of the most significant contributions to.the length of f
licensing review has been the time associated with' sending, receivingq;and handling the information and data'that'is relevant y
to a licensing decision.
In the case of the HLW repository l
licensing process, the documents to be submitted by DOE and the intervening parties to the, proceeding are expected to number well y
into the nillions, q
The Protect 3
\\
3
- In ' Dscen.bor of.198 6, the NRC pNoposed.the formation ofa federn'. advi'aory committee to negotiate revisions to the
~
~
Comission's; procedural rules for handling the submission and Li management of records and documents'in the licensing of the high-1 level waste repository.
Specifically,jthe proposed committee
?
w'ould attempt to negotiate consensus revisions to the 1
Commission's discovery procedures anc notion practice, set forth in 10 CFR Part 2, to provido for the use of an electronic information management system (i.e., computer system) referred to-l es the Licensing Support System (LSS).
,j j
The purpose of the LSS vill be to substantially-reduce the time needed for storing, retrieving, processing, and disseminating decuments among the parties to the licensing process.
In order to make use of this technology it will be necessary to revise the Commission's procedural rules governing 1250 Twenty-Iburth Street lNW %hington,DC 20037 USA 202/293-4800 Telex:64505 PANDA Alfiliated with %ld Wildlife Fund -
), ~
._~ -
6he " discovery" of documents and records which are part of the license application or may be submitted as evidence in this proceeding.
In February, 1987, The Conservation Foundation (CF) was retained by the NRC to assess the feasibility of utilizing a negotiated rulemaking approach to develop the proposed rule revisions.
In the spring of 1987, a team of professionals assembled by The Conservation Foundation conducted interviews with potential parties to the negotiation.
In Liy, 1987, CF reported'its findings to.the Commission in a feasibility report which concluded, albeit with certcin cautious reservations, that the NRC should proceed with tLa proposed regulatory negotiation.
In August, 1987, the Conmission accepted this recommendation and formally established the "HLW Licensing Support System Advisory Committee."
The first organizational meeting of the advisory committee is scheduled for September 16-17, 1987.
Negotiations are likely to continue for approximately nine months, during which time CF will be providing facilitation services and logistical support to the committee in an effort to help its members develop a consensus on issues which include, but are not limited to:
o What types of documents should be placed in the LSS?
o Who should have access to the LSS and should the NRC facilitate access in some fashjon?
o Who should administer the LSS?
o What, if any, sanctions should be imposed for improper use of the LSS or for failure to submit documents into the system in a timely fashion?
o What, if any, procedures shduld be established to ensure protection of confidential documents?
Conservation Foundation staff members Howard S.
- Bellman, Senior Fellow, and Timothy J. Mealey, Associate, along with Matthew A. Low and Kirk Balcom from TLI Systems and TechLaw, Incorporated, consitute the project team.
Mr. Bellman serves as team leader and senior dispute resolution professional, while Mr.
Mealey provides assistance to Mr. Bellman and serves as CF's project director, and Messrs. Low and Balcom serve as legal and technical advisors.
For more information contact, Timothy J. Mealey, Associate, The Conservation Foundation's Program on Environmental Dispute Resolution (202/293-4800).
i
7
- -c m,
^
. i i
s 2
']
OPENING STATEMENT BY:
' NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ' REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS:
~
TO HIGH-LEVEL l RADIOACTIVE WASTE LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM ADVISORY COMMITTEE
)
September-16, 1987 g
y The National Association of. Regulatory Utility-l Commissioners ~ (NARUC) ic a quasi-governmental. nonprofit-organization' founded in:1889.
Within its" membership;are the
)
governmental bodies of.the f'fty states engaged in the economic and~
i r
safety regulation of carriers and utilities.
TheLmission of the-
-1 NARUC'is to serve the'public interest by seeking to improve the j
i quality and. effectiveness of public regulation'in America..More t
specifically, the NARUC:is composed of the state officials-charged l
1 with the' duty of regulating the retail rates and services of I
1 electric utilities within their respective' jurisdictions.
These q
officials have the obligation under' state law to assure the j
establishment and maintenatace of electric utility service as required by the public convenience.and necessity, and to ensure l
l that such service is provided at rates and conditions which are just, reesonable and nondiscriminatory for all. consumers..
)
The NARUC's responsibilities are nationwide and represent :
a broad spectrum which is unique;to it as an organizat' ion.
In the.
statutory language of Congiass, the NARUC is "the national,
i organization of the state commissions"' responsible.for' economic.and i
safety regulation of the intrastate operation of carriers and e
il "i\\, Ud\\
~
p jvxmgM{creqdk p
~
ci
,*~
~
- i -
a The Subcommittee is chaired by Edwyna G. Anderson, Commissioner frca the Michigan Public' Service Commission'.. The' current membership consists of Peter A. Bradford, Chairman: of. the' New York Public Service Commissions Commissioner Robert W.;BrAtton from Washington State;. Stanley W. Bulett,. President of the California Public Utilities' Commission; Commissioner Frederick'J.
Schmidt from Nevada; and Commissioner Michael M.' Wilson ~from-i L
The Subcommittee'Pembers provide staff;to support'its efforts.
2 The NARUC.has repeatedly emphasized that electric l
l ratecavers currently are the source of.all fundingffor the disposal.
of spent fuel.
The utilities simply collect money from ratepayers which is then passed on to the. Nuclear Waste Fund.. Shareholder monetary interests are unaffected by the one mill per kilowatt-hour fee which is mandated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. 'Ek) far, I
ratepayers have contributed over=three billion dollars to the' Fund,
.e and this is just the beginning.
The NARUC,.therefore, was particularly gratified that the Notice of Intent, which led.to the formation of the'LSS Advisory Committee, identified ratepayers as an affected interest.
1 From the beginning,'the NARUC Subcommittee'was concerned over the complexity associated with the : licensing of a geological.
repository.
The concern arose in part from the direct experience of public utility commissioners with regulation, administrative-matters, hearings and due process in'their respective
o
'-f..
r i 1 1o important--proper and. conservative licensing decision making by the
]
NRC.- These are issues'which, in the interest:of' completeness, wee believe must beLincluded-in the agenda'of-the A'dvisory Committee.
j The NARUC,has'taken no position on the feasibility or desirability of the Licensing Support' system.
It is' a synnel of :
1 the shear massive size and complexity envisioned for the' licensing proceeding.
When the Subcommittee. met with the Commissioners.at'
)
the.NRC, it asked the followint; questiona r Is'it feasib1'e to establish a document retrieval system for a licensing process that' will handle 300,000 to 400,000 documents on behal'f of the NRC with 40 times that amount to be attributed to the DOE?' Are so manyf j
documents necessary?
If this number of document's represents-the state-of-the-art in electronic information storage and retrievable systems, are there alternatives thrt could rely on a more prosaic, but proven method of information handling?
It appears the Commissioners were impressed and rightfully concerned with the magnitude of the task, and its feasibility, and would'look to the NRC staff to provide ways to limit the number' of documents and to review the feasibility of-the program as'it is presently proposed.
The Chief Administrative Law Judge for the NRC shares MutUC's concern.
He said, "A NARUC representative' estimated at'l minute-per document that it:would take 30 years just to enter the-documents.
The time needed to read that materia 1'would take e
y n
m
+
1 r..
s a
u d
{
. a P S ~ --~-Null participation in the Advisory Committee, the NARUC has determined that it:cannot volkatarily commit the substantial. added' tiine, ' attention and ' financial costs that would' be required to discharge.its responsibilities.
The'NARUC regrets having to make this decision since it -believes Lthat ' ratepayers 'E interests are not fully served by. other partic'ipants.. For example, delays lin.the Ifcensing process, even. unavoidable ones, that'may;
. occur will aid some parties, be neutral to others, but will: almost always'have an adverse impact on the cost'toLour ratepayers.
In addition, other partias are unlikely to. raise the' issues that:we' J
have raised with the NRC.
In conclusion, while the WORUC's resources: will not permit our full participation in the Advisory Committee, we would.
like to preserve the right to participate actively in-future meetings if the interests of our ratepayers/ appear to require'a i
change in our decision.
-]
1 J
i I
'i e
.;.s STATE OF MISSISSIPPI.
J[hli) t.M ;
l h"
,).
I OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL -
t TELEFAX NUMBER M01) 3593796 e
CARROLL GARTIN JUSTICC BUILClNO STEPHEN J. KIP'. 6fA POST OFFICE BOX 220
% Ana w re rs JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 392050220 l
EDWIN LloYD PITTMAN ATTORNEY GENERAL TELEPHONE Mot)3SM650 Demay Anomey oen.rai l
September. 18,'1987.
Mr. Tim Mealey_
i The Conservation Foundation f
1250 24th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037 Re:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Negotiated.Rulemaking j
Dear Tim:
As we discussed, you will find enclosed
- a. copy' of the opening s'.atement which wasLread into the' record on behalf of the State of Mississippi.
It was a pleasure to meet you, Mr. Bellmar. and Mr. Low, and I look forward to our continued cooperation in the NRC 's LSS negotiated rulemaking.
Please feel ' f ree to call me if you have questions.on any-issues which we raised during the organizational meeting.-
1 Ve tr,ul s,
Y%
Lisa Spruil Special As stant'Att'orney_ General' LS/ehh Enclosure cc:
Bill Olmstead l.
2-~1-_a---
- - y.
l a
.q
- q:
s44.
OPENING STATEMENT BY~ JOHN GREEN, EXECUTIVE:. DIRECTOR' MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENTLOF'3NERGY'AND TRANSPORTATION, TO T8E NUCLEAR REGULATORY-COMMISSION;LSS' COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER ~ 16, 1987 Ladies and gentlemen of the ' committee,
I. am John Green, Executive Director of the Mississippi Department of : Energy and
ranspo rt.ition.
As many of you know, my agency has the p. nary; responsibility. in Mississippi' forL all ' interactions.with any-federal' agencies involved in the ' implementationtof the. Nuclear:
Waste Policy Act..
I am the principal' negotiator to:this commit-tee and have with - me for' entry. into the ' record ; a letter from Governor Allain to that effect.
I am' accompanied today by a mem-ber'of my Nuclear Waste Program ' staf f, Mr. Don. Christy.
Also with me is the representative; f rom' the Office of the' Attorney:
General, Ms. Lisa Spruill.
We would like to raise'certain points.
]
on Mississippi's behalf at the outset of these negot'iations.'
The first point we wish to impress on the committee is that based on our research of previous negotiated rulemakings, Missis-cippi is optimistic about this endeavor.
We agree with the Ad-ministrative Conference and the convenor's; report to the extent that even if a " complete" proposed rule does not result from our efforts, a " valuable report can be developed" which serves to narrow and define the issues and set priorities.
H Another point we wish to make is'to inform those on'the com-mittee who'do not know, and remind those who do, 'that the' State of Mississippi' has been involved' in the subject 'of ' this rulemaking pocess since the first meeting of the. Interagency Coordinating Committee.
W
.e have had representatives'. attend the.
ICC meetings and NRC, States and Tr.ibes meetings... We'have also submitted comments with the goal of enhancing the efforts of the NRC and the DOE in development of the Licensing Support ' System.'
For example, last year. Mississippi raised the ' potential 'for i
overlapping jurisdiction between the ICC and. this negotiating.
1 committee.
That. conflict has now been resolved.. We have already.
I made a
substantial contribution towards-the succesa'-of-a computerized, _ program-wide, document retrieval system.
The Mississippi ; program data base is 'an index system containing over 8,000 entries to date.
q For these and the following reasons, it is quite' surprising' that the convenor overlooked the special role which Mississippi-1
, 1
_ _ ~
.l.
~
has already established in this effort and DOE's overall pro-gram.
This oversight may be explained by the fact that, as the Commission stated, the convenor has no substantive background in this issue.
Based on the Commission's own criteria and Missis-j sippi's status in the program, we are obviously a party which should not be grouped into a coalition.
1 The commission's criteria are:
first, a substantial stake i
in the rulemaking; second, adequacy of representation by another party; and third, whether participation is essential to a succes-sful negotiation.
1 l
Mississippi meets all of the Commission's criteria.
We have
{
the unique distinction of having a nominated first-round site, j
Richton Salt Dome, a potentially acceptable site for the first and second repository, Cypress Creek Salt Dome, and a site previ-l ously evaluated for an MRS at the site of TVA's abandoned Yellow
]
Creek Nuclear Station.
Since the Commission has found that all d
parties having access to the licensing data base will have a con-j current obligation to place documents into the system, and since j
document entry is anticipated to begin prior to the selection and i
approval of the final repository site, then it is obvious that all five states with nominated sites which are potential parties to the licensing should be afforded an independent voice.
Mis-sissippi's direct, immediate and substantial stake in this rule-making is apparent.
It is clear that this meets the first cri-teria.
l As to the second criteria, no State's unique, sovereign interests can be represented by another party.
The fact that we are currently in litigation with DOE and other states in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and that this litigation Iaises potential or actual adverse interests between the primary parties again makes it evident that we should not be in a coalition with i
those parties.
j The third criteria, whether our participation is essential to a successful negotiation, has already been established.
We control many documents and material which could prove useful in the licensing process.
We also have extensive experience in com-puterizing the Mississippi record.
Therefore, with all due re-spect to the representatives of the states of '1tah and Oregon, I respectfully request that the first item on t.he agenda be recon-sideration of the current make-up of the first tier of the com-mittee and that Mississippi be given separate and independent status.
The final point I
wish to make regards the matter of funding.
It should be raised at the outset that DOE has failed -
.I -
I l
4 in the past to forward grants in ' a timely fashion and: thereby
?
caused Mississippi to miss certain. meetings.
We are once :again.
j
-in..a budget shortfall during
" phase-down" and are in-tie
?
-cumbersome grant:amendnent process.
In light of past experiense
.D we would just,like to'say that Mississippi in good-faith intenos to continue.to cooperate with the NRC as it has in the :past, andwill attend these meetings to the extent that DOE'adheresito its responsibility under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to provide funding.for our participation ~.
.We also hava some suggested revisions which should.be raised with respect to the proposed. organizational protocols, and this.
can.be achieved in the forum,of.the meeting.itself..
Tnis concludes my ' introduction and = opening statement.
We look ' forward to the constructive. exchange of ideas in-this'. forum and we accept the Commission's. invitation to participate. subject
}
to the ' reevaluation of our status ' in the ' coalition.with Oregon
):
dnd Utah.
Thank you for your attention.-
1 I
t i
j 1
.i 1
{
n
>I
-~
Federal Register / Vol. 32.-No.189 / Wednesday, September 30,1987 / Proposed Rules
$6583 i
i l
J 3
proceeding for the issuance of a licen9e _
NUCLEAR REGULATORY for a geolog;c repository for the disposal COMMISSION of high-level waste (HLW). The 10 CFR Part 2 Committee is attempting to negotiate a 1
consensus on proposed revisions related i
High-Level.(taste Ucensing Support to the submission and mana ement of System Advisory Committee recorde and documen's for t e HLW (Negotiated Rulemaking);Second licensing proceeding.
Meeting DATE:The second meeting of the HLW Ucensing Support System Advisory AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Committee will be held October 15-16, Commission.
a 1987, beginning at 9:30 a.m.
' ACTION: Notice of second meeting.
ADon=5s:Thelocation of the October
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory 15-16,1987 meeting of the HLW j
Commission will hold the second ucensing SupportSystem Advisory meeting of the High Level Waste CommitJee is the Crystal City Marriott, i
Licensing Support System Advisory 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway, Committee on October 15-16,1987.The Arlington. VA.
committee, established under authority of the Federal Advisory Committee Act Pon runtwen tNronMAvioN cowrAct:
1 (FACA). is tasked with developing Donnie H. Crimeley, Director, Division
-1 recommendations for revision of the of Rules and Records. Office of i
Commission e Rules of Practice in to Administration and Resources E
CFR part 2 related to the adjudicatory Management. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory I
Commission, Washington.DC 20555 l
telephone: 301 492-7211,
'i t' ppt.EMENTAnY 8MPonMATeoN:The i
second meeting of the HLW Licensing Support Syttem Advisory Comraittee j
'("negotiatir, committee")is scheduled to include:1 A review of the legal and
'i technical av p}ects of this rulemaking on the HLW licensing support systerm, (2) training on the principles of negotiation, j
and (3) the ptablishment of the agenda for the third meeting of the negotiating committee.
Deted at Washi::ston, DC, this 28th day of September Q7, For the Nm:! lear Regulatory Commission.
Donnie H.CAnsley, l
Director. Dillition ofRules and Records.
Office ofAwinistration andResounta.
1 Managemeret.
{FR Doc. su2671 Filed 9-29-87; au am]
su.UNO Coct fse&414 1
_ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _