ML20236L616
| ML20236L616 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/15/1987 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Mills L EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE |
| References | |
| FRN-51FR45338, RULE-PR-2 NUDOCS 8711100466 | |
| Download: ML20236L616 (3) | |
Text
n PROPOSED Rul.E y '
1 4
=
[
g' UNITED STATES J'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
o
- i W ASHINGTON,0 C. 2055'1 7[0 s...../
- 3
~
September 15, 1987 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Yth!
BMAhC$
Mr. l.oring E. Mills Vice President j
Nuclear Activities Edison Electric Inctitute 1111 19th Street N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036-3691 l
l Ocar Mr. Mills:
l Thank you for your letter regarding the Commission's negotiated rulemaking i
on the management of documents and records for the hig h-level waste j
licensing proceeding.
You req uested that the Commission modify the
)
t composition of the negotiating committee in order to achieve a more even balance between those groups that support the repository and those groups who oppose the repository.
The Commission previously considered whether to include a criterion for membership on the committee based on whether a j
participant might oppose or su pport a re pository.
It remains the Commission's view that the criteria selected were and are appropriate for fulfilling the objectives for which the committee was formed.
As the Commission stated in its December 18, 1986 notice of its preliminary intent to conduct this negotiated rulemaking (51 Fed. Reg. 45338), the committee on the basis of (1)ganizations for membership on the negotiatingwhether Commission would consider or substantial stake in the rulemaking, (2) whether they may be adequately represented by another party on the com mittee, and (3) w hether their participation is essential to a successful negotiation. After evaluating the requests for participation submitted in response to this notice, as well as the Conservation Foundation's feasibility report, the Commission extended in vitations to participate to several organizations, inclu din g the Edison Electric Institute / Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (EEI).
l The invitation to EEI, as a representative of the electric utility industry, was based on utility funding of the nuclear waste program through its contributions to the N uclear Waste Fund and the utilities' interest in ensuring that the nuclear waste program is implemented in a timely manner in terms of spent fuel storage requirements. The Department of Energy was also invited to participate because of its responsibilities to site, construct, and operate a repository. The Commission also invited the U.S. Council for Energy A wareness, representing g the interests of other segments of the nuclear in d u stry,
and the N ational Association of Reg ulatory U tility l
Commissioners, representing the interests of electric utility ratepayers. Both l
of these groups declined participation as first tier members on the committee, preferring instead to participate as second tier members.
-ff hy(DAPih6A W g j /M!;u ev, f,33 SS Q11g466870915 g\\
2 S1FR45338 PDR
i t
. Invitations were also extended to those organizations that would be affected by the siting of a repository, or by the transportation of nuclear waste to i
the repository. Based on the extent and immediacy of impact, the Commission invited these organizations to assume either a separate seat on the.
l committee, or to participate as part of a coalition with similarly situated
{
g rou ps. For example, each of the States hosting one of the three sites selected for characterization, and those Tribes designated. as "affected" under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act for those three sites, were extended an invitation to participate as separate members of the committee. This was based on a number of considerations, including the public health and safety
(
l and environmental impacts that these entities might experience as a result l
of repository develop ment. Independent representation of these entities was also based on the' recog nition that each of these entities was a J
potential party to the high-level waste licensing proceeding and possessed substantial research data that should be incorporated into the Licensing Su pport System. Each of these entities also uses electronic information management systems in its high-level waste activities. These systems must be reconciled with the design of the Licensing Support System. We believe that independent representation of these entities is consistdnt with the i
ex plicit recognition of their special interests established in the Nuclear l
l Waste Policy Act.
l l
As noted by the Commission in its August 5,1987 notice announcing the i
formation of the committee (52 Fed. Reg. 29024, 29028), the Commission i
believes the negotiating committee is balanced in terms of the functions to be l
performed by the advisory committee. The function of the advisnry committee 1
is to achieve consensus on the rules governing the discovery and the use of l
information management system in the Commission's hig h-level waste anproceeding. Thesa matters affect the potential parties to the proceeding, and also those individuals and groups that are not parties tn the proceeding but I
who would traditionally seek access to the document data base as concerned l
citizens, as well as those groups who may be-contributing to the cost of l
1 developing ;uch a system. In order to ensure that the design and operation of the LSS, to the extent practicable, not only accommodates the needs of all those who have to use it, but benefits from their experience, the Commission extended a broad invitation to these groups. The rule to be negotiated is procedural in nature and d0es not concern any of the substantive technical issues related to repository sitin g.
The LSS will be accessible to all interests, whether they support the repository or are opponents of the repository.
The Commission believes that all parties to the high-level waste proceeding will benefit from the establishment of a system for managing the massive' data base that will be involved in the high-level waste licensing proceeding. The Commission does not believe that being "for" or "against" repository is relevant to the responsibilities of this negotiating the committee, and therefore, declines to modify the committee membership along the lines that you recommend.
[.
71 u
4 i
.., ' ~
The Commission believes ' that' EEI will make a positive contribution L to - th'e deliberations : of. the committee, and - reaffirms its invitation to EEI to participate on the negotiating committee.-
1 1
incerel,
(
-q
.)
am el J.t4h
" Secretary \\ of the com ssion
-)
cc:
H. Bellman a
0, -
j i
1 i
,l e
__..____.____.___..m_
g a.u::g.:a p g- @eoninoe uitts.veeeres
[
iwJa niEE u
'l (2 FMf310 "TT.F"Ti:
EDISON ELECTRIC j
IN STIT U T E
- a"
87 A1c 17 ut :is 1
lill 19th Street. N W.
'Mg l Wawngton 0 C 20036 3691 August 15, 1987 7ei (202) 778 6400 Mr. Samuel Chilk
.j Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-
.]
Washington, D.C.~
20555
,.{
l HLW Licensing Support System Advisory Committee Re:
i
(
Dear Mr. Chilk:
on August 5, 1987, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission pub-lished in the Federal Register a. notice that the Commission is establishing an advisory committee, under the authority of the i
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), to' develop recommendations for revision of the Commission's Rules of' Practice.in 10 CFR Part to 2.
The stated purpose of the advisory committee is to attempt i
negotiate a consensus on proposed revisions to 10 CFR Part 2 related to submission and management of records and documents for the geologic repository licensing proceeding.
The Edison Elec-tric Institute (EEI) and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management J
Group (UNWMG) wish to call to the Commission's attention the unbalanced natura of the advisory committee and request that the
'l committee's composition be appropriately modified.
The August 5, 1987 notice described the advisory committee's-structure and membership.
The committee would have three " tiers" of participation, but only the first tier would determine any consensus or disagreement.
As announc'e'd by.the Commission, the first tier would have fourteen members, including NRC and the Department of Energy.
Of the twelve non-federal members, eleven are essentially opponents of DOE's repository program.
These eleven include the three first round states, three Indian Tribes affected by first rodnd sites, an organization representing Indian Tribes affected by second repository siting and high-level waste transportation, a coalition of States affected'by first repository siting and high-level waste transportation, a coali-tion of national environmental groups, and'an environmental group opposed to the Texas site.
Only one seat at the negotiating table has been allocated to a group which is not an opponent of the repository program.
EEI/UNWMG, representing 45 electric utilities that are paying over $400 million each year into the Nuclear Waste Fund for the future disposal service, have been allocated only that one seat.
We do not believe that this lopsided committee composition complies with the Federal Advisory Committee Act's requirement for a balanced conmittee.
.[.
85 knowledged by Caid,),~,,,,,,,,,
,)
,ci'
..p 4
w y,
w S
3 /
4, !
^
.j i
P 3
a,
'Mr. Chilk August 15, 1987 1^
Page Two i
i
,q r
f)I
~
December.18A As we: pointed,out in'our comments on,the NRC't 1986 Notice of Intent.to. form theLadvisory: committed,:thecAdmini >
- " ' {
strative Conference of the United' States recommends 1that'"no4 j
interest lhas more than a'thi'rd of:the members" ton 1ainegotiatin'g?
R his recommendation)only:
-T
' committee., 1 CFR $305.82-4,;l para. 5...
' reflects common sense.. Negotiation among fourteen' parties, only, c,
two of which want the' program to go forward, is unlikely - to.
l result-in a fair,: evenly balanced process.
l EEI/UNWMG represent a consolidationiof,most'of the electric-
']
T'ese utilities.will:
utilities operating nuclear power plantsk j
be providing.the spent'-fuel;to be' disposed v2'in thetgeologic y
repository and are, at this. time, the. sole source ofsfunding for
'q L
L Therefore,,they haveia'sub :
repository program activities.-
stantial' interest in.the repository licensing; proceeding., Infan:
j offort to: streamline the negotiating process'Lthese utilities l]
have, in good faith, consolidated their participation?inEthe-negotiated rulemaking under the EEI/UNWMG' umbrella.'LIn light of.c J
the Commission's selection of the first-tier. participants,- the.
offect'of that voluntary act is to submerge-the utilities' voices under the multitude of opposing parties that have'not:c'onsoli.
The'Commissiontshould require further dated their participation.'
1 consolidation of.the first tier-parties' opposed to repository:
j Indeed,.such further consolidation should be initi-
.i licensing.
i This could ated before the negotiated rulemaking process begins.
{
be accomplished by giving'one first tier seat to the three;first 1
~
repository states, one'first tier seat.to the'first repository j
Indian Tribes, and one seat to the combined remaining groups.-
o The alternative to reducing the number of parties opposed to
]
and the-repository licensing attendant.to the repository program, it, would be to increase the number likely4to support 11icensing.
Individual utilities would certainly.be-justified-in' requesting first tier participation at this' time, in view'of the unbalanced representation which the Commission ~has given to' licensing.
However, increasingithe size of the first tier would.
I opponents.
increase an already large group, making,the process even more Furthermore, the Commission should resolve-concerns-unwieldy.
i regarding the balance of the first tier:of the committee and-
' evaluate additional requests-to' participate before theEnegotia-tions begin and not parmit the first tier participants to makeL that decision, as the Commission has announced..It'is highly unlikely that the first tier committee members, as designated,.
would agree to add: parties supporting repository licensing because it.would! diminish their-control.
For these. reasons, EEI/UNWMG request lthat thE Commiss' ion, further-consolidate the-participants to.the' negotiated rulemaking 1
--___1__-_..2_
L
,I
]
q
?i y; r
4 q
Mr. Chilk.
l i-t August 15, 198~1
].)
Page Three 1
in order to provide a more balanced representation'between parties. opposed to repository licensing'and thosefwho support.theShou i
repository licensing.
opportunity to discuss our concerns with the Commission.'
i i
1 Sine
- ely,
'k
[
i fm Loring Mills.
Vic sident Nuclear Activities t
LEM/nmr
-b f
1 i
- I 4
--m____