ML20238E700
| ML20238E700 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/11/1987 |
| From: | Olmstead W NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20238E690 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-573 NUDOCS 8709150147 | |
| Download: ML20238E700 (13) | |
Text
i
.y l
l I
Alternative Dispute Resolution The NRC's High Level Waste Negotiated Rulemaking William J. Olmstead i
Assistant General Counsel for Hearings Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), 42 U.S.C.
Sections 10101-10226, requires the Department of Energy to obtain a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorizing the construction of a repository for deep geologic disposal of high-level radioactive waste and 1
The Act contem ates a Commission decision on DOE's spent nuclear fuel.
application within three years of the ate of submission. The regulatory framework for licensing the repository includes both substantive and procedural rules governing the collection and control of data and A number of rulemaking initiatives are being undertaken to documents.
These rules will provide better define these rules for repository licensing.
the regulatory context in which a repository application will be considered.
BACKGROUND The regulatory context in which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will consider an application from the Department of Energy for approval to commence construction of a permanent deep high-level radioactive waste The Atomic Energy repository is established by four principal statutes:
Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C Sections 2011-2259; The Energy 5801-5891; The Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sections National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
and The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 42 U.S.C.
Sections 4321-4346; Sections 10101-10226. There are, of course, other state and federal A
statutes which govern various aspects of a repository licensing decision.
compendium of the many rules and statutes applicable can be found in section 10 of DOE's draft project decision schedule issued in July 1985.
(The final document did not include this compendium.) For purposes of this discussion, however, the focus will be on the regulatory issues associated with implementing the principal statutes governing NRC's and DOE's repository licensing activities.
The Atomic Energy Act provides the statutory basis for the Commission's exercise of licensing and regulatory authority over byproduct, The Act also governs the procedure source, and special nuclear material.
The by which the public at large can participate in licensing decisions.
Commission's rules governing the licensing of a repository application reference the AE Act and assume the use of heanng procedures which are consistent with Section 189 of the Act. von Wm3 h93 7 87o911 FELTON87-573 PDR
l f
1 1
The Energy Reorganization Act abolished the Atomic Energy Commission and established two agencies, NRC and now DOE, to perform the functions
]
assigned by the Atomic Energy Act. In the reorganization, the NRC was l
given licensing authority over DOE for four specific activities:
Demonstration Liquid Metal Fast Breeder reactors, other demonstration nuclear reactors not in existence on the date the Act was passed, facilities used primarily for the receipt and storage of high-level radioactive wastes resulting from licensed activities, and retrievable surface facilities authorized for long-term storage of DOE's high-level radioactive waste.
The National Environment! Policy Act applies to all federal agencies who propose major federal actions. It requires the preparation of an envir-onmental impact statement in draft which is circulated to other involved federal agencies and to the public for comment. Upon receipt of comments, a final statement is prepared to accompany the existing agency review process. The Council on Environmental Quality is charged with responsibility for advising the President on the adequacy of the federal orograms in achieving the policies of NEPA. CEO has published guidelines "or federal agencies to follow in implementing their environmental regulations. Both NRC and DOE have regulations which implement the CEO guidelines on the impact statement process.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act specifically modifies some of the pro-cedural requirements previously applicable under the AEA, the Reorgani-zation Act, and NEPA. NWPA, however, is primarily directed at establishing schedules and timetables for ao::omplishing activities leading to the selection, authorization, construction, and operation of a repository.
While it is a land-mark piece of legislation, it gives little new authority to the Commission. NWPA's legal significance is the schedule and process established which is designed to reach a decision on the most suitable design and location for a high-level radioactive waste deep geologic hereinafter repository). It is the schedule and procedure which repository (dy pressure on DOE and NRC to identify regulatory issues and keeps stea set in motion processes designed to resolve them. Most of the legal difficulties presented in such issues, however, arise under the other three statutory schemes.
There are myriad issues which need to be resolved. This paper will address only those which are related to document and data production and control. In particular, this paper will focus on the need to modify licensing procedures and practices caused primari!y by the large number of years over which data will be gathered and the short time penods alicwed for licensing under the NWPA.
LICENSING PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES The NWPA does not contain provisions which specifically alter the pro-cedures which the NRC is required to follow under the Atomic Energy Act.
Consequently, Section 189 of the AEA which provides for adjudicatory l
f
n
]
~a 1
I l
l hearings on licensing applications when requested by interested persons is applicable to DOE's application for construction approval. The NWPA, however, does have three significant provisions which substantially affect the NRC's traditional licensing practices. First, NWPA provides for a three i
year period for NRC licensing with provisions for a fourth if NRC seeks Congressional approval. Second, States and Indian Tribes are given a special role. Third, the NEPA review process.is specially tailored to require only one impact statement to be prepared by DOE and adopted by NRC.
1 The three year licensing period allowed for NRC decision is the outside time frame contemplated in DOE's current project decision schedule. The 1985 draft schedule shows only 27 months for NRC review and approval.
Significantly, no contested reactor licensing review which follows the same adjudicatory model which DOE must follow has been accomplished in three years. The three year period must allow for staff review, followed by hearings, followed by Commission review and decision. Staff currently 1
estimates that its technical review of a complete application will recuire 14 i
i months. The Commission, if it receives views of participants, has oeen requiring four to six months to reach a decision. Thus, an adjudicatory hearing has to be started and completed in 18 months or under to meet and three year schedule. For a 27-month schedule, the hearing must be accomplished in less than a year. This has never been done in a heavily contested nuclear proceeding.
Several rulemaking strategies are being considered to address the issues presented by the statutory schedule. Under current rules service of process through the mails requires 15 days each time a motion or other related document is filed. Five days are allowed for all parties to receive a document. Responses are allowed with five days allowed for board and parties to receive them. The Board's decision is mailed and five days are allowed for receipt. Electronic Mail could eliminated these times if all parties had access to com3atible protocols and equipment. This could eliminate three months of 11e time required to conduct contested proceedings. Discovery rules, particularly those devoted to document production, are another source of time intensive effort. Under existing rules a document production request in a large case (the HLW proceeding will be massive) can require 12-18 months of manual effort.
Large file rooms have to be established by each party and time has to be provided to manually sort and select records at the site of production. With multiple well-financed parties this means extensive travel, scheduling, review, and motion practice. If a central document on-line data base were available containing all discoverable document information, this time consuming activity could be reduced substantially. If the data base were available well in advance of the start of the proceeding, document discovery procedures could be reduced to a few months.
The Commission has urged DOE to consider these time consuming processes in connection with its efforts to establish a well documented
t OA/OC program. DOE has agreed to study the feasibility of setting up a computenzed document data base which would nave the capability of producing all relevant documentation associated with its repository application.
l To realize the potential time saving such an approach can offer, the Particular attention Commission's Rules of Practice will require modification.
needs to be paid to procedural rules governing the requirements for i
document preparation and service of process. For example, the Rules I
currently specify, typed, double-spacec, single-sided, 81/2 X 11 white If electronic dissemination were implemented paper with one-inch margins.
a standard might include ASCil text, 80 characters per line, carriage returns and line feeds, Asynchronous transmission with XModem protocols.
Of course, standards of electronic transmission are much more uncertain at present. Consequently, the Commission has decided to used alternative dispute resolution techniques, in this case a negotiated rulemaking, which bring persons most likely to be affected by HLW licensing,together to participate in developing the standards which would be put in place.
States, affected Indian Tribes, DOE, and the interested public groups already extensively involved with HLW issues have been designated to (See Rule on the Submission and Management of Records and participate.
Documents Related to the Licensing of a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste; Establishment of an Advisory Committee for Negotiated Rulemaking, July 31, 1987 Fed. Reg.
attached.)
A second issue, more difficult to negotiate but critical to reducing time is the considerations in the prehearing phase of an adjudicatory proceeding, d in document data base. It is fairly evident to those who have participate a complex litigation involving millions of documents that significant time and professional resources are required to properly prepare a position when dealing with a massive document data base. Consequent ly, efforts are underway at NRC and DOE to develop a strategy which would be a part of the negotiated rulemaking to develop a database management system which would be on-line and available to all parties to the HLW proceeding.
Document discovery would take place within the system. If feasible, the system would be the only document discovery available and all documents Obviously, significant details would be produced electronically through it.
will have to be negotiated and 3arties would have to have confidence in the database. Given the massive cocument database which is expected to be available at the time of licensing, this effort must be accomplished on an extraordinarily tight schedule to be effective.
States and Indian Tribes have also sought changes to the Commission's Rules of Practice which would recognize them as parties to the waste proceeding. Current Commission practice is to allow government entities, such as States and Indian Tribes, to participate in adjudicatory proceedings in two alternative ways. They are able to " intervene" by setting forth
L l
L.
specific statements of position under 10 C.F.R. Section 2.714 in the form l
of " contentions". Alternatively, they can seek to participate as 4
l
" interested states" under 10 C.F.R. Section 2.715. In this latter case they l
are not required to set forth contentions nor to take any position on the i
issues in the proceeding. However, if any party in the proceeding drops out, the State or indian Tribe cannot pick up the leaving party's position without meeting the late-filed contention requirements. Some States have argued that this process lacks the certainty that they would like to have about their party status and have urged the Commission to formally codify their party status in the Part 60 procedural change. This issue wilf also moet like!y become a part of the negotiated rulemaking procedure.
1 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION The Justice Department and the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) are actively encouraging agencies to use Alternative Dispute Resolution ADR) techniques to avoid the potential for lengthy and See Pou, Federal may arise from agency activities.The Experience to Date, So costly litigation whic Federal Agency Use of "ADR":
Agency Use of Alternative Means of Dispute Resolution, ACUS 1987.) in June 1986 ACUS adopted Recommendation 86-3,1 CFR 305.86-3, urging agencies to use ADR in rulemakings and adjudications conducted under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 USC 551 et seg. While arbitration, mediation, and negotiation have long been a part of the legal landscape, the use of these techniquas in rulemaking is relatively recent. The Environmental Protection Agency is in the process of using ADR in a number of its rulemaking proceedings with varying success. The FTC has a negotiated rulemaking in process. ACUS has been asking agencies to identify candidate rulemakings for ADR techniques. CEO has contracted for neutrals to preside in ADR proceedings involving environmental issues.
At NRC in late 1982 attorneys and staff were asked to supply estimates for Congressional staff concerning the time required to review and adjudicate an application for authority to construct a deep geological high-level radioactive waste repository. A number of factors made such estimates difficult, including, the novelty of the proceeding, the special role of states and Indian Tribes, the intense controversy which would surround an application, the fact that the applicant was a federal executive agency, and the uncertainty concerning what the NWPA as enacted might eventually provide. There were also a number of prior agency proceedings which provided some fairly good indicators of the potential protracted length of an adjudicatory proceeding involving such factors. Two rulemakings, the ECCS rule in 1972-74 and the GESMO rule in 1974-75, j
provided guidance concerning what could be anticipated when attempting to address a novel, national nuclear issue. In addition, the highly contested reactor licensing proceedings provided excellent indicators. This experience indicated that f;ve to seven years for such proceedings was not an unreasonable expectation. In addition, a time line which constructed all I
l 2
___J
l activites from staff review through a Commission final decision indicated that the minimum licensing time for contested applications was a year and a half if every activity was accomplished without extension or delay. The NWPA as adopted, ignored the experience indicators for novel and complex cases and provided for three years for NRC review and decision. A fourth year can be authorized by Commission request to Congress.
Following the enactment of NWPA, NRC staff was asked to develop strategies and schedules which could enhance the agency's ability to meet the schedules provided by the NWPA. One evident area where substantial improvement was necessary was in the agency's 10 CFR Part 2 procedural rules. Throughout government, procedural reform or regulatory reform had become a favorite topic. The problem at NRC was that its regulatory reform efforts in the procedural area had met strong resistance and criticism. The agency's " Regulatory Reform Taskforce" had proposed extensive changes to 10 CFR Part 2 but had garnered little support from industry or the public. The NRC had appointed an advisory committee composed of representives of state, publ,c interest, and utility Bar. That i
committee had agreed on the principle of reform but not on the proposals of the agency's taskforce.
This history indicated that normal notice and comment rulemaking procedures which attempted to make procedural changes would probably not achieve the reforms the Commission needed if it was to meet the NWPA timetables. By mid-1983 the NRC staff decided to explore the idea of using ADR techniques to achieve reform objectives. Negotiating a proposed rule seemed feasible since it was apparent that there was almost universal agreement that the NRC's traditional adjudicatory procedures were not to any potential party's liking. What was lacking was consensus on what needed to be changed. At a series of briefings and meetings around the country the idea of conducting a negotiated rulemaking using ADR techniques was presented. In addition, some general ideas about using automated (computerized) litigation techniques to speed discovery, service of process, and trial docketing were presented. Tne reaction by states, Indian tribes, public interest groups, DOE, and industry was almost always favorable to the concept of ADR although usually guarded concerning which of the ideas was likely to be acceptable. Consequently, the Commission decided unanimously to set up a federal advisory committee and embark on a negotiated rulemaking to develop a proposed rule.
t
\\.
29024<
Proposed Rules r*ai +
Vol. 52. No.150 1
Wednesday. August 5.19e7 j
i
~
This sectson of the FEMRAL REGISTER 1250 24th Street Washington, DC 20037, parties would then have access to this contains notices to the putsc of the proposed issuance of ndes and Obtain single copies of the feasibility system. Beca use all relevant infonnation l
Watons. The pwpose of these notices. report prepared by the Conservation is to 91ve interestod pwsons an Foundation and the LSS Background would be readily available through pa Papur from Francis X. Cameron. Office access to the system, the initial time-to,p on of anal of the General Counsel, Washington, DC consuming interrogatory discovery i
process involving the physical rules.
20555, telephone (301) 492-0689.
production and on-site review of
_ POR PURTNER INFOResATION CONTACT:
documents by parties to a NRC licensing NUCLEAR REGULA*ORY NRCStoff-Francis X._ Cameron. Office pmce d g wo d t ecessa t
COMMISSION of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear i
10 CFR Part 2 Regulatory Commission, Washington intended to accomplish the following l
DC 20555, telephone: 301-492-5889 0gfC f[f tam dhcovery by provid l
RWmW W W W Kenneth L Ks! man. Office of Nuclear I
M t of R rds nd Material Safety and Safeguardo, comprehensive and easy access to ts Relat o tt Licensing of Washington DC 20555. Telephone:
potentially relevant licensing information:
i
,f,I N,[j,twy sposal gg 7,
f,_
oward S. Bellman, Establishment of an Advisory Timothyplealey, and Matthew A.
for the1 e n to e ing t h Committee for Negotiated Rulemaking Low, Conservation Foundation,1250 extent practicable, before the DOE l
24th Street. Washington, DC 20037, license application is submitted and the AosNcy: Nuclear Regulatory 202-293-4800 three year statutory time period begins:
Commission.
. To facil! tate review of the relevant I
ACTl0ec Notice of establishment of an SUPPt.ssssNTARY 96POAsAATSON:
Iicensing information by all parties and i
advisory committee to negotiate a -
N eventually the boards through the proposed rule, and notice of first provision, to the extent practicable, of meeting.
Section 114(d) of the Nuclear Waste full text search capability; Policy Act (NWpA). 42 U.S.C.10134.
suessnAny:The Nuclear Regulatory..
requires the Commission to issue a final
- To reduce the time associated with
_ Commission is establishing an advisory.. decision on the issuance of a-the physical submission of motions and committee, under the authority of construction authorization for the HLW other documents associated with the '
licensing proceeding by providing for the 4
Federal Advisory Committee Act
. repository within three years after DOE electronic transmission of these (FACA), to develop recommendations submits the license application (with a documents:
for revision of the Commission's Rules one year extension for cause). The HLW The Commission intends to develop of practice in 10 CFR part 2 related to licensing proceeding will not only this rulemaking through the process of the adjudicatory proceeding for the involve novel and complex technical issuance of a license for a geologic issues, but will also involve millions of negotiated rulemaking. In negotiated repository for the disposal of high-level documents, a substantially larger rulemsking.the representatives of number than the volume of documents parties who may be affected by a
' l waste (HLW). Specifically, the involved in the average nuclear power proposed rule, including the committee will attempt to negotiate a consensus on proposed revisions related reactor licensing proceeding. In view of Commission, convene as a group over a to the submission and management of this, the Commission does not believe period of time to try to reach consensus on the proposed rule. The agency then records and documents for the HLW that the use of traditionallicensing uses this consensus as the basis for a licensing proceeding. The committee procedures will enable the Commission will be composed of organizations to meet the statutory timetable, or will proposed rule which the agency issues representing 6 the major interests likely to provide all parties with an opportunity for notice and comment.The consensus be affected by the rulemaking. This for the most effective review of the is not the basis per se for the final rule which the agency will develop after notice announces the establishment of license application. In order to meet the traditional notice and comment the committee and the time and place of statutory schedule, and to provide for the first committee meeting. The title of the most effective review of the license procedures. The Commission, however the committee will be the HLW application by the Commission and may ultimately find it useful to rely on.
Licensing Support System Advisory
' other parties, the Commission is or to refer to, the consensus in connection with its adoption of the final Committee (" negotiating committee").
initiating measures to streamline the rule.
DATs:The first meeting of the HLW licensing process.
Licensing Support System Advisory One of these measures is the The negotiated rulemaking process
, Committee will be held on September to development of an information facilitates the comprehensive treatment t
of the rulemaking issues because those and 17,1987, beginning at 10 00 a.m. The management system that would contain groups that may be affected by the all of the data supporting the DOE rulemaking are present at the meeting will be open to the public.
license application, as well as all of the discussions and can react directly to ADoMEstas:The September 16.-17,1987 potentially relevant documents meeting of the HLW Licensing Support each other's concerns and positions.The System Advisory Committee will be generated by the NRC and other parties Commission believes that negotiated held at the Conservation Foundation.
to the licensing proceeding. in a rulemaking is an appropriate process for standardized electronic format. All this rulemaking because it will help to 4
29025 Fderal Register / Vol. 52. No.150 / Wednesday. August 5.1987 / Proposed Rules cat:blish the credibility of the IM. i.e submitted its feasibility report on Afey affected by repository siting, utilities, ratepayers, and Federal agencies such the belief that all relevant 6cuments 27,1987.
will be entered into the system and that Based on the poblic comments, and as the NRC and DOE.
tha system is free frsm tampering,in the Conservation Foundations The Commission stated that Lt would eddition, because che LSS will constitute feasibility repod, the Commission has consider parties for membership on the a new process Icr managing a ' '
decided to establish the negotiating' negotiating committee on the basis of (1)
Commission lic ensing proceeding. it is committee for this rulemakir@
whether they have a direct.immediate, and " botantial stake in the rulernaking, important that affectediind rees yg,
p) unether they may be adequately knowledgeab'e organizations directly The Conservation foundation represented by an(ther party on the participate in establishing the rules for recomv. ended that the Cornmission committee, and (3} whether their system opera floc, p' particularly because proceed with the negotiated rulemaidng. participation is essential to a successful individual pt rties to this proceeding will The Foundation concluded that--
negotiation.However, the Commission possess subt tantial research data that should be pbced into the LSS.
with certain cautious reservations.... it la welcomed expressions of interest from On Decerr ber 18.1986, the feasible for the NRC to form an advisory all groups potentially affected by the committee to negotiate revisfees toits..
rulemaking and stated that it would use Commisstor 's intent to conduct a mks to suppen the doekpnwne of a the selection criteria to exclude n:gotiated r alemaking was published in I
Our interested parties only as a last tesort.
th Federal Register (51 FR 45338).
nj,g 5 procedural The Commisoien also noted its concern l
Comments were due by February 17 and substantive 6wues we arounded upon the that the negotiating committee be kept I'
1987.The Federal Register Notice judgments of the potential committee invited expressions of interest from participants.There le already a broadly held to a manageable size in order to those who might want to participate in view among them that Nenuine efforts by all maximize the potential for arriving at a concerned made within such a committee consensus, and that the Commission j
the negotiations.The Notice also structure should yield s superior proposal mld emage th ma'dation d I
solicited cornment on the feasibility of They also genutnely behave that the -
8rC i
with similarinterests in order to l
n gotiation, and on a preliminary list of pmposhgulatory negotiation ymem can achleve this goa1.
rulemaking issues associated with the contribute very positively not on y to The Conservation Foundation has I
]
g*
tm;rovements in the bcensing precedure, but Twenty four comments were received. also to their many other workin8 recommended that the Commission f
The comments came from State relationships. We concur in the.e Judgments establish three tiers of participation in I
governments (six from first round and look forward to the esmasttee's the negotiated rulemaking proceeding.
laitiation.
The first tier would be compond of l
repository States, two from second round repository States);Triba!
Although in the judgment of the committee " members!'i.e., those governments (three from first round Foundation it would be unrealistic to participants whose views will constitute l
repository Tribes, one from a nonprofit expect an ultimate consensus on all any consensus or disagreement.The I
organization representing second round matters in issue,it believes thal-first tier would include not only I
individuals acting as a representative of repository Tribes and those Trfbes even where consensus is not reached a effected by the transportation o!!UV valusbie report can be developed identifying a single party but also individuals acting to e first or second round repository);
artes of agreement end disagreement.
as representatives of a coalition of three national environmental groups; nurmwing the ums in dwpete, identifying parties. A coalition would collectively three industry organizations;two the information neecssary to resolve ody hold a single sea.t b th fast tier d Federal agencies (the Department of remainins isms, and setting priorities inr committee membership.
i j
Energy, and the Bureau of Land PotenWiy acuptable soluuona.
The second tier would consist of Mznagement. Department of interior),
The comments submitted in rerponse individuals representing entities that, for the National Association of Regulatory to the Commission *a Federal Register specific reasons, were not invited to the Utility Commissioners: and three Notice were generally supportive of the first tier but whose views are important individuals.
negotiated rulemaking concept. These to the negotiations. These second trer The Commission has retained the favorable comments came from both the participants would have a seet et the Conservation Foundation, a nonprofit supporters of repository siting and also neg tiating toble, but their views would organization with expertise in the area from those groups who have been n t consititute any consensus or of mediation and negotiated rulemaking. critical of the siting process. The disagreement.
to assist the Commission in condecting comments on the advisability of The third tier would be comprised of the negotiation.The Foundation will developing the LSS were primar4y any members of the general public who provide the Commission with support in directed towards specific aspects of the have an interest in the proceeding but the creas of convening (assessing the LSS, rather than on the general who are not included in tiers one and fusibility of the negotiated rulemakinF). feasibility of estabffshing such a system.
two. The third tier will not have a seat facihtating (chalting the negotiating flowever, several commenters, again at the negotiating table. As with the sessions and assisting the participants from both sides of the reposttory siting rneetings of any advisory committee in crriving at consensus), training for issue, expressed support for the LSS.
chartered under FACA 5 U.S.C. App.,
participants on the negotiating Participants the meeting will be open to the public committee (on the principles of and members of the public wi!! be able In the Federal Register Notice negotiated rulemaking), and technical announcing the Commission's intent to to offer written comments to the cnd administrative support to the conduct a negotiated rulemaking, the committee, and if practicable, to offer negotiating committee on the ruiemaking Commission identified several interests oral comments at appropriate times issues.The Conservation Foundation's that might be affected by this particular during the meetings. Further, any initial responsibihty was to evahrate the rufemaking. These interests included individual or group and the pub!ic feasibility of conducting the negotiated Indian Tribes. State governments, local generally, will be provided with an rulemaking based on discussions with potential participants.The Foundation governments, and public interest groups opportunity to comment on any
29026 Fed;r.1 Register / Vol. 52, No.150 / Wednesday, August 5,1987 / Proposed Rules proposed rule developed as a result of, Federal Register Notice. To the extent.
None of the funds m this Act shall be used the negotiating process.
~
that any affected tribe or state may wish to pay the expenses of or otherwise The Commission has invited the to participate as a named member of a compensa te. parties intervening in regulatory
~
following groups, each to have one seat, first tier coalition, a reqeust should be.
or adjudicatory proceeangs funded in this to participallin the first tier of the made to the appropriate coalition. it is Act. Pub. L No.14141. 98 Stat. 578.
negotiating committ:e-within the discretion of the coalition as (1) State of Nevada:
to whether it wants to accept any
. In addition, the Continuing (2) State of Washington; additional members.
Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 1987; (3) State of Texas, representing itself The Commission empha' sins that the Pub. L. No.90-591, contains the same and affected Texar local governments:
groups invited to participate as a provision, as do the NRC Appropriations (4) Yakima Indian Nation:
member of the negotiating committee Acts for previous fiscal years. The (5) Ner perce Indian Tribe:
are those who might be broadly affected legislative history of this provision (c) Confederated Tribes of the by the LSS rulemaking.These groups do indicates that the prohibition would Umatilla Indian Reservation:
not necessarily correspond to the groups apply to rulemakinc proceedings. See (7) Department of Energy:
or persons who might have standing to Energy and Water Development (8) National Congrcss of American participate as a party to the Appropriations for 1982, part 4. Nuclear Indians, representing all tribes affected Commission's HLW licensing Regulatory Commission. Hearings by the siting of the second repository proceeding. participation in the HLW before the Subcommittee on Energy and I
and by the transportation of HLW; proceeding is governed by the Water Development of the House (9) Utah, Oregon, and Mississippi Commission's regulations set forth in 10 Subcomrnittee on Appropriations. 97th (jointly), representing a coalition of all CFR 2.714 and 2.7115 Cong.,1st Sess. 210 (1981): S. rep. NO.
i other states affected by the ulting of the 767,96th Cong. 2d Sess.13 (1980): 126 first repositoryt Convenor/ Facilitatory CONG. REC. 20665 (1980): Public (10) Minnesota and Wisconsin As noted above, the Commission has ' Participation in Agency Proceedings.
(jointly), representing a coalition of all retained the Conservation Foundation to Hearings on H.R.3301 before the states affected by the siting of the oversee the negotiated rulemaking Subcommittee on Administrative Law second repository, and by the-proccas. The Conservation Foundation and Government Relations of the House transportation of HLW:
has had extensive experience in multi-Judiciary Committee,95th Cong.,1st 1
(11) The Sierra Club, Environmental party dispute resolution, including Sess.114 (1977). Although each Defense Fund, and Friends of the Earth experience in negotiated rulemaking, but negotiated rulemaking must be l
(jointly), representing a coalition of has not had any prior involven.ent with evaluated to determine whether the nonprofit environmental groups; the substantive content of this particular negotiating phase of the rulemaking (12) Nuclear Waste Task Force, rulemaking.
would constitute a " proceeding" within representing a coalition of local Texas Howard S. Bellman of the the intent of section 502, the better view nongovernmental groups; Conservation Foundation will serve as is that this provision applies to this (13) Edison Electric Institute and the the senior facilitatory for the negotiated particular negotiated rulemaking. In this l
Utility Nuclear Waste Management rulemaking, assisted by Timothy J.
case, the stated objective of the Group (jointly). representing the nuclear Mealey, also of the Conservation negotiating cc,mmittee is not merely to industry:
Foundation. and Matthew A. Low of TLI exchange information, but to also reach (14) Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Systems. The facilitatory will chair the consensus on the text of a proposed Thue are a total of fourteen first tier negotiating sessions, assist individual rule. Furthermore, the Commission, participants including the NRC.
parties in forming and presenting their within certain statad limitations, has Those invited to participate in the positions, and effer suggestions and egreed to use the consensus as the basis second tier of the negotiating committee alternatives to help the negotiating for a proposed rule. Tho Commission are- -
committee reach consensus. Support to believes that, in this context, the (1) U.S. Council far Energy the facilitatory and the negotiating Awareness.
committee on the technical and legal nego. tiating phase would constitute the (2) National Conference of State aspects of the rulemaking will be begmning of a tuiemaking *' proceeding" Legislatures; provided by TechLaw, a subcontractor f r purposes of section 502.
(3) National Association of Regulatory to the Conservation Foundation.
Foundation adn, Conservation However, the Utility Cornmissioners.
sed the Commission The Conversation Foundation also Tundin8 that the negotiating committee will not recommended that the Commission Two interests--local non-provide a representative sample of LSS invite any other tribes or states affected governmental groups and national users if the groups who requested by the siting of a repository or the environmental public interest groups funding do not participate. Therefore, transportation of Hl.W to the repository, requested funding by the Commission in the Foundation recommended that the and not specifically incided as a order to participate in the negotiations.
NRC, the convenors. and the affected l
member of the coalitions in the first tier The Commission reiterates the position organizations explore ways to develop i
of committee membership, to participate set forth in the Federal Register Notice funding for the participation of these as second tier members of the announcing its intent to negotiate that it interests The Commission agrees that it I
committee.The Commission agrees. and is unable to provide any direct funding is important to facilitate the l
is extending an invitation for second tier to individual participants on the participation of environmental groups participation to affected tribes and negotiating committee.The and local nongovernment groups in this I
states that are not specifically named in Commission's inability to do no derives negotiated rulemaking. Accordingly, the I
the first tier coalitions (Groups 8. 9. or from a specific provision in the NRC Commission has requested the 1
10). Membership la these first tier appropriations legislation. For example, Conservation Foundation,its convenor.
coalitions was based on a timely request section 502 of the Energy and Water to seek funding assistance from such i
for participation Lt response to the Development Appropriations Act for organizations as the National Institute Commission's Decembtr 18.1986 Fiscal Year 1986 provides that-for Dispute Resolution (NIDR).
{
)
l
t Federal Register / Vol. 52, No.150 ] Wednesday, August 5,1987 / Proposed Rules 29027 The Commission anticipates that the one-day training session on the feasibility other participants will either be 'able to principles of negotiation for the As n ted earlier, most commenters cover their own expenses through funds committee as part of this first meetitig.
wen 8 neraDy supportive of using provided by DOE under the NWpA or The second meeting will be devoted to negotiated rulemaking. However.
through their own financial resources.
familiarizing the participants with the several commenters were concerned The Commission is providing complete legal and technical aspects of the that the Commission is fomains too support for the operation of the.
rulemaking.The actual negotiating much attention on meeting the NWpA negotiating committee, including funding sessions would begin approximately one three year deadline, and thereby may be for the professional facilitatory to assibt month after the second organizational the negotiating committee in reaching meeting and will continue monthly sacrificing a thorough review of the contensus, funding for the training ot thereafter through May 1988.
license application. The Commission does not intend to sacrifice a thorough.
participants on the principles of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking review of the DOElicense application to negotiation, provision of background information to the negotiating committee The negotiating committee's specific meet the statutory deadline. The on the technical and legal aspects of the objective will be to reach consensus on legislative intent, and the Commission's rulemaking,provisionof administrative the terms of a notice of proposed efforts to satisfy that intent, are to support for committec operations, and rulemaking.To the extent that the accomplish a thorough and effective provision of Commission legal and.
negotiations are successful, the review of the license application within technical staff to assist the committee.,
facilitatory tvill prepare a report the statutory time period.The Federal Advisory Committee Act describing the basis on which the Commission is pursuing various (FACA) committee developed its proposals. lf initiatives, such as the development of consensus is not reached on some the LSS, to achieve this objective.The In accordance with the requirements issues, the report should identify the Commission emphasizes that the LSS is of FACA, and the Commission a areas of consensus, the areas in which intended not only to facilitate the regulations in 10 CFR part 7 the consensus could not be reached, and the discovery process, but to provide far a Commission is, by the notice, indicating reasons for non-agreement.
comprehensive and effective review of its intent to charter the negotiating The Commission agrees to issue for the license apphcation by all parties, committee as an advisory committee.
comment any pmposed rule resulting and ultimately by the boards-The draft charter will be reviewed by fr m a consensus of the negotiating Other commenters supported the the GeneralServices Administration committee unless the Commission finds development of the LSS, and also (GSA) under 41 CFR part 101-6 in accordance with the Commission's that the proposed rule is inconsistent recommended that the LSS be regulations in to CPR part 7, advance with its statutory authority or is not established as soon as possible.The notice of negotiating committee appmpriately justified. In that event, the Commission is working expeditiously, mtetings will be provided in the Federal Commission would explain the reasons with DOE and all affected parties, Register,the meetings of the full forits decision. Adoption of any final towards the establishment of the LSS.
rule will be based on consideration of The intent of the negotiated rulemaking negotiating committee will be open to the public, members of the public will be any comments received on the proposed is to provide for the most efficient allowed to submit written statements to rule and other materials constituting the method of establishing a credible and the committee, and detailed minutes of rulemaking record.
effective LSS. In this regard, the DOE, in le[k ng,e pha i$eYits ommitment evallable for Failure To Reach Consensus pu ic rey copy g.
The Commission anticipates that the to coordinate the LSS design with the Committee Procedures and Meetings potential for reaching consensus will be negotiated rulemaking and to make any Under the general guidance of the demonstrated by the conclusion of the changes that may be required as a result facilitatory, the negotiating committee eighth meeting of the negotiating of the negotiated rulemaking.
will estat>1ish detailed procedures for committee (April 1988) and will dissolve Another commenter was concerned conducting committee meetings. To the negotiating committee if it does not over the need to ensure the validity of assist the committee, the facilitatory is appear that consensus is possible. The any rule resulting from the negotiated preparing draft procedures for Commission retains the discretion to rulemaking even though potential committee review and approval.These dissolve the committee at an earlier time parties to the licensing proceeding had draft procedures will address such tf the Commission determines that the not participated in the negotiated issues as the definition of consensus and committee's activities are not being rulemaking. As with any other the use of working groups and caucuses. carried out in the public interest. In the rulemaking, the Commission will ensure The Commission anticipates that absence of consensus, the Commission that any rule resulting from the approximately nine two-day meetings has directed the NRC Staff to develop a negotiated rulemaking process meets all l
will be required to complete the proposed rule on an expedited basis.
a pplicable legal requirements, including the Administrative Procedure Act.5 l
negotiating process.This teries of Comments on the Wgotiated U.S.C. 551 requirements for notice and meetings will take place over o period of Rulemaung comment rulemaking.The Commission nine months beginning in September 1987. Approximately one-half of the The public comments on the intends to publish any rule based on a meetings will be held in Washington, Commission's Federal Register Notice consensus of the negotiating committee DC, and the remaining meetings wlil be announcing its intent to conduct a
_ for notice and comment unless the held at regionallocations. The first negotiated rulemaking are summarized Commission finds that the proposed rule meeting of the negotiating committee below.The comments have been is inconsistent with its statutory will be organizationalin nature, organized into the categories of authority or is not appropriately focusing on dates, times, locations, and "fea sibility," " participants," " funding,"
justified. The Commission will also procedures for future meetings.The
" consensus " " timing," and " procedural ensure that there is an adequete Corr. mission also intends to sponsor a issues."
rationale for any provisions contained in
3 Fed 5rni Register f Vol: 52; No'.150 f Wednesday. August 5.1987 / Proposed Rulcs. - '.
29026 3
such a rule.The final rule willbe -
these three groups to participate as a documrnt data base as concerned.
generally applicable to all partim.to the coalition.on tbe negotiating committee.
citizens. as wdlas those groups who HLW licensing proceeding wilia the An Industry group suggested that the may be cmtributing to the cost of..
limits of the Commission'sJurialW committee have broader ladustry *.
developing such a system. In ordu to and will apply to any party to the participation e.g., the U.S. Council for ensure that.the design and opeution of licensing proceeding regardless of.
Energy Awareness, a trade association, the LSS. to the extent practicable, whether it participated in the neSofiated reactor vendors and other suppliers. In accommodates the needs of all those rulemaking.
response to requests for participation.
who will ha ve to use it the Commission The Bureau of Land Management in the Commission has invited the Edison extended a broad invitetion to those the Department ofInterior questioned Electric Institute and the Utility Nuclear Eroups. The Commission belhves that-the basic authority of an advisory Waste Management Group to this is consistent with the FACA commiltee to
- develop rulemakmg under participate in the fist tier of the requirements for " balanced FACA."The negotiated rulemaking negotic. ting committee. The U.S. Council membership." and that the composition mechanism has been used several times for Energy Awareness has also been of the committee does reflect equal by various agencies to develop invited to participate as part of the representation of affected interests.
recommendations on a proprosed rule.
second tier of participants.
"8.C"m8" " 8"88" 8
pa i pa np en s et md as's o a no nd en tacipants intests with different viewpoints. not rulstrokingproceeding. Any such at f ly t k p the co t
r.eptiating committee would constitute balanced and manageable.The
- f' "issun raommittee established by on agency-Commission agrees and, based on the "8'
for the purpose of obtaining advice or convenor's report, has structured "E. s ys g
s recommendations on issues or policies '
participation on the committee to ensure
- U # '" ' P*
that are within the scope of agency -
pot only broad participation, but also a intun s.H wem, the Comnussion responsibilities, and therefore would be disagrees with the commenter who manageable number of participants.
subject to FACA. Thus. the Commisston Several commenters addressed the
""88"
"'O'E""'"
EP 'I"8 believes it is within the authority of the FAC interests would male it 'unpossible to fb1 d
negotiating committee to provide this Sn achieve balanced membership. in fact. it mem ers e ter was type of adrim so the Commissior
. concerned that it may be irnpossible to
.ma@e m m&auon dat tb committee does have balanced
. Participants ectueve the FACA requirement of er m
appeal One commanier urged de balanced membership because of many f
g Commission to defme "affected states-opp singinterests. Anothercommenter broadly. As is appent from he groups suggested that the balanced membershrp participants is being provided, the Commission will accept comments fra invued to participate on the negadating, requirements of FACA would best bei committee de Commission has denned achieved by harving numerically equa..
any group that beliesesits interests are "affected states" broadly to include all representatives from energy and not already represcated on the
- first round and second round states that enmmenta11ntert its. utilities and negotiadng committee. The Commiss ion may be potentially affected by the siting ratepayers. federal overnment and anticipates dw additional requests for B
WW ted h h of a repositary. Anothercommenter state / local / tribal government. On a requested that second round repository related point one cocnecter asked bow ree otiating committee itsell Indian Tribes and time ladian Tribes the membership on the committee would The Nez Perce indian Tnbe effected by the transportation of HLW.
be weighted to reflect degrees of emphasized that althoyb the Tribal be' represented on the committee. The
. interest
- representative has the full confidence of Co'mmission has invited the National Section 5(bX2) of FACA requires the the Net Perce. only the Tnbat Executh e Congress of American Indians to membership of the advisory committee Committee can bind the tribe. The represent theseTribes, Another.
to be fairty balanced in terms of the Commission recognizrs that the commenter h amended that the points of view to be represented and the mdividual representatives of Commission ci, siderparticipation by functions to be performed by the part cipants on the negotiating local groups. In a6dition to the
. advisory committee." 5 U.S.C. App..%e committee will need to confirm Commission's original Tederal Register courts heve held that the" balanced proposed consensus positions with their Notice, wtrich invited expressions of membership" provision must be organization.The Commission would interest fromiocal groups and other interpreted in terms of the function to be also take this opportunity to reiterate organizations the convenor - V performed by the advisory committee.,
thatitisimportant to the succen of the severalinquiries regarding L National Anti-Hunger Coalition v.
negotiation for each participant to be of local governments and local not Lecuffre Commitiee of the Private repnsented by a senior individeal r.momntal grmrps in participating m Jector Survey on Cost Control. 557 F.
within the organization. Aithuugh the the negntiated nrlemalleg. Based an the Supp 524 (D.D.C.1983). of/d. 711 F2d representative will not be required to response to these inquiries. local 1071 (D C. Cir.1983). In regard to trae
" bind" the party he or she reprnents in government and local non governmental LSS. the function of the advisory terrns of making an on the spot" grmtps have been invited to participate committee is to reach consensus on the commitment on any issue that may arise in the negotiated relemaking.
rules goveming the use of an at a particular negotiating session, the An environmentelpeblic iniewst information management system in the representative must have sufficient grwp stated that the negotiatirig Commission's HLW proceeding.This seniority and delegated responsibihty to committee must have more than one directly affects the potential parties to represent authoritatively the views of participant fro a the puWe interest that proceeding. and also those the organization. In this regard. the sector.Three emironmentaipublic individuals and groups that are not Commission has designated William j interest groups nquested participe. tion.
parties to the ifLW proceeding but who Olmstead. Assistant General Counsel In rewponse, the Commission has invited would traditionally seek access to the for llearings. as its representatis c.
... - -.. - m w.
g..
Fod:rd R: gist:r / Vol. 51 No.150 / Wednet iay. August 5,1987 / Propond Rules 29029 [
- a funding approprie for the complexity of the committee.The Commission staff has.
rulemakka and the ned to establish the prepored a background paper that
. Two commenters suggested that the LSS as expeditiously as posulble.
surrmarizes the existing framework for NRC provide broad funding to interested Although the Commis ion anticipates the disclosure of documents relevant to -
p:rticipams. Another cornmenter stated that all participants will negotiste in a Commission licensing proceeding, and that the Nuclear Waste Fund go d faith, the Commission has stated provides more detail on the preliminary established under section 302 olthe that it retains the discretion to dissolve rulemakingissues. Copies of the NWPA can be used for State the committee at an earlier time if the background paper will be provided to participation. The Commission would Commission determines that the the groupr, invited to participate on the -
refer these c.o.mme'nters to the discussion committee e activities are not being negotiating committee and will be.
on Tucding. supra.
carried out in the public interest.
svailable on request from the NRC.
Consenns Furthenncre, considering that e time entact listed at the beginning of this limit has been speci!!cd for schieving Notice.The Commission anticipates that One commenfer suggested that the.
consensus, and that the Commission the negotiating committee will Commission consider the difficulty of intends to proceed with e alemaking en supplement the list of preliminary rezching consensus before embarking on the LSS if coasensmit not achieved, the issues. as appropriate.The public negotiations. Another commenter Commic# n does rat believe that the comments on the LSS are summarino, suggested that the NRC should address '
activities of the tegotioting committee below.
the nature of the consensus. including the ability of a participant to seek could bgused to deby the licensinst Several commenters address the <
pmcen.
coverage of the LSS. One commenter judicial review. Ano%er commenter recommended that the LSS be limited to suggestged that the NRC commitment to Procedurallnun e
g at a thdnder issue the coneensus rule should be clear.
Several comments addressed the
- ***Y '"88" The Commission has considered the process of negotiated rulemaking. For U*
difficulty of reaching consensus. The example, one conventer stated that the impksHons for oeer Conunluba Commission's intent in issuing the NRC should follownotice and comment activities f changing the rules on December 18.1m Faderal Register rulemakingprocedures. Another privileged information, pattkularly Notice on negotiated rulemaking and comment requested that the Interagency ins far as they relate to draf ts and initiating the Conservation Foundation's Coordinating Committee [lCC), whose handwritten annotations. Another feadbi'ity report was to evaluate the purpose was to provide a primlimary rec mmended that the Commission feasibility of reaching consensus As evaluat. ion of LSS issues, be disbanded.
cons der whether it is appropriate to rpod above., based on the public Another commenter suggested that have discovery rules for the HLW conimento mi the Federal Register skcommittee meetings of the full pr ceeding different from those for other Notice, or c he Conservation nebot! Ming committee be open to the NRC licensing proceedings.
Foundat!onM feasibility report, the pu lic. Anothercommenter suggested The Commission has considered the Comnhsion believes that consensus is that negotiating committee deliberations implications of the proposed revisions possible on at least some matters and is should be part of the rulemaking record.
for other Commission licensmg proceeding with the negotiated Finally, one commenter requested that pmceedings, and is limiting them to the rulemaking. As steted in the Federal parties should be able to comment on HLW proceeding at this timt because of Raister Notice ennouncing the the choice of facilitatory.
the novel and complex issues involved.
. Commission's intent to negotiate, the The Commission will follow notice the volume oMo:unpds, and the Commission agrees to issue for public and comment procedure.s on any statutory deadtme for the Commission's comment any proposed rule resulting proposed rule issued au a result of a decision. However. if implementation of from a consensus of the negotiating consensus reached by the negotiating the LSS for the HLW pmceeding is ucmmittee unless the Commission funds committee.The ICC win be disbanded, successful, the Commission n ay esplore that the proposed rule is inconsistent The negotiating committee wiM its feasibility for use in other types of with its statutory authority or is not determine to what extert subcommittees appropriately justified. Any judicial will be used, and vaethw thu e meeting licensing proceedings.
On a related point, one recommended review would follow a final rulemaking will be open or closed Me Comminion that the negotiat;ng committee follow a on the LSS in erecedance with the anticipates however that all fonnel traditional procedures for challenging committe* and subcommittee nenge rigid set of issues i.e. it would be undesirable to have a wholesale final agency rules.
will be open. Consistent with the neyd 77* #
to provide an adequate rationale for any rewriting of NRC adjudicatory rule that is lesued, the Commission principles. The Commission does not intend to have a "wholesels rewriting" A few commenters belies t.d that eight intends to mr.ke the negotiating months is too short a time for the committee deliberations part of the of Commission adjudicatory principles.
committee to reach consenras. Other rulemaking record. As for the choice of The preliminary laues indentified by commeders believed that there should facilitatory, it was necessary for the the Commission are confined to the be fewer negotiating committee Commission to make its selection of the - implementation of the LS$ in r.he HLW meetings over a shorter timeframe.
facilitatory early in the negotiating licensing proceeding. and any related Several commenters recommended that rulemaking process, and, therciore,it changes that may be necessary to allow the negotMirag committee be terminated could not invite comment or. thia matter, for effective operation of the LSS.
One commenter recommended that l
if no consensus is reached by a certain C8*' den'88"USS188U*8 the CommWon should establish an data, and that the Commission be prepared to terminate the negotiating in t'he Federal Register Notice -
interim system as soon as feasible and committee d the participants are using it announcing its intent to conduct u that this should be an issue for to delay the !! censing process.
negotisted rulemaking. the Commission discussion by the negotiating committee.
The Commission believes that the identified a number of issues The Commluien recognizes the time allotted for the negotiations is appropriate for consideration by the importance olestablishing an interim
?
g.
..~
29030 Rd;ral Registar / Vol. S2 No.150 / Wednesday, A7 5.1987 / N*ed Rules system to ensure the capture of all that the LSS should enhance. not detract privileged material, will be issues for relevant documents. Both the NRC and from a party's traditionalrights of DOE are developing procedures for us in discovery. Another commenter believed discussion by the negotiating comrnittee.
the interim period until the LSS Is Othe commenters were concerned established. The negotiating committee that DOE will not provide alld the over what type of administrative -
willbe kept informed of these efforts necessary information and therefore, framework would be appropriate la and theinterim system will also be an asserted that discovery should not be control LSS input and output. Several elirninsted.Still another commenter was appropriate issue for discussion by the commenters did not believe that DOE-negotiatingcommittee. Anyinterim concerned about whether the GS would should develop or administer the LSS.
be the sole information base for procedures will be revised to conform to discovery purposes. Another commenter should administ One commenter suggested that NRC the rule emerging from the negotiated rulemakingprocess.
recommended that the LSS at least Commission recognizes the importance Ole commcater recommended that provide for discovwy by interrogatories the LSS should be evaluated to and depositions. In contrast. One -
of this Jssue and has idcotified it as an issue for consideration by the deter.nine whether it is cost beneficial commenter recommended that the negotiating committee.
Commission eliminate all aspects of ibe Finally. several conunents addressed compared to traditional procedures.
Another commenter emphasized the tradithnal discovery pmcess.
the issue d access to the LSS. One The extent of discovery under the LSS need to consider technology and funding is au (uue for the negotiating commission establish procedures.fo commenter recommended that the constraints in developing the rules for committee. However, the Commission allowlatecomers sufficient access to the the ISS. nts same commenter would emphasize that the goal of this data base. Anothercomimenter was recommended that the committee avoid rulemaking is to develop an information concerned about cost of access to the setting specific technical characteristics management system that would contain LSS for localgovernments, in order to allow DOE to obtain the basi all of the data supporting the DCE environmental groups, and concerned system available for the purpose to be license application, as well as all of the citizens. Anothercommenter served. Finally, another commenter potentially relevant documents recommended that access should be recommtaded that the committee limit generated by the NRC and other parties provided at no charge. The the consensus to broad guidance on requirements involving the nature and to the licensing proceeding. In a Commission's intent is th61 all parties to use of the LSS rather than detailed standardized electronic format. All the HLW licensing proceeding will have design specifications, parties wouM then have access to this access to the data base, as well as an Althought the Commission has not systern. Because all relew nt infomation obligation to place documents in the would be readily available through system.The Commission supports the prepared a detailed cost / benefit access to the system. the initial time.
principle of providing low cost and easy analysis of the LSS, the Commission consuming intwrogatory discovery access to the LSS. These issues will be believes that the technology exits to process {nvolving physicalproduction subject for dir,cussion by the negotiating implement the LSS at a consonable cost.
Furthermore, the Commission believes and omsne review of documents by committee.
that the LSS will be more cost-effectiu paeties to a NRC licensing proceedinS than conducitr+g the itLW licensing would not be necessary.
Dated at Washingtori. DC. this 21st day of July, tsar.
proceeding under the traditional hard One commenter suggested that all copy approach.De Commission parties use uniform procedures for For the ferAar Regulatory Ccummismaa.
recognizes that the resolution of certain assuring the accuracy of the information Samumy. Chilk.
sebmitted and that all retevant 3,,,,,,,7,f,3, c,,,j,,j,,,
issues will be dependent on tha cost and documents have been entered. On a IFR Doc. EhW97 Filed M-sh 845 ern) availabihty of the technology.These constraints wm need to be considered related point, another commenter by the negotiating commitles.Tha recomtaended that there be strong sanctions to ensure that all data is Commission staff and otherparticipants. entered. Another commenter was FEDERAL HOWtE LOAN BANK BOARD as well as the technicalandlegal advisor to the facilitatory, will assist the concerned over the accuracy of information submined and how to keep 12 CFR Part 522 committee in determining the costs and spurious docu: cents out. One of the
}
benefits of radous options. Although it iseses for negotiating committee two. 87-s2st may not be necessary or addaable to set detailed design specifications, the consideration is what sanctions and Commission believes that the resolution procedures should be used to emre the issuance and Form of Stock in Federal Home Loan Banks of some LSS tssues wal neced to be capture of all relevant documents.
Another issue for commithe Date: July 29,1987 expficit and detailed. The negotiating consideration will be potential committee wm have the responsibility aotacw federal Home Loan Bank for determining the extent of detail tet-hniques for eliminating duplicative Beacd-material and for minimizing the problem necessary. To assist the negotiating of " document dumping" Acnom Proposed rule.
committee in its deliberations on the level of detail needed. the Commission One commeMer did not balieve that sowuAsm The Federal Home Loan Bank staff wift prepare a sample regulatory privileged doeurnents should be pir,ced Board (" Board")is proposing to amend text to illustrate the options avallah!a.
in the LSS. Another commenter I
Several comments were submitted on recommended that there should be wry its Federal Home Loan Bank System little privileged information. Both the Regulations (" Regulations") to authortze the relationship of traditional discovery NRC Rules of Practice and the Federal the capial stock of 6 Federal Home tiomtnenters recommended that Rules of Cint Pmcedure alk>w parties te Lrea Bank (" Bank") to t e put in techniques to the LSS. A few uncertificated or book entry fomt claim certain privileges from discovery.
Currently. the Regula tions provide for traditional disemwy techniques be used The application of these privileges to the Bank stock to be issued in addition to the LSS and suggested LSS, and the administration of form only, but on the basis of an earlier i
.J