ML23156A466
| ML23156A466 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1995 |
| From: | NRC/SECY |
| To: | |
| References | |
| PR-MISC, 60FR16685 | |
| Download: ML23156A466 (1) | |
Text
ADAMS Template: SECY-067 DOCUMENT DATE: 03/31/1995 TITLE: PR-MISC - 60FR16685 - DRAFT REPORT ON RESPONSIVENESS TO THE PUBLIC; AVAILABILITY I
CASE
REFERENCE:
PR-MISC 60FR16685 KEYWORD: RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete
STATUS OF RULEMAJCING
!PROPOSED RULE: PR-MISC OPEN ITEM CY/N) N I
RULE NA!£: DRAFT REPORT ON RESPONSIVENESS TO THE PlllLIC; AVAILABILITY PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE: 60FR16685 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 03/31/95 NUMBER OF COIOIEHTS: 32 ORIGINAL DATE FOR CCJ4MEHTS:-05/30/95 EXTENSION DATE: / /
FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE: FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: / /
!NOTES ON DRAFT REPORT IAJREGJBR-0199. FINAL REPORT NUREG/BR-0199 ISSUED aus JANUARY 1996. .FILE LOCATED ON 16H.
- lll'iWLE I
ITO FIND THE STAFF CONTACT OR VIEW THE RULEMAKING HISTORY PRESS PAGE DOw'N KEYi HISTORY OF THE RULE i
i PART AFFECTED: PR-MISC I
~-- .
I RULE TITLE: DRAFT REPORT ON RESPONSIVENESS TO THE P\J3LIC; I
g\-
AVAILABILITY I PROPOSED RULE PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE I SECY PAPER: SRM DATE: / / SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 03/27/95 I
I FINAL RULE FINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE I SECY PAPER: SRM DATE: 12/21/95 SIGNED BY SECRETARY: / /
STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE ICONTACT1: VALERA WILSON, EDO MAIL STOP: 017-621 PHONE: 415-1723 I I I ICONTACT2: MAIL STOP: PHONE: I
DOCKET NO. MISC (60FR16685)
In the Matter of DRAFT REPORT ON RESPONSIVENESS TO THE PUBLIC; AVAILABILITY DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT
- 03/27/95 04/11/95 03/27/95 04/10/95 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE RE AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT REPORT (NUREG/BR-0199)
COMMENT OF PHIL RUTHERFORD ( 1) 04/12/95 04/11/95 COMMENT OF W. PETER TROWER ( 2) 04/13/95 04/10/95 COMMENT OF OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY (SUSAN L. HIATT) ( 3) .
04/17/95 04/12/95 COMMENT OF DR. KARL Z. MORGAN ( 4) 04/18./95 04/13/95 COMMENT OF SAN DIEGO OFFCE OF DISASTER PREPAREDNESS (DANIEL J. EBERLE, DIRECTOR) ( 5) 04/24/95 04/18/95 COMMENT OF STEVENSON l ASSOCIATES (JOHN D. STEVENSON, PRES.) ( 6) 04/28/95 04/25/95 COMMENT OF GERRY P. ZANZALARI ( 7) 05/01/95 04/25/95 COMMENT OF COLORADO DEPT. OF PUB. HEALTH l ENVIRON.
(ROBERT M. QUILLIN) ( 8) 05/02/95 05/01/95 COMMENT OF LOUIS l MARILYN VARRICCHIO ( 9) 05/02/95 04/26/95 COMMENT OF MARVIN I. LEWIS ( 10) 05/05/95 05/01/95 COMMENT OF ROBERT K. RUTHERFORD ( 11) 05/09/95 05/09/95 COMMENT OF COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.
(C. B. BRINKMAN) ( 12) 05/18/95 05/17/95 COMMENT OF OFFICE OF SMALL BUSINESS l CIVIL RIGHTS (VANDY L. MILLER, DIRECTOR) ( 13) 05/27/95 05/27/95 COMMENT OF N. BETHESDA CONGRESS OF CITIZENS' ASSOCS (ARLENE S. ALLEN, PRESIDENT) ( 14)
DOCKET NO. MISC (60FR16685)
DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENl 05/30/95 05/15/95 COMMENT OF CONSUMERS POWER {ROBERT A. FENECH, V. P.) ( 15) 05/30/95 05/25/95 COMMENT OF DIV. OF RAD. SAFITT &SAFEGUARDS, RIii (CYNTHIA D. PEDERSON, DIRECTOR) { 16) 05/30/95 05/27/95 COMMENT OF COALITION ON WEST VALLEY NUCLEAR WASTES (RAYMOND C. VAUGHAN) ( 17) 05/31/95 05/25/95 COMMENT OF KERR-MCGEE CORPORATION (HERBERT ESTHEICHER, ESQ.) ( 18) 05/31/95 05/28/95 COMMENT OF WE THE PEOPLE, INC.
(ANN PICKEL HARRIS, ASSOC. DIR.) ( 19) 05/31/95 05/30/95 COMMENT OF NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION (RICHARD L. LAWSON, PRESIDENT) ( 20) 05/31/95 05/30/95 COMMENT OF NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (WILLIAM H. RASIN, SR. V.P.) ( 21) 05/31/95 05/31/95 COMMENT OF STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (TERRY C. FRAZEE) ( 22) 06/01/95 06/01/95 COMMENT OF PAUL M. BLANCH ( 23) 06/02/95 06/01/95 COMMENT OF DAVID C. WILLIAMS, INSPECTOR GEN. ( 24)
- 06/02/95 05/30/95 COMMENT OF NORTHEAST UTILITIES SYSTEM (J. F. OPEKA, EXEC. V.P.) ( 25) 06/05/95 05/26/95 COMMENT OF DEPT. OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (DR. MUKUND L. GAI) ( 26) 06/05/95 05/30/95 COMMENT OF ACCIDENT PREVENTION GROUP (DR. VOJIN JOKSIMOVICH, PRESIDENT) ( 27) 06/06/95 05/29/95 COMMENT OF CHENANGO NORTH ENERGY AWARENESS GROUP (SUSAN 8. GRIFFIN) ( 28) 06/06/95 05/30/95 COMMENT OF CORAR (LEONARD R. SMITH) { 29) 06/06/95 05/30/95 COMMENT OF DR. MARY P. SINCLAIR ( 30) 06/08/95 06/02/95 COMMENT OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR SAFITT (STEVEN C. COLLINS) ( 31) 06/12/95 06/04/95 LITTER FROM DR. MARY P. SINCLAIR TO THE SECRETARY PROVIDING CORRECTIONS TO PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED COMMENT 30.
DOCKET NO. MISC (60FR16685)
DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 06/13/95 06/06/95 COMMENT OF FAWN SHILLINGLAW ( 32)
"96 JAN 30 P4 :4 ~
OFFICE 0,::- SECRETAR Y DOCK ETIN G & St~VlC E t3R,L\ 'lil:H Ftf{lt;{'f;,,.
0
~\~\J/ "') U.S. Nuclear Regulatory JANUARY 1996
\~~:..if~/,/ Commission
Responsiveness to the Public Final Report
~v"\.;..P. R£ou<.>
f'* , * '\ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
\' . l
,.,., fj i>(J Commission
...... ii<
JANUARY 1996 NUREG/BR-0199
CONTENTS Page Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Infra.structure Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 NRC Policy on Assuring Responsiveness to the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 NRC Policy on Public Access to Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Staff Orientation and 'Iraining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Electronic Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Mission-Related Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Public Petitions ......................................., . . . . . . . . . 9 Management of Allegations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Emergency Preparedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Electronic Information Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Enrichment Facility Licensing and Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Decommissioning of Sites and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research ............................... . 26 Improving the Rulemaking Process .............................. . 26 Petitions for Rulemaking - 10 CFR 2.802 ......................... . 27 Office of State Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Reviews of Agreement States Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Tochnical As.sistance to Agreement States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Regulatory Review of Agreement State Proposed Regulations . . . . . . . . . 31 Agreement States 'Iraining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Materials Licensing and Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Administrative Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Office of the Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 License Fee Inquiries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 iii NUREG/BR-0199
\\
Public Responsiven~ Assurance Plan CONTENTS (continued)
Page Commercial Payment Inquiries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Office of .Administration ..................... ~ .. : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Contracting Process ............................ : ...... : . . . . . . . . 40 NRC Headquarters Security Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Quality and Timeliness of Correspondence : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Freedom of Information Act Program ............................ . 45 Local Public Document Room Program ................. ~ ........ . 46 Public Meeting Notice System ................ ,.................. . 49 Office of Personnel ............................. *. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S1 Employment Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Office of the Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 NRC Headquarters Public Document Room . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 White Flint Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Office of Public Affairs ............................ ,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Informing the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards .......................... . 59 Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste .......................... : . . . . . 59 ACRS/ACNW Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Office of the General Counsel . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Response to Public Inquiries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 NUREG/BR-0199 IV
INTRODUCTION Since its inception, the Nuclear Regulatory Commismon (NRC) has sought to conduct its business activities in an open and public manner.
We ~efine ~e public to be individual citizens, public interest groups, petitioners, ~ose whom we regulate (our licensees), industry groups, agency contractors, the Congress, and all othe~ with whom we do business.
- In recent years NRC has attempted to be more open and responsive to the public. We have expanded our use of public workshops to get early comment on rulemaking activities; we have established electronic bulletin boards that allow the public an easy way to comment on proposed rules (e.g., the enhanced participatory rulemaking); and we have surveyed our licensees to get their ideas on ways to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden. We also have established the Cost Beneficial Licensing Action Program,1 made improvements to the 2.206 petition process (the primary mechanism for the public to raise potential health and safety issues in regard to licensed facilities); and initiated a pilot program for opening predecisional enforcement conferences2 to the public. However, while these initiatives represent significant improvements, they are not enough. We had two additional major concerns: responsiveness to the public did not get priority attention in all NRC programs, nor had there been a systematic review of NRC business activities to identify those where improvements could or should be made.
Vice President Gore's Report of the National Performance Review dated September 7, 1993, placed new emphasis.on Federal agencies "putting the. customer first" In this spirit, . on July 27,' 1994, the NRC Executive Director for Operations launched the Public Responsiveness Initiative by asking NRC office directors to identify those business activities where public interaction is relatively frequent and to develop "Public Responsiveness Improvement Plans." This report discusses the 1The CBIA program provides a more expeditious review of and increased NRC management attention to licensee requests that seek to modify or delete requirements that have a smell effect on safety and are costly to implement 2A predecisionitl enforcement conference is a meeting between the NRC and a licensee. Its purpose is to obtain information that will lmist the NRC in determining the appropriate enforcement action, including the reason for the apparent violations, the apparent root cause., and the licensee's corrective actions. The decision to hold an enforcement conference does not mean that the NRC has determined that a violation has occnrred or that enforcement action will be taken.
\
- Public* Responsiveness Assurance Plan Jntroduction .
initial results of that effort and contains office improvement plans.
These plans were published in the Federal Register on March 31, 1995, for public comment. Comments were received from more than 30 individuals.* We appreciate the time those persons took to review the draft report and provide comments. We have responded directly to each p~rson. Comments were taken into consideration and, as appropriate, w~ have ma9e adjustments ~d improvements to the plans. Copies of the comments and responses are on file ~n the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, Nw, Washington, DC.
We consider public responsiveness an ongoing process. As we gain experience from implementing the activities described in this document, we are likely to expand some, discontinue others, and consider new ones.
All publications mentioned in this report are available to the public.
Publications in the NUREG series (NUREG-XXXX) and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations are available from the U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20402-9328. NRC .Management Directives are available for review and copying at a nominal fee at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, Nw, Washington, DC.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Infrastructure Changes INFRASTRUCT'URE CHANGES NRC Policy on Assuring Responsiveness to the Public
' It is' the policy of the NRC to be responsive to the public. The public includes individual citizens, public interest groups, petitioners, licensees, industly groups, contractors, the Congress, and all with whom we do business. Responsiveness entails
- structuring NRC b~siness activities to facilitate and encourage public participation, making NRC documents readily available to the public through public document rooms and electronic media,
- responding in a timely manner to business requests and public inquiries,
- responding to the public in a professional and courteous manner, and
- understanding and respecting the impact that NRC activities can have on those with whom we do business.
e NRC Policy on Public Access to l)ocuments The policy of the NRC is to make as much information as possible available to the public relating to NRC's health and safety mission, in accordance with its legal responsibility to protect some types of information. It is the intent of the NRC to automatically make documents publicly available that are anticipated to be of interest to the public without anyone needing to file a Freedom of Information Act request The agency will review the types of documents that are of public interest that are not now routinely placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) and local public document rooms (LPDRs). To the extent that categories of documents can be identified that are likely to be of interest to the public, NRC will expand the scope of information routinely disclosed. To this end, the NRC will make information 3 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Infrastructure Changes available to the PDR and LPDRs whenever it is known or anticipated that there is or will be public interest in such information, except when there is a legitimate need to safeguard the information.
On occasion a document that has a requirement for protection and also has known or potential interest to the public can be released, in whole or in part, as a result of declassification or disclosures under the Freedom of Information Act. In these cases, the NRC will make the document or a portion thereof available to the public by placing it in the PDR and LPDRs.
Staff Orientation and '!raining
Background
The NRC will make every effort to respond to the needs of the public in a timely and professional manner. To emphasize the importance of this effort, the NRC will incorporate the concept of public responsiveness into all of its activities. For instance, the NRC plans to modify its Orientation for New Employees to include a segment on responsiveness to the public.
The NRC will take the following actions to ensure that its employees have the necessary training and tools to better serve the public:
Planned Improvements (1) Complete the revisions to the following materials and/or courses to factor in responsiveness: the video, The NRC Story; and the courses Conducting and Participating in Meetings; Effective Briefing Techniques; The Media 'fraining Workshop; and Supervising Human Resources.
(2) Inform the staff about the importance of public responsiveness through such courses as Effective Communications for NRC Inspectors; Gathering Inspection Informatipn Through Interviews; NRC: What It Is and What It Does; and The Regulatory Process.
(3) Inform the staff of the availability of university-sponsored and other courses on effective relations with the public.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Infrastrncture Changes (4) Improve telephone communication and etiquette by providing guide}ines to employees on how to answer and handle telephone calls.
(5) Revamp the NRC telephone directories so that employees may quickly locate information and direct calls to the correct office or staff member who can provide the fastest, most accurate response to the inquiry.
(q) Ensure that NRC switchboard operators, in many cases the first
- contact the general public has with the agency, are knowledgeable about NRC offices, functions, and key personnel so that they may properly direct callers more quickly and more accurately.
(7) Increase the number of NRC employees who take the in-house course Clear Writing, which teaches students how to write for a specific audience and purpose, provides guidance on how to respond in a logical manner, and teaches general correspondence style, editing, and grammar.
Contact Eileen Mason, Office of Personnel, 301-415-7532
- Electronic Media
Background
Using information technology to improve responsiveness to the public is consistent with the findings of the National Performance Review's Creating A Government That J3/4Jrks Better and Costs Less, and Reengineering Through Information Tecfznology (a report that accompanies the National Performance Review). In an October 28, 1993, letter transmitting his report entitled Technology for Economic Growth: President's Progress Report, President Clinton stated that technology is a powerful tool for making government more efficient and responsive. Thus, government intends to use technology to improve the quality and timeliness of service, to set up new ways for the public to communicate with government, and to make government information more readily available to the public. These goals are consistent with those set forth in NRC 's Information Technology Strategic Plan for 5 NUREG/BR-0199
\
Public Responsiveness As&irance Plan Infrastructure Changes FY 1994-1998, NUREG-1487, Vol. 1 (November 1993). The NRC Strategic Plan presents a vision to "manage shared data and documents as agency resources and ensure they are accessible, secure, and reliable," and to update the agency's document management capabilities to meet current and anticipated programmatic needs," thus benefitting not only the NRC but the public as well.
The NRC has used a variety of methods to make electronic information available to the public. As an example, computer codes developed under the sponsorship of the NRC are made available through the Energy Science and Technology Software Center (ESTSC), which is operated under an interagency agreement with the Department of Energy.
Accessions by the ESTSC are abstracted in Computer Codes and Mathe-matical Models (NUREG/BR-0083), which is published annually and is available to the public through the U.S. Government Printing Office.
Information available on the agency's electronic bulletin board systems is generally announced by Federal Register notice. Current and planned bulletin boards are, or will be, available through the Department of Commerce's National Tuchnical Information Service (NTIS) by means of its clearinghouse known as FedWorld.
- The NRC Office of Information Resources Management (IRM) serves in a support role by providing for the agency's information technology -
needs. IRM has initiated several activities that have the potential to help the agency be more responsive to the public. One such activity is the agency's toll-free telephone service which allows the public to make general inquiries of, or provide comments to, the staff. Also, the NRC has revised the C!tizen 's Guide to U.S. Nu cfear Regulatory Commission Information to inform the public of existing.methods for electronically acces.5ing agency information by such methods as electronic bulletin boards, Internet, and World Wide Web, in addition to the more familiar telephone and fax. All NRC staff can now be reached via Internet electronic mail.
Also, IRM implemented an Internet World Wide Web server to give the public access to NRC information using MOSAIC software from the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA). Under a pilot program that began in August 1994, 200 NRC employees began to use this software to obtain information from other public and private NUREG/BR-0199 6
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Infrastructure Changes agencies and businesses. Using this same new technology, NRC created a home page" for public access to NRC information via Internet. The availability of the NRC home page is cited by reference in the home page for the White House, the NCSA, and Conseil Europeen pour la Recherche Nucleaire (developers of the World Wide Web), as well as in other domestic and international sources.
Because information technology is changing so rapidly, the agency is continually looking for ways to use new information processing tools to better support its needs and those of the public.
- Planned Improvements (1) Continue to add electronic bulletin boards to FedWorld and to explore other methods for facilitating public involvement in the rulemaking process through electronic communications.
(2) Develop methods of improving electronic information exchange between the nuclear industry and the NRC.
(3) Develop automated systems to improve our ability to track and manage internal work flow, which will facilitate the agency's ability to respond to the public in a more timely manner.
(4) Develop an electronic review, comme1;1.t, and concurrence process to speed up the review and approval process of correspondence.
(5) Use new technology and services for the deaf to allow individuals who are hearing impaired to communicate more reach1y with the NRC staff via the public telephone system. These improvements will also allow NRC employees who are hearing fµipaired to be contacted by more members of the public.
Contacts: Arnold E. Levin, Office of Information Resources Management, 301-415-7458 Walter E. Oliu, Office of Administration, 301-415-7166 7 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation MISSION-RELATED CHANGES Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Public Petitions
Background
Since its inception in 1975, the NRC has encouraged members of the public to bring potential health and safety issues involving NRC-licensed facilities to its attention. The primary mechanism available to the public for raising concerns involving public health and safety at licensed facilities and for seeking specific enforcement actions against licensees is the agency's 2.206 petition process." The agency rules for the process are described under section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The 2.206 petition process is described in an NRC pamphlet entitled Public Petition Process, NUREG/BR-0200. NRC staff guidance for performing actions under the 2.206 process is given in the internal NRC Management Directive and Handbook 8.11, "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions." If the petition merely raises health and safety concerns and does not seek enforcement action, then the NRC staff reviews the petitioner's safety concerns outside the 2206 petition process.
The 2.206 process provides that any person may file a petition requesting that the Commission institute~ proceeding to modify, suspend, or revoke a license or to take any other enforcement action that may be appropriate. Once a petition is received, it is assigned to the appropriate office for evaluation and response. After the evaluation is completed, the office director issues a written decision that addresses the concerns raised by the petitioner and either grants, partially grants, or denies the petition. The office director's decision is provided to the Secretary of the Commission. The Commission can review the office director's decision at its discretion. After 25 days the office director's decision becomes final unless the Commission determines that the office director's decision should be modified or some other action be taken.
In the past the filing of a petition did not automatically result in a public hearing, and hearings have been rare. Historically, the NRC has 9 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation granted, iri whole or in part, only about 10 percent of the petitions received, which has led to a perception that the NRC is not responsive to public petitions.
Consistent with current efforts to improve public responsiveness and enhance public participation in the decision-making process, the NRC reviewed the 2.206 process with the objective of makine the process more effective, more easily understandable, and more credible. As part of its reassessment of the process, the NRC held a public workshop and obtained extensive feedback on the effectiveness of the program from citizens' groups, the nuclear industry, former petitioners, and State and
- local governments.
It was clear from this review that many believe that the 2.206 process at that time did not afford the ~titioner an opportunity to participate meaningfully in the process. In addition, there were no provisions for keeping the petitioner informed of the status of his/her petition or for ensuring he/she received copi~ of all pertinent correspondence.
As a. resu~t of the findings of the review, the NRC has made improve-ments to the 2206 process to increase public participation and to enhance communications with petitioners~
Recent Improvements Under this improved process, the NRC (1) Offers the petitioner, under certain circumstances, the opportunity for an informal non-adjudicatory public hearing as part of the petition review process.
(2) Provides copies of all pertinent correspondence to all participants
,involved in the petition.
(3) Identifies a single NRC contact for each petition.
(4) Contacts the petitioner and informs him/her that the 2206 process is a public process that does not protect the identity of the petitioner or the contents of the petiti~n from the public, and ascertains from the petitio.ner whether he/she wishes to proceed with the petition or re~bmit it as an allegation.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (5) Established an electronic bulletin board to provide the public with monthly status updates on all pending petitions.
(6) Notifies the petitioner of the status of the petition every 60 days or more frequently if a significant action occurs.
(7) Established the goal of issuing the director's decision or partial director's decision within 120 days from the date of the acknowledgeme.nt letter. If the goal cannot be met, then NRC will write to the petitioner explaining the reason for the delay.
Contact Mohan Thadani, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 301-415-1476 Management of Allegations
Background
Since 1987, the Cornmissi~n has had in place a program to receive, process, and resolve allegations reported by workers involved in NRC-regulated activities. The NRC's allegations policies and procedures appear in NRC Management Directive 8.8, "Management of Allegations."
The NRC allegations program encourages employees involved in NRC
- regulated activities to report safety concerns to their management so that safety issues can be addre~d promptly. If employees are not comfortable reporting their concerns to their management or if the employees believe their concerns have not been properly addressed, they provide their concerns directly to the NRC. To ensure that
- individuals providing concerns to the NRC are properly treated, the NRC protects the identity of individuals where anonymity is appropriate and possible and notifies individuals of the resolution of their concerns.
The NRC also takes enforcement action (i.e., levies civil penalties) against licensees who retaliate against employees for reporting concerns to their management or to the NRC.
The NRC's process for handling allegations involves several offices.
Within 30 days of receiving an allegation, the appropriate regional or program office convenes an Allegation Review Board (ARB) to address 11 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness &surance Plan Office of Nuclear Reactor Regolation the resolution of the allegation in a timely manner. This Board includes appropriate management, technical, legal, enforcement, and investigative staff from offices pertinent to the allegation. The ARB sets priorities for the staff to evaluate the concerns, cohduct inspections and/or investigations of the concerns at licensee facilities, and interview knowledgeable individuals, as appropriate. When allegers report I
harassment and intimidation by their employers for raising concerns, the NRC informs allegers of remedies available through the Department of Labor to combat the alleged discriminatory practices. The NRC may take action independent of, or in parallel with, the Department of Labor to investigate these allegations. -
On July 6, 1993, the NRC Executive Director for Operations set up a review team to reassess the NRC's program for protecting allegers from retaliation. The review team assessed whether the NRC had taken sufficient steps within its authority to create an atmosphere within the regulated community in which individuals who had safety concerns felt
µ-ee to raise such co.nce~ to ~eir management ~r to the NRC without fear of retaliation. The review team's report, NUREG-1499, Reassessment of the NRC's Program for Protecting Allegers Against Retaliation, issued in ~anuary 1994, made 47 recommendations for improvements.
. The recommendcltions included strengthening the NRC allegation -
program (19 recommendations), modifying the enforcement policy for more effective deterrents against violations (11 recommendations),
issuing Commission policy statemen~ to encourage licensees to maintain an environment in whicl;l employees can voice concerns without fear of retaliation (6 recommendations), prioritizing and supporting investigations to minimize the impact of retaliation (6 recommendations), and increasing NRC investigations and involve-ment in the Department of Labor process (5 recommendations). The NRC plans to issue a substantially revised Management Directive 8.8 to address the review team's recommendations during the first quarter of 1996.
Planned Improvements (1) Assist workers involved in regulated activities.
Public Responsivene~ Assurance Plan Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- Make available to people working in NRC-regulated activities and the general public an NRC brochure that informs them of NRC's policies and procedures on handling allegations. The brochure will include guidance on reporting concerns to the NRC.
- Inform allegers by letter and brochure about their rights as employees and tell them how to obtain remedies for discriminatory acts through the Department of Labor.
- Solicit feedback from allegers on the NRC's handling of their allegations.
- Establish a toll-free number for allegers to report their concerns.
(2) Protect alleger identity.
- Inform allegers by phone: letter, and brochure of the limitations on the NRC's ability to protect their identity so that allegers do not ~ume that the NRC can protect their identities under all circumstances.
(3) Monitor licensee environment.
- Be aware of whether the licensee's environment is hostile or conducive to employees raising safety concerns through trending of allegations received by ,the NRC and interaction with licensee management and employees during inspections.
- Consider a licensee's environment during the NRC's ~e~ent of a licensee's performance.
(4) Respond to credible reports of retaliation.
- Respond to credible reports of reasonable fears of retaliation against individuals raising safety concerns to their management or the NRC before retaliation has occurred. (In this case, the*
alleger must agree to be identified.)
- Infor;m senior licensee management, by letter or meeting, of the fear of retaliatio~.notify li~nsees of the potential for NRC 13 NUREG/BR-0199
, I:tt~~c Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- enforcement action, and monitor licensee actions towards the alleger.
(5) Provide feedback on NRC actions to allegers.
- Implement specific criteria and time frames for NRC responses to allegers (e.g., acknowledging receipt of an allegation and its
- specifics within 30 days; advising allegers within 30 days of the completion of NRC action; and informing allegers every 6 months of the status of their concerns).
(6) 'frack, trend, and monitor allegations from receipt to completion of 4t agency action. . ,
- Implement various revisions to the NRC Allegation Management System data base, including introducing new fields for tracking and trending allegations and increasing data retrieval functions and data base capacity.
(7) Enhance self-~ent, training, and staff interface activities.
- Establish a Senior Level position of agency allegations advisor.
- Conduct annual audits of the implementation* of the allegation program in the regions and program offices.
- Emphasize periodic training of appropriate staff.
- Include performance standards for allegation follow-up in the appraisals ,of appropriate NRC staff and managers.
- Conduct office allegation coordinatc;,r counterpart meetings.
Contact:
Edward T. Balcer, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 301-415-1282 Emergency Preparedness
Background
Emergency preparedness is an integral part of the NRC's defense-in-depth philosophy for ensU!ing a high level of safety at each of the NUREG/BR-0199 14
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation nuclear power plant sites in the U.S. In implementing this philosophy, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) (1) reviews nuclear power plant licensee's emergency plans to determine if they conform to current regulations, (2) evaluates the licensee's ability to implement those plans through inspections and observation of periodic exercises, and (3) reviews the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) findings,on the adequacy of the State and local offsite emergency preparedness programs.
Other activities in the area of emergency preparedness that involve public participation include (1) holding public meetings following emergency plan exercises evaluated by both FEMA and the NRC, (2) reviewing petitions submitted by members of the public for NRC to take action against a licensee under applicable NRC regulations, (3) respon'ding to inquiries from the general public on specific emergency preparedness issues, (4) evaluating proposed changes to the NRC's rules governing emergency planning, and (5) responding to allegations from individuals or groups concerning emergency preparedness at a specific facility.
The population that resides within approximately 10 miles of a nuclear power plant site is provided with information on the radiological emergency plans that would impact them and the actions they are expected to take in the unlikely event of a severe accident at the plant This information is provided annually to those residents by each nuclear power plant licensee. Em~rgency planning and preparedness entails a number of issues with which the public .can readily identify (e.g.,
evacuation of homes, protection of children, and damage to property, etc.). Thus, the public has a genuine interest in emergency preparedn~
both on an individual and a community level, and may want additional information. However, in many ~ces, this information has not been readily available, and the public is not aware of from where or whom that additional information may be obtained.
NRR's procedures for handling emergency preparedness is.5ues do not explicitly exclude public participation. However, there are activities involving emergency planning where NRC and the public could benefit from increased participation by the public. Several improvements are being considered.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Planned Improvements (1) Encourage public input and participation when revisions to emergency planning rules that significantly impact offsite emergency planning are proposed. Do .this through the use of publicity, meetings, and workshops.
(2) Respond to inquiries from the general public regarding emergency planning by telephone. If a written response is needed and cannot be issued within a reasonable time, provide the requester a status report by telephone at specified intervals.
(3) Conduct public meetings after emergency preparedness-related
. inspections, as appropriate, to discuss findings.
(4) Modify, as neces.5ary, the existing Memorandum of Understanding with FEMA to establish procedures for working more efficiently with FEMA on State and local emergency preparedness issues raised by the public (e.g. 2.206 petitions, allegations).
Contact:
Thomas H. Essig, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 301-415-2910 Electronic Information Exchange -
/Jackground In 1992, NRR held a workshop on the current licensing basis. After the workshop, NRR conducted audits of two licensees' electronic methods for locating the facilities' licensing basis. During these audits, the licensees informed NRR of the need for an agreed-upon electronic standard or format for electronic information exchange (EIE) between the NRC and the public.
In 1993, the licensees proposed that a joint effort be sponsored by the Nuclear Information and Records Management Association (NIRMA) and NRC, and acknowledged by the Nuclear Energy Institute, to investigate and recommend to the NRC a standard for BIB. Automating the exchange of information with the licensees and improving public access to regulatory documents will play a pivotal role in managing the large volume of documents generated within and received by the NRC.
Public Responsiveness .A5sll;rance Plan Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation An open workshop was held on December 7, 8, and 9, l.99~, to present the findings from the NIRMA/NRC task force, to solicit public
- recommendations, and to inform the public of the status of information technology activities within the NRC. The NIRMA report is scheduled to be presented to the NRC in early 1996.
Electronic transmittals will reduce paperwork. However, while paper is still required, the NRC and licensees will benefit. from receiving information that* is ready °for direct input to existing or planned data/text files. The NRC, its licensees, and the general public will be able to retrieve information more readily as these data/text files are established and opened to the public as read-only systems. NRR and the Office of Information Resources Management (IRM) have continued to support these EIE and related communication efforts by conducting a pilot program with licensees to actively demonstrate proposed solutions in the
- EIE and communication areas.
Preliminary EIE guidelines were adapted from previous work conducted by the Patent and 'Itademarks Office. These guidelines were updated with results and experiences of NRC pilot activities. Ton licensees, who participated in the pilot, identified and described systems under development that might aid in the electronic transport of documents. A small sample of documents were exchanged electronically between these licensees and NRC. A summary report of the pilot was received in October 1995 and provides input to the formulation of an EIE strategic plan for the NRC. The goal is to identify common factors between licensee systems and NRC document management requirements. These factors will be considered as the NRC implements systems to improve the efficiency and effectiven~ of its.own information retrieval activities.
Planned Improvements (1) An EIE strategy will be developed and presented to senior agency management. The s~atew will include findings of the NRC Pilot and results of explorations ~to the issues of electronic signatures, legality of electronic submissions, and electronic records.
Conversion of selected business transactions *to electronic processes will be based on these considerations and the costs involved. (IRM) 17 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (2) Electronic µ-ansmis.5ion of informal information between NRC _apd its *licensees ~1 continue via Internet E-mail at the option of the parties involved. (NRR)
(3) The Licensing Authority File, which contains th~ technical specifications .for all nuclear power plants, will be considered for placement on an electrop.ic bulletin board. Factors will include cost and legality of providing this _information in electronic media.
(NRR) ..
Contact:
Cindy Carpenter, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 301-415-3641 Charles E. Fitzgerald, Office of Information Resources Management, 301-415-7220 NUREG/BR-0199 18
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Nuclear Material Safety and'Safeguards Office of Nucie*ar Material Safety and Safeguards Enrichment Facility Licensing and Certification
- The.role of the NRC .in reg~rd to u~anium enrichment facilities is to license commercial facilities (such as the Louisiana Energy Services enrichment facility) and to certify the gaseous diffusion plants at
Department of Energy and leased and operated by the United States Enrichment Corporation, a government-owned corporation). These facilities enrich (increase) the concen1!ation of uranium 235 so that the uranium can be used as fuel in nuclear power reactors.
'1 . : '
Background on Licensing of Commercial Facilities In January 1991, Louisiana Energy Services submitted an application to construct and operate a gas centrifuge enrichment plant near Homer, Louisiana. Licensing under Part 70 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides for public participation in licensing activities. There are formal and informal interactions with the public and involve Federal, State, and local government agencies. In July 1991, the NRC held a public scoping meeting in Homer, Louisiana, to obtain input on the content of the environmental impact statement. The meeting was announced in the Federal Register and in local newspapers. A summary of the scoping meeting was made available to the participants. Many meetings between NRC staff and the applicant were held which were open to the public, and Citizens Against Nuclear Thlsh (CANT), a group opposed to the facility, was notified of the meetings. The staff had numerous interactions with State and Federal officials concerning the project. A local public document room was established to give the public access to documents related to the project.
When the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was published, a Federal Register notice was issued providing for a 45-day public comment period. More than 500 individual letters were received in response to the notice, many requesting an extension of the public comment period A 15-day extension was granted. All extension letters were acknowledged, and all requesters were sent a copy of the Federal Register notice announcing the extension. Before issuing the Final 19 NUREG/BR-0199
P_ublic. Responsiveness Assurance Plan
_Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Environme~tal Impact ~tatement in August 1994, the staff attended a meeting held by CANT and met with ~ome local officials.
The Atomic Safety and licensing Board Panel (ASL.BP) conducted a f?nnal hearing on this l~censing action in two phases. The first phase took place in July 1994 primarily in Shreveport, Louisiana. It was open to the public and between 50 and 100 members of the public came,
- although they _generally were -~ot allowed t*o participate since participation in the hearing is limited to the intervenors, the applicant, and the staff. CANT is ap intervenor in this proceeding. The State is allowed limited partidpation. However, during the first phase of the hearing, the ASLBP held a Saturday session in Homer, Louisiana, to -
hear limited appearance statements from the public. The second phase was held in March 1995 in Shreveport, Louisiana.
Background on Gaseous Diffusion Plant Certification The Energy Policy Act of 1992 mandates that NRC "certify the safe.. ,
operation of the gaseous diffusion plants run by the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC). These plants have been operating for about 40 years and were officially leased to USEC on July 1, 1993.
The Energy Policy Act requires NRC to develop safety and safeguards standards for enrichment plants within 2 years. NRC is further required to establish a certification process under which the two gaseous diffusion -
plants will be certified annually by the NRC for compliance with the standards. Public interest in the initial certification is anticipated and NRC must report to Congress annually on the status of the plants.
NRC developed Part 76 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which establishes technical, legal, and administrative requirements for the NRC's regulation of the plants. The rule was published in the Federal Register on September 23, 1994. It provides for a public meeting on the certification application to be held if the Director, Office of
- Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, determines that a meeting is in the public interest. The rule also provides for a public comment period on the application. The staff is committed to holding a public meeting on the initial certification. The meeting will be announced in the Federal Register and advertised in local newspapers. The rule also gives the public an opportunity to petition the Commission for review of the NUREG/BR-0199 ,,20
Public Responsiveness As&lrance Plan ,
, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards director's decision on the certification. To further assist the public, local public document rooms will be established in the area of each plant.
The first certification application was received from USEC on April 24, 1995. The NRC rejected the application on 'May 5, 1995. A revised application was submitted by USEC on September 15, 1995.
The NRC has assigned resident inspectors to both sites. The reside:qt
- C '
inspectors and other regional officials meet at least annually with Staie and local officials. ':pie ini~al meetings have been held for the ~aducah~
Kentucky, and the Portsmouth, Ohio, sites. Additional meetings will depend upon the i~terest expressed by the State* and local officials.
Since the initial certification has not been completed, it is too early to know how public participation 'in the annual certifications might be improved.
P.lanned Improvements Enrichment facility licensing and certification is ~imilar to major fuel cycle facility licensing; the improvem~nts planned here are expected to facilitate public participation in other major fuel cycle facility licensing actions.
Licensing of Enrichment Faciliti~s (1) Hold public meetings to obtain comments and disseminate information, as appropriate.
(2) Increase the time allowed for public comment on Draft Environmental Impact Statements to balance the interests of the applicant, the NRC, and the general public.
Annual Certification of DOE Enrichment Plants (1) Place copies of the appli.cation and the decision/certification documents in the local public document rooms as soon as they are received.
(2) Note the availability of the documents in local media so that the public will be made aware of them immediately.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (3) Evaluate the amount of public interest expr~d to determine if public meetings after the initial certification are appropriate.
Contact:
Merri Hom, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 301-415-8126 Decommissioning of Sites and Facilities l
Background
Over the last. 40 years, operations at licensed nuclear facilities have caused radiological contamination at a number of sites. This contamination must be reduced or stabilized in a timely and efficient manµer to ensure protection of the public and the environment before the sites can be released and the license terminated. The NRC termi-nates about 300 licenses each year; most of these are routine and do not involve any significant contamination. The NRC's Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) lists about 50 sites that require special
.attention to resolve decommissioning policy and regulatory issues, as well as to prompt timely decommissioning at these sites.
The public has expressed interest in the decommissioning of a number of licensed sites. The amount of effort devoted by the NRC to public information and responsiveness activities varies from site to site, based on the amount of public concern and the complexity of the action required. For example, if a local community expresses concerns aswciated with licensing actions, the NRC considers holding, and has often held, a public meeting to explain NRC's role, the characteristics of the site, and the licensee's planned decommissioning approach and alternatives. At sites where concern has been expressed by the public and elected officials, the staff has invested a substantial effort in meeting periodically with officials and members of the public.
On the basis of its experience in overseeing decommissioning activities at a number of sites, the NRC has identified goals for improving public involvement in the ongoing licensing of decommissioning actions. These include establishing and building trust between' citizens, agencies, and licensees; enhancing the openness of the process for public observation, information, and involvement; answering questions from the public in a timely manner; and encouraging licensee openness and responsiveness NUREG/BR-0199 22
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards to legitimate public concerns, including presentation of a decommissioning program at the outset. Effective communication with the public before initiating decommissioning or the NRC's approval of the decommissioning plan could save many hours later in answering questions or responding to allegations.
The NRC has also enhanced opportunities for public involvement in rulemaking activities related, to decommissioning. After Commission approval of the rulemaking plan in November 1992, NRC conducted an enhanced participatory rulemaking on radiological criteria for ,
decommissioning. The objective was to provide early and substantive opportunities for discussing issues with a wide variety of interested parties before developing a proposed rule. As part of this effort, NRC conducted seven rulemaking workshops around the country from January through May 1993 and eight scoping meetings in four cities in July 1993 to gather early public comments. In addition, in December 1994, NRC conducted a workshop on the potential use of site-specific advisory boards. This site-specific advisory board provision of the proposed rule on radiological criteria for decommissioning, which was published in Federal Register on August 20, 1994 (59 FR 43200), is intended to enhance meaningful and timely public participation in decommissioning.
Planned Improvements Based on the enhanced participatory rulemaking, licensing experience, and two comprehensive reviews, NRC plans to make the following improvements to enhance opportunities for public involvement and information in the decommissioning program for nuclear materials facilities:
(1) Notify the State Liaison Officer, the State agency responsible for radiological controls, and the county, city, or town where the site is located, or affected 'llibal governments when a site is placed on the SDMP list or a decommissioning plan is submitted for a site not on the SDMP list. This will be in addition to the current practice of notifying State environmental protection agencies and the applicable U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regional office.
(2) Make all NRC meetings with contaminated site licensees and responsible parties open to the public for observation ( consistent 23 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards with the policy statement on staff meetings open to the public which was published in the Federal Register on September 20, 1994 (59 FR 48340)). To the extent feasible, NRC will provide advance notice of these meetings to State, 'Ilibal, and local officials and the public. NRC will conduct a significant proportion of such meetings in the vicinity of the site.
(3) Develop and distribute a brochure on the NRC's regulatory process for decommissioning, including a description of radiological criteria that are currently being used to evaluate the adequacy of decommissioning actions. This pamphlet will be distributed to interested officials and members of the public.
(4) Identify the ,NRC project manager as the principal NRC point of contact for each decommissioning site. This individual will work closely with other NRC staff to ensure a coordinated response to public concerns and inquiries.
(5) Announce the availability of decommissioning plans and related documents in the Federal Register and local media, as appropriate, and offer an opportunity for a hearing on proposed license amendments. NRC will generally solicit written comments on the draft documents prior to taking licensing actions to approve site decommissioning plans, except in cases where the contamination is extremely limited or schedules imposed by outside parties (other than licensees) do not allow sufficient time for such review prior to approval.
(6) Hold a public meeting on the scope of the environmental impact statement where NRC determines that an environmental impact statement (EIS) needs to be prepared. The meeting will be held near the site as part of the scoping process, in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR Part 51. NRC will solicit oral and written .
comments on what environmental impact and what decommission-ing alternatives should be considered as part of the EIS. The NRC will advertise the meeting in the local media. The NRC will also distribute copies of the draft EIS to designated Federal, State, and local representatives and members of the public who attend the scoping meeting or otherwise express interest in the decommission-ing action.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan** .
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,,
(7) Provide additional opportunities for public information and involvement in the decommissioning process on a site-specific basis, considering the level of hazards involved and the public interest expressed. *
Contact:
Michael Weber, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,301-415-7297 25 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Office of Nuclear, Regulatory Research*
Improving the Rulemaking Process
Background
The NRC is responsible for developing regulations (rulemakings) needed to execute its Atomic Energy Act responsibilities to regulate the domestic use of radioactive m~terials so as to protect the public* lieaith and safety. The rulemaking process is dictated by the Administrative Procedure Act which, in most cases, calls for opportunity forimblfo review and co~ent in the development of Federal regulations. Hence, Commission rulemakings typically provide for a period* of public
, comment before proposed rules are made final .
. On occasion, the NRC h8:8. conducted workshops to elicit early substantive input from the public into the rulemakiµg process. In a recent r:utemaking on radiological criteria for decommissioning, the Commission held a series of workshops across the country and established an electronic bulletin board. to ~rther enhance the degree of public participation in this particular rulemaking.
Planned Improvements As a consequence of its su~ess in facilitating ear~y and substantive -
public involvement in the decommissioning rulemaking, the Commission
~ se~ up an' electronic bulletin board _for all future rul_emakings and will routinely hold workshops for particu~arly comple_x or controversial rulemakings. Specifically, as a rulemaking improvement plan, the Commission will (1) Expand the use of workshops as a means to elicit early substantive public input on particularly complex or controver~al rul~maJcin~-
(2) Use electronic bulletin boards to facilitate public review of and comment upon all future proposed rulemakings. Through the electronic bulletin board, the proposed rule, all supporting documents, background information, and summaries of any public workshops that are held will be available for online viewing and downloading by the public.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (3) Explore more interactive concepts in. the use of electronic media, such as REGNET, to further enhance public involvement in agency rulemakings.
Contact:
Thomas 0. Martin, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, 301-415-6238 Petitions for Rulemaking-10 CFR 2.802
Background
Section 2.802 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 2.802) allows any interested person to petition the Commission to issue, amend, or rescind any regulation. Historically, this rule has been used mainly by some sectors of the public to submit petitions for rulemaking that purport to increase the margins of safety. A few petitions have also been submitted to maintain existing margins of safety* at reduced cost.
The NRC' has found that on the average the time required to grant a
petitions for rulemak.ing exceeds 30 months. Currently, summary report of petitions for rulemaking, including the status of each petition, is being prepared by the NRC on a semiannual basis 'and is available in the NRC's Public Document Room.
The NRC staff currently expends resources developing responses to petitions for rulemak.ing that may or may not result in changes to NRC regulations~ The reasons for the denial of petitions sometimes only become evident after NRC staff has expended considerable effort to develop regulatory an~ back.fit analyses.
The NRC is proposing to amend 10 CFR 2.802 pertaining to petitions for rulemaking to alleviate delays.
Planned Improvements (1) Identify a single NRC contact for each petition.
(2) Notify the petitioner of the status of the petition every 90 days.
(3) Improve openness of the petition for rulemaking process by establishing criteria for prioritizing petitions.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office,of Nuclear Regulatory Research (4) Provide incentives for the petitioner*to submit sufficient information in petitions through more expeditious resolution and disposition of petitions. .
(5) Identify clearly the supporting information that must be .submitted with the petition to facilitate more expeditious disposition.
(6) Provide guidance to the public for the preparation of petitions for rulemaking through regulatory guides.
Contact:
T.Y. Chang, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, 301-415-6450 Nl.JREGIBR-0199 28
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of State Programs Office of State Programs Reviews of Agreement States Programs Background '
Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, enacted by the Congress in 1959, recognized the States' interest in atomic energy activities. Under Sectio~ 274, the NRC is permitted to discontinue its authority and provide to the States, on a State-by-State basis, certain of its authority to regulate the use of byproduct material, source material, and small quantities of special nuclear materials. The States that have agreements with the NRC allowing them to regulate these activities are called Agreement States. At present, 29 Agreement States regulate approximately 15,000 radioactive materials licensees.
Section 274 requires the NRC to review Agreement State radiation control programs periodically. Currently, the NRC conducts a formal onsite review of an Agreement State's radiation control program to determine its continued adequacy and compatibility. The frequency and method of conducting the periodic, formal Agreement State program reviews will be determined according to the Integrated Materials
- Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP).
- Planned Improvements (1) Issue draft IMPEP report within 30 days of program review completion.
(2) Develop and use an internal procedure for preparing, reviewing, and issuing IMPEP reports.
Contact:
Richard L Bangart, Office of State Programs, 301-415-3340 Tuchnical Assistance to Agreement States
Background
Section 274i of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), as amended, authorizes the Commission to give technical assistance to the States. The legislative 29 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsivene~ Assurance Plan Office of State Programs analysis of the bill that amended the AEA by adding Section 274 (Senate Report No. 870) made it clear that the intent of this authority was to "assist the States to prepare for, and carry out, independent State radiation protection programs." Thus, it is the policy of the NRC to provide technical assistance to Agreement States, as appropriate.
Tochnical assistance is of three types: (1) routine technical assistance, which is provided to Agreement States as a normal part of NRC's day-to-day contact with Agreement States; (2) specific technical assistance, which requires specific assignment of NRC staff or consultants for a specified period of time and for a specified job; and (3) programmatic technical assistance, which is the assistance provided to an Agreement State that is experiencing problems of a programmatic nature. In giving technical assistance to Agreement States, the NRC concentrates its resources on those areas that an Agreement State may not be able to addre~ through its own expertise or contractual support.
A commitment from NRC to provide a State with technical assistance is made on a case-by-case basis and is dependent on the availability of NRC resources.
Agreement States request NRC's technical assistance through a variety of means. Usually, minor technical assistance is sought through telephone calls to either the Office of State Programs (OSP) staff or to other appropriate NRC office or regional staff. Agreement States send written requests for more substantial technical ~istance involving multiple organizations, significant expenditure of staff time, or the use of consultants. The NRC can initiate technical ~istance requests by offering such assistance to an Agreement State. The Director, OSP, coordinates the review of technical assistance requests with regional administrators and directors of affected program offices. The schedule for completing the assistance arrangement is mutually agreed to by all affected organizations, including the Agreement State. Throughout the process, the Agreement State offers feedback about the quality of the assistance.
Planned Improvements Contact the Agreement State to establish a completion date and identify the NRC staff member assigned to provide the assistance, once NRC has received a request for ~istance and agreed to provide such assistance.
Work to ensure that the originally negotiated completion date is met NUREG/BR-0199 30
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of State Programs 80 percent of the time. Negotiate a new completion date with the Agreement State if task complexity, resource limitations, or competing priorities preclude completion by the originally scheduled date. Provide technical assistance to the Agreement States in accordance with the original or extended completion date 95 percent of the time.
Contact Richard L Bangart, Office of State Programs, 301-415-3340 Regulatory Review of Agreement State Proposed Regulations
Background
In addition to performing the formal reviews for adequacy and compatibility, NRC asks Agreement States to give NRC an opportunity to comment on their draft proposed regulations. Usually, NRC reviews proposed regulations at the time the State is accepting comments from the public. While the regulation is in draft form, OSP and other appropriate NRC offices (generally the Offices of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Nuclear Regulatory Research, and the General Counsel) submit technical and legal comments. Also, in conjunction with NRC reviews of Agreement States regulatory programs, NRC staff revie~ the status of State activi,ties to adopt new regulations to determine if they are compatible with NRC regulations.
The time required for completion of review of draft State regulations is determined largely by the Agreement State's own administrative rulemaking process. OSP tries to meet the State's schedule and normally discusses the draft comments with the State staff by telephone to resolve concerns and ensure understanding of the regulations and the comments. Then OSP provides written comments to the State.
On occasion, OSP may have to defer the review of an Agreement State's draft regulation because OSP is committed to perform higher priority work or special projects.
Planned Improvements (1) Provide verbal notification to the State on a draft regulation received and assigned for review, or when NRC has to defer a review. Incorporate the verbal notification date into a comment letter 100 percent of the time.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of State Programs (2) Streamline the review of draft regulations and the process of providing comments so that comments will normally be provided to the State within 60 days after the draft regulation is received. The Agreement States will be requested to submit copies of draft regulations at least 60 days before the end of the public comment period for the rulemaking.
(3) Place copies of the draft regulations and the written comments resulting from the review in the PDR.
Contact Richard L Bangart, Office of State Programs, 301-415-3340 Agreement States 'ftaining
Background
Section 274i of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), as amended, authorizes the Commission to provide training to the States. The legislative analysis of the bill that amended the AEA by adding section 274 made it clear that the intent of this authority was to "assist the States to prepare for, and carry out, independent State radiation protection programs."
Therefore, NRC offers ~ng courses to Agreement State personnel and, in some instances, to non-Agreement State personnel, to increase their technical and regulatory knowledge in those areas necessary for competent work in a State radiation control program.
To ensure consistent, high-quality training, the Agreement States technical training program has been consolidated within the NRC's Tuchnical 'Iraining Division in the Office for Analysis -and Evaluation of Operational Data. This consolidation will also help provide greater uniformity in materials training programs for NRC and Agreement States staff. NRC has coordinated the content, nature, and attendance at these courses with Agreement States personnel. 'Iraining activities are developed and scheduled through a 1- to 2-year period.
A schedule of planned courses is sent to the Agreement States annually.
The current goal is to send specific course notices and schedules to the State personnel 60 days before a course starts. Those wishing to attend are asked to apply as soon as possible. The quality of the course is monitored by a subjective evaluation of questionnaires and evaluation forms completed by course participants.
Public Responsiveness As.surance Plan Office of State Programs Planned Improvement Conduct monthly training planning meetings to ensure that in a~ cases training availability notices to Agreement States are received no later
- than 60 days before a course begins, and that confirmation notices of acceptance into a training course are sent to Agreement States no later than 30 days before the course begins.
Contact:
Richard L. Bangari, Office 'of State Programs, 301-415-3340 33 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsivene~ Assuram;e Plan Regions Regions Matery.als Licensjng ~d lnspectiori. *
Background
. ' . , ~
Nearly all of the.mat~riaJ.~ li~~g and inspe~on activities are conducted from the four ~C regio;nal offices. The regions process over
- I -- * .- ' -
4,000 requests for new licenses, amendments to existing licenses, and requests for license renewal$ each year. As part of this activity, the regions :frequently a.I1SWer licensees' technical questions and help to provide clear interpre4ttions *of NRC's regulatory requirements.
., ' I ' - . ., ' I
_The regions also conduct approximately 2,000 routine and reactive
' , . ' ' . ~ } ' ' '
inspections of over 6,000 materi~s lice~ses each year. These licensing
- *and inspection activi~es bring NRC's regional staff in close contact with a large number of licensees on a d,ailY basis.
In addition, the regions host workshops on regulatory issues, conduct prelicensing meetings and site visits, and re*spond to concerns from the public and licensees on a variety of radiological matters.
... 1, NRC has developed internal performance ~dards against which it can measure its timeliness and responsiveness in the materials area. In 1988, the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards established a timeliness measure for processing licensing actions (i.e., 80 percent of the new applications and amendments within 90 days, 80 percent of the renewals within 180 days). At that time, several hundred pending actions exceeded the timeliness standard. The situation was exacerbated in the early 1990s when the decommissioning rule and the 100-percent fee recovery rule prompted many more licensees to request amendments than the NRC had projected bas.ed on historical rates.
Today, that backlog has been reduced to levels lower than at any time since these data were first collected in 1988, but some cases still exceed the standard. Partially in response to this, NRC has initiated a major effort known as "Business Process Redesign" (BPR) to modernize the materials licensing program and to make NRC far more responsive to licensees and the public. Early phases of the effort have focused on licensing improvements, but NRC intends to expand BPR to the inspection area in the future.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Regions
- Planned Improvements (1) Use BPR to develop a fundamentally new approach to process licensing amendments. BPR is designed to perform at least an
. order of magnitude faster than the current system. It will be supported by clear, consistent, and timely regulatory *guidance and will ensure that there is no adverse effect on public health and safety from its implementation.
(2) Use BPR's modem information technology to streamline .
'operations based on three major concepts: (a) the establishment of
,* a Regulatory *Product Design Center where technical members of the licensing and inspection community can interact to design and prep~e regulatory products necessary to support~ maintain, and enhance the hew licensing process; (b) improved processing of licensing through reviewer-performed *and computer-assisted licensing, using a-graded approach commensurate.with the safety h?Zafds the appli~tion poses; and (c) a new way of working in
. agency-:wide teams.
Contact:
Patricia A Rathbun, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,301-415-7178 35 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness .Assurance Plan Office of the Controller ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES Office of the Controller License Fee Inquiries
Background
The NRC is required by legislation to recover 100 percent of its budget each fiscal year through the assessment of fees. This requires issuing more than 10,000 bills to licensees. There have been significant controversies regarding NRC fees, especially those for NRC inspections and annual fees. As a result, the NRC staff receives hundreds of letters and telephone calls after each monthly or quarterly billing cycle. These interactions with the public involve general questions about the purpose of the bills, challenges on the appropriateness of the fees, exemption requests, and questions about license authorizations and fees. Because of the large volume of mail and telephone calls after each billing cycle, the NRC has not always been able to respond to inquiries as quickly as it would like. The goal is to answer most correspondence within 45 days after receipt and to respond to 80 percent of routine telephone calls within 1 day. A sample of correspondence reveals that we have significantly improved our response time in the past 8 months.
Percent of Correspondence Answered Within Month/Year 30 days 45 days 60 days March 94 39 72 82 (non-peak month)
October 94 72 85 92 (peak month)
Planned Improvements Responding to fee inquiries in a more timely manner is being approached from two perspectives. First, we would like to reduce the need for incoming inquiries. To this end, we plan to 37 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of the Controller (1) Improve the timeliness of bills so that licensing and inspection bills are issued within 30 days after the end of the billing cycle in order to reduce incoming questions about the purpose of the bills.
(2) Improve the format of the invoices to make them more understandable so as to eliminate some of the questions that we have received in the past.
(3) Develop a simple pamphlet, containing typical questions and answers, that could be included with bills.
The second set of improvements is intended to address the public -
interaction workload, which exceeds the currently available staff during the peak periods that follow issuance of bills. We plan to (1) Provide interim responses acknowledging receipt of licensees' letters that involve more complex questions.
(2) Use contractors in performing research and in drafting correspondence durin~ peak periods.
(3) Use more standard letters to respond to frequently asked questions.
Contact:
Diane B. Dandois, Office of the Controller, 301-415-7544 Commercial Payment Inquiries
Background
Before fiscal year (FY) 93, the commercial payment process was, for the most part, performed manually. In addition to delaying payment, this caused delays in responding to vendor inquiries. Other factors, such as staff delays in notification of receipt of goods and services and invoice approvals, further contributed to delays in timely payments.
The NRC has improved the timeliness of payments to commercial vendors and contractors as shown:
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of the Controller Percent of Percent of Payments Payments Madew/o Dollar Fiscal Year Made On Time Penalties Due Amount 1993 52 92 $18,699 1994 82 94 14,699 At the beginning of FY 93, the NRC implemented a new financial accounting system that includes an automated accounts payable subsystem. The accounts payable subsystem schedules payments to comply with the Prompt Payment Act requirements and automated measurement of payment performance to allow close monitoring by management The subsystem also contains an online inquiry capability to allow for more timely and more informative responses to vendor inquiries. Additionally, improvements were made in the procedures and logistics to ensure timely notification of receipt of goods and services and invoice approvals.
Other efforts have been made to improve agency responsiveness in the commercial payments area. These include the addition of a customer assistance desk in the commercial payments area and the addition of contractor staff to help process payments. The customer assistance desk allows the commercial payments staff to respond very quickly to vendor inquiries and resolve related problems. A central telephone number was established for this purpose and is included on all check payments and outgoing correspondence.
Planned Improvement Increase the percentage of on-time payments in FY 95 to 84 percent.
Contact:
Anthony C. Rossi, Office of the Controller, 301-415-7341 39 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness *Assurance Plan Office of Administration omc*e bf Administration Contracting Process Background _., ,
- NRC complies with the competitive contracting procedures prescribed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation and agency implementing regul~tions known as the NRC Acquisition Regulation. This contracting process requires subs~ntial contact with the public.
Individuals and firms interested in 'doing business with the NRC interact with agency staff in a variety of ways. For example, the staff in the Office of Small Business and Civil Rights and the contracting staff frequently receive inquiries from small, small disadvantaged, and women-owned businesses regarding NRC contracting opportunities. This usually leads to the individual or firm being placed on the NRC bidders mailing list. Once a contract need is identified, NRC begins the process by publicizing a brief synopsis of the requirement in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD). This gives interested firms an opportunity to
, obtain a copy of NRC's Request for Proposals (RFP) and to compete for NRC work. Potential sources are also identified through the NRC bidders mailing list. Once an individual or organization elects to submit a proposal to NRC, interaction with NRC may involve a preproposal conference, questions relating to proposal preparation and submission, and negotiations. Firms that are unsuccessful in this process may request a formal debriefing. Those that are successful in receiving an award will
.c<mtinue to interact with the NRC through participation in a contract startup meeting, regularly scheduled progres.s review meetings, negotiations associated with required contract changes, and the invoice payment and closeout proces.ses.
~or the most part, the public perceives the contracting process as too long and tedious. Although it is designed to ensure equity and fairness in contractor selections, the process often serves as a source of frustration for the general public, not only because there is only one winning proposal but because it frequently takes 6 months to a year or more for the process to reach that point. Although the NRC is aware of this perception and makes every effort to be responsive to the needs of competing firms at each stage of the process, there are few timeliness NUREGJBR...:0199 40
Public Responsiveness ~ur~ce Plan Office of Administration standards currently in place to clarify expectations and measur~ *NRC performance in this area.
NRC has embarked on a number of initiatives to make tl~e pr~curement process more efficient and effective, beginning with being designated as a Procurement Reinvention Laboratory under the National Performance Review. Initiatives under the reinvention lab incluqe simpijfying the RFP process, implementing the NRC Bankcard program, empowering contracting personnel through increased delegations of authority, and performing a business process reengineering study of t4e procurement
-~--------fp~ro=----=c=--_-e-=-=ss:..:._.--:Th=e=se=-1=*ru=*t.iatiY_es shoulcLhelp-NRG-mak~--the-contracrm=g=p=roce=--=-=-ss=-----
- less cumbersome and more in line with the way the public acquires goods and services.
Other initiatives are under way to improve the timeliness and quality of NRC staff interactions with the public on contractual matters in general.
These improvements and associated timeliness standards (in worldng days) are described below.
Planned Improvements In responding to the public under this improved process, the contracting staff will (1) Acknowledge requests from individuals and firms wishing to he added to the NRC bidders mailing list and mail req-qested application packages to requestors within 2 clays.
(2) Establish a central point for receipt and tracking of all correspondence received by the contracting office so that ~ctions can be assigned and monitored effectively to ensure r!;!sponses are timely and adequately address the needs of the requestor.
(3) Ensure noti~ placed in the CED clearly describe the NRC contracting opportunity, tq.e RFP issue date, and a .ROint of fPntact for obtaining a copy of the RFP.
(4) Issue the RFP within 1 day of issue date stated in CED notice unless there is a compelling reason not to do so.
(5) Provide written response to questions from potential offerors regarding the RFP within 10 days of receipt. (If an interim response 41 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Administration .
is necessary, the response will give the date on which a final response will be provided.),
(6) N<?~fy competing fi~ whe~er they are in/out of the competitive range within 5 days of determination by the contracting officer.
(7) Notify winning/losing .finris of award decision within 3 days of award.
(8) Provide debriefing after award within 10 days of receipt of request.
(9) Hold kick-off meeting with winning- contractor within 5 days of award.
(10) Streamline *and automate invoice processing procedures to ensure that contractors receive timely payments.
(11) Request a final audit of contract costs within 75 days of the date that the contract is assigned for closeout.
Contact:
Timothy F. Hagan, Office of Administration, 301-415-7305 NRC Headquarters Security Force Background '
The NRC prot.ects the agency's personnel, information systems, and property at the Headquarters' White Flint North complex by engaging the services of a private security firm. Security officers are stationed at various entry points throughout the complex. They conduct roving patrols of the agency's facilities and perform other security-related activities.
The security force has daily contact with employees, contractors, visitors, and the general public through checking people who enter and exit the White* Flint North complex and through responding to requests for asmstance or information. Local area network (IAN) capabilities installed for the security officers at fixed locations throughout the White Flint complex.enhance responsiveness and intera~on between the security force and visitors.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Administration During an average month, more than 4,000, individuals visit the NRC for meetings and interaction with NRC staff. This activity, coupled with the comings and goings of facility-related contractors, delivery personnel, mes.serigers, and others, comprises 'an extremely active, publicly oriented
- environment. Every attempt is made to balance protection with service.
Publi,c resppnsiveness has been measured by feedback. All feedback (both positive and negative) is discussed with t~e security force project manager, and corrective action is taken as appropriate. Records maintaine_d on security-related events and tracking of various incidents involving employees, contractors, and the public help form the basis for
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _adjustments-tO---S@GuFity-procedure .
In order to improve the agency's ability to make significant and immediate changes to security officer coverage, NRC actively sought and obtained the delegation of contractual authority for the guard contract from the General Services Administration. This redelegation allows NRC to exercise direct oversight and control over the security force.
Planned Improvements*
(1) Make improvements to the security program as determined from a survey conducted of security officers, visitors, se~rity advisors, cµid selected staff. This survey was conducted to determine a b*aselfue of how well the security officers were perceived to be interact:4J.g wi.th the public and the staff. While the findings were generally favor-able, they pointed to some areas where improvements could be made.tA follow-up survey of staff and visitors will be conducted in
- the spring of 1996 to determine if improvements have been
.perceived. *
(2) Develop a LAN-based visitor identification system. When the system has been tested and installed, it will allow Headquarters staff to notify Security of impending visits, thereby expediting the processing of visitors upon their arrival.
(3) Enhance the public relations and interpersonal skills of security
-offiyers through video training and personal briefings.
Contact:
Richard A Dopp, Office of Administration, 301-415-7402 43 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness ~ance Plan Office of Administration
- Quality and Timeliness of Correspondence
Background
The NRC considers the quality and timeliness of agency correspondence as key components of its public responsiveness initiative. Agency correspondence responds to issues raised by individual citizens, public interest groups, Members of Congress, trade and professional associations, the media, and a variety of other sources. The quality of NRC correspondence directly reflects NRC's responsiveness to the concerns of the requester and the staff's recognition that different audiences require different approaches. The way we respond affects whether the public sees us as courteous, accessible, and understanding of its needs.
The staff reviewed 6 months of correspondence prepared for review and approval of the Chairman and Commissioners to assess the timeliness of responses to correspondence. The results show that while the average time to respond was about 15 working days, 25 percent of the letters reviewed required 20 or more working days for a reply. As part of this review, the Secretariats of five other Federal agencies were contacted to ascertain their procedures and experience in controlling, tracking, and responding to correspondence. The results of the informal telephone survey indicate that NRC is doing significantly better than a number of other agencies and is on par with the best Nevertheless, the NRC is looking at ways to improve the quality and timeliness of its.responses to the public.
To this end, quality ~d timeliness improvement plans have been developed.
Planned Improvements (1) Answer all corr.espondence within 15 working days or if a complete response cannot be developed within that time, prepare an interim reply. This allows approximately 10 working days for the staff to develop the response and 1 week for management/Commission review, approval, and dispatch.
(2) Include in the response the ~ame and telephone number of the responsible NRC person who can be contacted for additional NUREG/BR-0199 44
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan
,Office of Administration information or, in the case of an interim response, for information regarding the status of the reply.
(3) Update internal procedures to ensure proper tracking and timeliness.
(4) Develop a Quality of Correspondence Workshop for NRC employees stressing how to write for a specific audience and purpose, how to respond in a logical manner, and how to conform to general correspondence style rules and the rules of editing and grammar.
- - - - - - - - * (5)-P-Ublish-a-(zuick-Besktop-Guiae to Quality Correspondence for use by
--- the staff.
(6) Publish a column, on a continuing basis, in internal agency publications to highlight the importance of clear, well-written responses to the public.
Contact:
Quality: Walter E. Oliu, Office of Administration, 301-415-7166 Timeliness: Andy Bates, Office of the Secretary, 301-415-1963 Freedom of Information Act Program
Background
The NRC Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) program operates under the requirements established by statutory law, 5 U.S.C. 552 and Department of Justice policy guidance. The agency is required to provide the public access to non-exempt NRC records within 10 to 20 work days of the time records are requested.
The FOIA staff interacts with the public by providing access to records maintained by the NRC. All FOIA requests received by the agency are controlled and coordinated by the FOIA staff. Requests are sent to each NRC office that appears to have responsibility for any of the records that would be included in responding to the request.
The FOIA staff interacts directly with public interest groups, licensees, law offices, bidding contractors, etc., whenever it is necessary to clarify issues concerning a request.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Administration Once all issues have been resolved regarding proposed disclosure or nondisclosure, the FOIA staff advises the requester of the releasability of the requested documents. Releasable documents are sent to the requester or are placed in the Public Document Room where the requester may review them or request copies from the PDR copying contractor.
NRC plans to implement the following initiatives to further enhance the agency's responsibility to provide public access to NRC records:
Planned Improvements (1) Reduce the average time to respond to FOIA requests by 20 percent.
(2) Survey FOIA users to determine the level of satisfaction with the current NRC FOIA program.
(3) Hold an FOIA users conference to identify areas for improvement in the current program.
(4) Conduct regular FOIA training to increase staff cognizance of FOIA policy and to improve the quality and timeliness of initial disclosure decisions.
Contact:
Russell A Powell, Office of Administration, 301-415-7169 Local Public Document Room Program
Background
The NRC places a high priority on providing public access to its information. Through the local public document room (LPDR) program, started by the Atomic Energy Commission in the late 1960s and continued and expanded by the NRC since its inception in 1975, citizens living or working near nuclear power reactors and certain other nuclear facilities have access to the records used by the NRC in licensing and regulating the local facility.
LPDR collections are maintained in academic, public, and State libraries having evening and weekend hours. NRC's LPDR program NUREG/BR-0199 46
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Administration staff has daily contact with the public and with local librarians and assists them in locating records in the collections. More than seven telephone calls are received and responded to each day on the toll-free LPDR hotline. Because the NRC converted the site-specific paper collections at power reactor and high-level waste LPDRs to NUDOCS microfiche several years ago, the public now has local access to more than 1.5 million records released by the NRC since 1981. Among these are the records on all NRC licensed facilities as well as NRC staff and contractor publications, rulemaking documents, and generic issues.
Online access to the NUDOCS data base of publicly available records is currently provided to 41 power reactor and the 2 high-level waste LPDRs. Toll-free searches can be conducted approximately 13 hours1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br /> each business day, from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. eastern time. Records identified in searches can be viewed and copied from the NUDOCS microfiche at each LPDR. Paper records are still sent to LPDRs that have small collections, such as LPDRs for contaminated sites.
The staff visits LPDRs at least once every 4 years and more frequently, as needed, in response to library staff changes, increased public interest in the collection, or the need to provide NUDOCS computer training to librarians and the public. The LPDR staff contacts interested members of the public in the site area to inform them of upcoming visits and to invite them to the training sessions. The visits are often publicized by the librarians in their newsletters and in local papers, on bulletin boards, and in radio announcements.
A variety of reference tools is placed at each LPDR to help patrons locate records in the collections. These include user's guides and weekly and cumulative accession list printouts identifying the records on the local facility that are available at the library. In addition, weekly and monthly printouts are sent to LPDR patrons interested in certain reactors or issues. Upon request, customized printouts are provided to LPDR patrons and interested members of the public.
The LPDR program staff also reviews NRC press releases and the Federal Register on a daily basis and informs LPDR librarians and members of the public who have expressed an interest in certain power reactors or issues when items they have been looking for are published.
All Federal Register notices that refer to power reactors or other facilities for which an LPDR exists identify the name and address of the 47 NUREG/BR-0199
Public_ Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Administration LPDR library so the public can go there to find information on the matter discussed in the notice.
The NRC will continue to utilize the LPDR program to respond to the information needs of local citizens living or working near the facilities it regulates. Several improvements are being planned to make the LPDR program more responsive to the public.
To help improve responsiveness, LPDRs were recently established for the two gaseous diffusion plants in Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio. As the materials become available, these LPDRs will be provided with collection records, accession lists, instructional materials, reference tools, and any necessary microfiche equipment. Onsite training will be provided as needed. In addition, the staff started providing LPDRs with facsimile copies of preliminary notifications of occurrences (PNOs) as they are issued. The LPDR program staff receives PNOs directly from all regions and immediately transmits them to the LPDR for the subject
. facility. Also, the LPDR program staff has placed postage-paid postcards
- addressed to the staff at all LPDR libraries. By using the postcards, LPDR librarians and patrons will have another way to conveniently communicate their comments, problems, and inquiries about the LPDR program to the NRC. To monitor agency responsiveness to the local information needs of the public and to plan appropriate improvements in the LPDR program, the NRC will review feedback from the postcards, the toll-free LPDR hotline, and reports submitted by LPDR librarians.
Planned Improvements (1) Visit at least 22 LPDRs in FY 95 to ensure that the collections are complete and up to date and that h'brarians are trained in how to locate records for patrons. Computer training will be provided at those LPDRs that have online access to the NUDOCS data base.
The public will be invited to attend the training sessions through publicity provided by the librarians as well as through announcements posted in the libraries.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Administration (2) Connect more LPDRs to the NUDOCS data base. The LPDR program staff will work with candidate LPDRs to connect them to the NUDOCS data base and provide appropriate training throughout the coming year.
Contact:
Jona Souder, Office of Administration, 301-415-7169 Public Meeting Notice System
Background
The NRC's long-standing open meeting policy was recently revised to further the goal of providing meaningful opportunities for the public to be informed of NRC activities without unduly affecting open and candid discussions between licensees and the NRC staff or interfering with the NRC staff's ability to exercise its regulatory and safety responsibilities without undue administrative burden. The Final Policy Statement on Staff Meetings Open to the Public, dated September 14, 1994, was published in the Federal Register on September 20, 1994 (59 FR 48340).
On November 1, 1994, centralized agency services became available to the public for obtaining schedules for the staff meetings that are open to the public. The meeting policy is a matter of NRC discretion and may be departed from as NRC convenience and necessity may dictate.
The NRC's LPDR program staff is receiving information on each meeting open to the public under the revised guidance provided in the Final Policy Statement and in Management Directive and Handbook 3.5, Public Attendance at Certain Meetings Involving the NRC Staff."
Meeting information is entered into a data base that generates reports of public meetings for posting in the age{lcy's PDR. A toll-free telephone recording announces upcoming public meetings and a toll-free electronic bulletin board system (BBS) contains searchable information on each meeting. The telephone recording accommodates multiple concurrent users. The BBS and the telephone recording are operational 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day. The BBS, the telephone recording, and the reports posted in the PDR contain the name and phone number of the NRC meeting contact should a member of the public need additional information on the upcoming meeting.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Administration Several feedback mechanisms are already in place to monitor the effectiveness and usefulness of the public meeting notice system to the public. People using the toll-free BBS and the toll-~ee telephone recording can leave messages should they need assistance accessing the public meeting database or care to leave comments. Messages are .
responded to by the system operator, the system manager, or the l.PDR program staff, as appropriate, within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. Should users want more information, the name and telephone nwnber of the NRC bulletin board system manager and system operator are also available online. In addition, the toll-free BBS and telephone recording, as well as the reports of upcoming meetings available in the PDR and l.PDRs, include the name and phone number of the NRC contact for each meeting; should the public require furth~r information.
Planned Improvement Encourage LPDRs with computer capabilities to provide public access to the toll-free BBS. The phone nwnber for both the toll-free BBS and the tel~phone recording is posted in LPDR libraries. l.PDR librarians and their patrons can report any problems they encounter in the public meeting notice system by calling the toll-free LPDR hotline.
Contact:
Jona Souder, Office of Administration, 301-415-7169 NUREG/BR-0199 50
Public Responsiveness Assurance* Plan.
Office of Personnel Office of Personnel ,:
/
Employment App~cations
Background
It is the policy of the N1lC to reply promptly and courteously to all employment. ~pplications. The Office of Personnel ( OP) serves as the
-central point of contact for all ~mployment inquiries from within and outside the a~ency. 0~ .has one ~en;i that tracks the timeliness and
. quality of responses to technical applicants from outside the agency who are interested in being considered for general NRC employment. This system, knOWJl as the Applicant Review System (ARS), maintains a pool of applicants for current and future technical position vacancies, provides a variety of reports that allows _for assessments of the NRC recruitment program, produces a variety of user-designed and
-manipulated .reports, and generates responses to applicants applying for general technical employment.
This sys~em works well. However, there are certain other categories of
. applications ili;at are not handled using a form~d system to acknowledge receipt and disposition of applications. These categories include *
(1) applications in response to specific vacancy announcements, (2) applications for special student programs, (3) secretarial applications, (4) unsolicited administrative applications, and (5) applications for Senior Executive Service and Senior Level positions.
OP staff cannot readily access the status of *applications in these categories nor can OP measure the level of responsiveness without a relatively time-consuming staff exercise.
The goal of providing all applicants prompt acknowledgement of the receipt and disposition of their employment applications is generally 51 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Personnel being met. However, there is currently no v~hicle to immediately gauge the level of success without a relatively time-consuming process for staff members.
Consistent with current efforts to improve public responsiveness, OP has reviewed the processes associated with all categories of applications.
OP's goal is to construct a centralized, automated system that covers all categories of applications. The expanded system will further enhance the quality of the responses to applicants and measure the timeliness of the responses. The system will also provide a greater degree of accountability to the public and increase staff awareness of the importance of responsiveness to the public:
Planned Improvements (1) Send an acknowledgement letter to all applicants within 7-10 working days of receipt of application.
(2) Send a letter informing all applicants of the final outcome of their applications within 10 working days of final disposition.
(3) Answer questions from applicants quickly throughout the process.
(4) Provide consistency in the process fo_r responding to all applicants among the four regions and headquarters.
Contact Jan Oemens, Office of Personnel, 301-415-7530 NUREG/BR-0199 52
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of the Secretary Office of the Secretary NRC Headquarters Public Document Room
Background
The Headquai;ters Public Document Room, located at 2120 L Street,
. Nw, Washington, DC, is the central repository of NRC's publicly released document collection. Beginning with a small set of AEC's civilian reactor docket files, the PDR collection has grown to 2.0 million documents and continues to expand at a rate in excess of 300 new items each day. Added together, the paper collection, microfiche, and reference materials, on site and in offsite, on-call storage, total 10,000 linear feet. Documents arrive primarily as paper, microfiche, audio-visuals, and fully searchable electronic text on diskettes or are downloaded.:
The PDR is staffed with professional reference librarians, all of whom have received technical training in reactor systems at the Chattanooga technical training facility. They interact directly with the members of the public who visit, phone, fax, send letters, or E-Mail over Internet. In 1994, over 13,000 requests for PDR services were*placed, with recorded usage of 46,000 files. In 1994, more than 3.8 million paper copies, over 16,000 microfiche, and nearly 400 diskettes were reproduced for members of fu:e public.
The public's primary search/retrieval system is the PDR's computerized, online Bibliographic Retrieval System (BRS). At the end of calendar year (CY) 1994 there were 423 onsite and remote password holders for this system. With the availability of professional reference staff to aid in computer searches, the PDR is able to ensure equal access for those who do not have their own terminals. The BRS was designed specifically for conducting rapid, accurate searches of the data base for the types of queries generated by the PDR's varied user population (individual members of the public, congressional staff, 1 media representatives, staffs of other agencies, foreign embassies, law firms, States, consulting firms, public interest groups, and the like). Many users take advantage of the PDR's automatic document ordering and delivery program, whlch dispatches copies of 39 distinct types of documents and reports as they arrive in the PDR. The PDR Bulletin Board was established on 53 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of the Secretary FedWorld in February 1995 and includes announcements of Commission and Advisory Committee meetings. In addition, toll-free telephone connections to the BRS and the PDR reference service have been established and a directory of frequently sought information resources in other agencies has been compiled for public use.
Planned Improvements (1) Upgrade search and retrieval functions, such as a "Selective Dissemination of Information" feature to improve the user's awareness of new documents of interest, the addition of more types of documents in electronic format, and revision of the users' manual These are on the BRS schedule for 1995.
(2) Develop comprehensive bibliographic compilations of generic letters and administrative letters.
(3) Expand media to include documents on CD-ROM.
(4) Continue to work with the NRC staff to seek ways to shorten the time required for newly released documents to reach the PDR.
Contact:
Elizabeth J. Yeates, Office of the Secretary, 202-634-3380 White Flint Activities
Background
In its White Flint operations, the Office of the Secretary (SECY) interacts daily with members of the public in four primary areas
- receiving public comments on agency rulemakings,
- informing the public and responding to questions about Commission meeting schedules,
- responding to questions about Commission decision-making papers (SECY papers), and
- handling incoming and outgoing public correspondence.
Through the years, SECY has developed and enhanced the mechanisms for service in these areas by initiating NUREG/BR-0199 54
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan
, Office of the Secretary
'I
- a postcar4 response system to acknowledge receipt of each rulemakittg comment,
- a teleph~~1e recording and the sa-olling of Commission meeting informatfom on the lobby TY,
- an advant copy procedure for expediting the public release of SECY paJJers, staff requirements memoranda, and Commission votes, and
- improvedjprocedures for expediting approval of executive
- correspondence and placement in the Public Document Room .
Planned Improvements
.I !
(1) Develop a SECY Home Page for inclusion in the NRC Home Page I
on the World Wide Web via Internet. This page will feature informa tion on open Commission meetings, NRC history, the 1
Public J;)ocument Room, and the submission of filings and commer1ts on NRC rulemakings.
(2) Produj electronic acknowledgment cards to speed up mailings to rulem4rng commenters.
I (3) Distribtite electronically the Commission's meeting schedule to interested individuals via Internet.
(4) Explore\ electronic submittal of correspondence and Federal Register notices ~n Commission rulemakings to speed up document processing for placement in the PDR.
Contact:
SJdy Joosten, Office of the Secretary, 301-415-1962 55 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Public Affairs Office of Public Affairs Informing the Public
Background
One of the primary objectives of NRC's P\ublic Affairs Program is to make available to the public full and complete information on NRC j
I activities to assist the public in making in~ormed judgments regarding I NRC activities. The primary means of ke~ping the public informed 7 about the regulatory activities and prograi!ns of the NRC is through the news media. 1.
I The Office of Public Affairs (OPA) infonris the media by
.l
- issuing news releases, speeches and fac't sheets,
- distributing reports, decisions, and other documents reflecting NRC actions, *I I
- arranging for NRC officials to give press conferences and talk with editorial boards of major newspapers bound the country,
- having NRC officials respond to mediJ questions after Commismon meetings, staff meetings with licenseesl plant visits, special
' I inspections, and other significant meetings, and a
,I W
' I
- talking to the media in person or by te1lephone.
Approximately 500 press releases are ~'ib annually to the news media and an estimated 12,000 news media inquiries are handled annually by in NRC's document retrieval system, NVD organizations have access.
rs, OPA staff in Headquarters and the regioJ. All press releases are placed 1
to which many news Information is provided directly to the public in a number of ways. All press releases are available in NRC's Publif Document Room in Washington, DC, and in Local Public DoetFent Rooms near nuclear facilities. The staff responds to daily inquiries from the public over the telephone and in writing. 'fypically responsi6s to written inquiries (about 600 each year) are made within 2 days and\ often include pamphlets about the NRC, nuclear waste, licensing oft nuclear power plants, NRC's research program, and the public petition 1!,rocess.
r 1 1 I Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Public Affairs A video abh~t the NRC is available upon request to audiences including schools, cotp/ffiunity organizations, consumer groups, and any others, including pullblic television stations, interested in learning about regulation o1f nuclear activities. Speakers are provided on request to talk to interest4 groups, including area schools. For these talks, NRC employees Or en use a standard slide presentation or the NRC video.
Planned Improvements I.
(1) Make civailable press releases for the past 30 days at FedWorld througl\1 the Internet.
- (2) Provid,e full text of press releases on an electronic bulletin board availa~Je to the public. Explore transmittal of press releases to news organizations through Internet.
(3) AnnoJ,ce to the public available listings of NRC public meetings, toll-fre~ telephone numbers, electronic bulletin boards, etc. when 1
they be,mme available in NRC.
\I (4) Develop[~amphlets for the general public covering basic facts on and NR~ 's role in nuclear waste, radiation, decommissioning of nuclear facilities, and current uses of radioisotopes. Complete a pamphl4~ on the process for resolving allegations concerning NRC regulated activities. Display these pamphlets and other appropriate materiaI/tn the Exhibit Center space in the Thro White Flint North building\tt NRC Headquarters.
(5) Produce ~\.l new movie about the NRC that appeals to a broad audience and better reflects our philosophy and practice of openness and responsiveness to the public.
I I
(6) Develop 1*~delines for the staff to be more responsive to media mqurres.
(7) Work ~tl\1 I '
other offices to update NUREG/BR-0010, Citizen's t/
Guide U.S. NRC Information, to e~re user-friendliness.
Develop lsupplemental guidance for accessing electronic inform~tiion at NRC.
j t 57 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness Assurance }:'Ian Office of Public Affairs (8) Update pamphlets and fact sheets on iihe, licensing process, 1
low-level waste, and transportation of: sp~mt fuel.
I (9) Seek out opportunitjes through~ut thr, ,agency to make information easily available to the public through \f'ress releases, radio/TV announcements, pamphlets, and speaking engagements.
I'
- I I
Contact:
Beth Hayden, Office of Public Affairs, 301-415-8200
.I 1
I; I
I'
(
I
\1 I
0 I
'.i
,lI "
Public Responsiveness ~urance Plan Advisory Committees *
- Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste ACRS/ACNW Activities
Background
The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS} and the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) provide an important link between the public and the NRC. They review significant portions of the agency's activities and encourage other government agencies, industry representatives, States, Indian Nations, and other interested parties to participate in their deliberations. In a real sense, the Committees act as a sounding board on various technical issues for all interested or affected parties.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) states that advisory committees are constituted to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the Government's decision-making processes. The act requires that, with few exceptions, each advisory committee meeting be open to the public, that agencies publish adequate advance notice of planned meetings in the Federal Register, and that meeting locations and times be reasonably accessible and convenient. We receive several requests annually from the public for the ACRS or the ACNW to review technical issues, and depending on the subject, we either forward them to the Executive Director for Operations for disposition or the cognizant committee reviews the issue. We carefully track the NRC Executive Director for Operations' responses to these requests.
Requests from the public to participate in ACRS/ACNW meetings are granted in almost all cases. ACRS/ACNW meeting presentation schedules, minutes, letter reports, and transcripts are always provided to NRC's Public Document Room (PDR}.
Planned Improvements (1) Respond in a timely manner to all public requests for ACRS or ACNW reviews of technical issues.
, Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Advisory Committees (2) Request a declassification review of ,a,11 cl~s~ed committee rec.ords and make the resultant declassified records publicly available.
- :J / * * - . * -
(3) Respond timely and affirmatively to all public requests to participate in ACRS or ACNW meetings.
(4) Ensure ACRS and ACNW meeting information is provided to the PDR pursuant to the FACA (5) Provide more efficient and expeditious responses to public inquiries and quicker 'transmission of documents to* the PDR through use of the new text management system ohmtoniated storage and retrieval of incoming and outgoing docume~µ;, including key reference documents.
(6) Develop the ACRS/ACNW Mosaic Home Page (using Internet and LAN networking). The external page will allow worldwide public access to current ACRS/ACNW information, including meeting schedules and agendas;. the internal page will involve a common
- interface with NRC data bases and provide the staff access to other non-NRC data bases, including those of licensees, public interest groups, and Congress.
(7) Initiate integrated videoconferenciIJg that combines video with data
,sharing. When this process is implemented, industry, individual citizens,. and public interest groups _'-Yill not have to be physically present to participate in advisory co~ttee meetings.
Contact:
John Larkins, ACRS/ACNw, 30.1,-415-7360
- I
, l NUREG/BR-0199 60
Public Responsiveness ~ance Plan Office of the General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Response to Public Inquiries
Background
The Office of the General Counsel has direct interaction with the public in the following areas:
- telephone inquiries concerning the ~pplication of NRC regulations to specific circu~ces, or on the status of various regulatory activiti~;
- inquines related to administrative and judicial proceedings on licensing, enforcement, and other issues; and
- inquiries related to the investigation and evaluation of cl~ under the Federal Tort Claims Acts.
The Office ~f the General Counsel does not have any formal procedures or guidan~ on the handling of telephone inquiries from the public.
Planned Improvements (1) Develop a set of formal procedures to provide guidance to OGC staff in responding to telephone inquiries from the public~ These procedures will'assure thatinquiries will be handled in a timely, courteous, and responsive manner; they will assure that all inquiries are directed to the OGC or technical staff most likely to be able to address the matter; and they will assqre that the responsive staff will endeavor to provide a clear and complete response to each I *
' telephone inquiry.
(2) Add a new subsection to the Office of the General Counsel Operating Manual to incorporate the procedures developed regarding telephone inquiries from the public. This subsection will be distributed to all OGC employees with a memorandum from the General Counsel that will emphasize the importance of adhering to 1
these procedures.
Contact:
Jeffrey L Bartlett, Office of the General Counsel, 301-415-1514 61 NUREG/BR-0199
Printed on recycled paper Federal Recycling Program
. . ~111011111&111~
1.~ ,. ~ - * ..,_1-cpy CO 1M:SSJok
, S t--VICE S!:CT!ON
- * ,_ vF ,1-E SECRETARY C..i" /.If COMM/SSJO
- Joct:ment Stattsti
~~ 171 rk Date ~ 'f, 5____
.,, , s ce,vc1_ / _
A~ "'I Cof)!e~ '*r' g_J::' __
) J&C-~ ~
~.... 0t~ }l~YJZ
~~ J'f, ltiq, S-tq:s-*~ f'~~-~-v
~vJ+
. -s-<tqtS-
-~ ~- ~ ~ ~-~:::SI::::=: _ , __ _ _ _ _ - - - - ... -------- - }
. . . --- - I --- 0_0'\. ~ oi__y sL~ ~'\--oY1,,t _,~ ~ --* --*
- ~~~~ vsc.-;z ~ -- W ~ d : : ~ IK-4-" __
-- ------~ - t - L ~--~ .~ ~-~ ~~~ ~ ---
- - - -- ~W-M ~~I ~ ~ ~ ~~ C) J-_;L_l/_ L) ~ ~ 2 .
.- -* *-*-----' ~~ ~~ LJ_ ~ I ; ~ ~-~ 0 ~"-- __ _
-- ***--- ~-~-~ ~ ~~rf ~ ~~~ ~~
-- ---------~ ~ -* ~ -Lb_~- ~ - --- ~ ~-~- ~-~
________i;,L. "rto--v IO ~_..s£1'!~~ - f ~lf"_ ~ -~ ~
____* -~-~- ~-5~4 . tl.R ~.,_- ~ ~ ~
_ __ _ _ \L~-~-!:::*~ , . . . . ~ ~ ~- . ~ k ~-~ -- -- ---------.
' ~~ ~ ~ 1 ~~--~
---* - -*~ ~- f ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~- -- -* ..
- - -~-"-=*,,,,____,~ +/-).4 ' ~ -""'"'- ~ .- - - - .
-~ efi N.S(b~~ ~--lR< ~_f_~--- ~~ ---
- , I --~ - ~ ilw;, ~ ---
- -~ < l tk ~ ii:4 w ~~ LAVY\_~ ~ ---
_ c ~ *" ~ *v1 -t4i dd.d ~ *vt r. * ---- f---f.Jd:r-____
_______ _\&M
- -~
li -~
µ1 fu -&~--11
__ O~~r-
~..J-Y~"'---'~ ~ M 5 ~ =If t' ...
-J :,r~~
_ ___._l)[OA ~ ( w.-d:i1; ~ ~ . -- ~ ---
,1 ~t.1J:ul *vt ~~ ? . - ' -- ~ ~ ~ -
_ _...~ -M l_ili _;,. .1 4'1&:1. ~ --"--
'b ~ ~ - 7 -* . -_ ~ - --
(D 'Setfu l.J .(p 1 tL C1~ tt~ ~~ ~ °'- ~ - -----.
- - '* ~ _* __
11 0 M -~ K.i.R>-eu9 !!. ~ "'l' t1,:>Ri) ~
_ _ ___.__,.~~*--'-'"--==<-~~_.._~_ tij t ~q i ~~ ~ ~ ....;_,~~ - * - ' - - - -
,~ ~ - = - - ~ ~ ~ - 1 1 - - -- - * - .
.
- Ir f rs ~ 't-S. °L l *~ ~J t f r r I
- ,r.
i t ~ r- :~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~* . 1 :
f, - . s'. <>J 'f ~~ I:. ! ...,, *. - :r ~ . f. i ':::/~J . I, 1 -... .1 '.J7: !f * '
- -C . I
___ ;<:) t-
- I r*
I. " ' \..:,_.... t :r ~. f ~ ~ ~ ~ '-~ , *
- t t 0 J" 1
- t ~'i *~ ~ -J :~ ~ t I *
- 1
\~ t* ~ ~ B *.i i f ~ s i r J .~ ~ ~ . 1 -t- 1 r 1 w 71 ~. -~-~ f tr* f 1** C t l t ; ~ ~ r ~ ~ lf ~} f ~~ ~~ -'-l _-e ~ i - - ~
- r-.l
.., 1 F ,~ s r ' \_µ -c:: ~ t,OCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE Pl u . ,-~ 1J c.,
- l 60 f (<, 1 bb 3-5) 5711 Summerset Dr.
DOCKETED USNRC Midland, MI 48640 June 4, 1995 .95 JJN A10 : Mr. John C. Hoyle 12 48 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission OFFICE OF SECRETARY DOCKE TING . . ERVICE Washington, D. C. 20555 BRANCH Attn: Docketing and Services Branch
Dear Mr. Hoyle:
There were a few minor corrections that had to be in the document I submitted on May 31, '95, in response to NUREG/BR-0199. Please substitute this corrected version for the one you received earlier.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
US. NUCU: 1
.* **** * * : *~:)RY COMMISSIOr-.
DOC \ r*: .. ,_ ,_ ...
- 1CE SECTION OFFtCC 1.Ji* :i** r CRETARY OF THE cor~,y :SSION Postmark Date {, / .5"_/q ~ J'___
Copies Received__ ___ _l _ _ _ __
Add'l Copies R~*(**.:. * * ! ___ .......,....,,.__
Special Qist*ibut1 ~r: ...U vJJi P(}ll, M ls~}y_ ... -... ---- - - -
5711 Summerset Dr. DOCKETED Midland, MI 48640 USN C May 29, 1995 Mr. John C. Hoyle "95 JJN 12 A10 :47 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission OFFICE OF S ETARY Washington, D. C. 20555 DOCKETING l SERVI CE BRA l'lCH Attn: Docketing and Services Branch
Dear Mr. Hoyle:
These comments are offered in response to NUREG/BR-0199, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Draft Report on Responsiveness to the Public.
There are many staff members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who are responsive to the public's questions and concerns both at the Washington office and at Region III.
However, in several ways that I am aware of the NRC has been totally unresponsive to a degree that has caused a lot of confusion and and has been the source of a good deal of misinformation in the country. Although many citizens have been asking the NRC to frame a better definition of so-called "low-level" radioactive waste for decades, the NRC has neglected to do so. This has contributed to the fact that the public and politicians are being mislead about the real content of "low-level" radioactive waste, and the fact that when the real content of these wastes is made known there are major battles about its disposal everywhere in the country. The NRC will license these facilities for 100 years, yet will allow highly toxic wastes that will last for centuries to be included in them. This indicates an irresponsible approach to these dangerous wastes.
Another area which the NRC has been asked to correct for decades is the classification system. It has been criticized by scientists, environmentalists and the utilities themselves. But the NRC has done nothing to correct this system.
It is also my view that there is a philosophy that pervades the policies and decisions of the NRC that increasingly shapes decisions that do and will continue to adversely affect the public. It also diminishes the primary obligation of the Agency to protect public health and safety.
This philosophy is that the best interests of the nuclear industry must take precedence in the decisions of the Agency over the concerns of the public.
a) Section 72.218 of that ruling states that management of spent fuel at the reactor "must include a plan for removal of the spent fuel stored under this general license from the reactor site." No such plan has been required from management. Reeently after a good deal of pressure from the public, the President of Consumers Power Co., Michael G. Morris, has written to Hazel O'Leary that a new cask will be developed to take the waste off site. However, there is no record of any plan of this kind in the public documents room, and staff in the information dept. of the NRC had no knowledge of such a plan. The NRC should require details of this plan to be placed in the public documents room by the utility since this is a point of great concern by the public, and rightfully so. The Agency is allowing the placing of high level nuclear wastes in untested casks in the heart of the Great Lakes region with no plans for offsite transport, contrary to its own regulations.
b) The rule states that the NRC "will ensure that each cask is fabricated under an NRC-approved quality assurance program." However, 8 casks and 3 metal baskets were built even before there was a certificate of compliance. The first NRC inspection of the casks occurred after 5 were built. The workers had no knowledge of the Am. Concrete Institute code for building the casks. Other deficiences were so bad that construction had to be halted. Similarly, an initial NRC inspection of the metal fabrication facilities showed serious quality control problems in 1992. There was no follow-up inspection until July, 1994. The inspectors found 194 deficiencies. The NRC information staff in Washington did not have any record of the 194 deficiencies or how they were corrected.
Consumers Power Co. halted loading for awhile. The utility then started loading again even though it did not have a workable, useable document for procedures for unloading cask #4 which had a defective weld. This was a requirement for certifying the cask. The NRC has done nothing to stop further loading of 9 more casks even though the utility is clearly in violation of its certification for the cask since it does not know how to unload it.
Chairman Ivan Selin stated the following before the American Nuclear Society and the European Nuclear Society in Chicago, Ill. on Nov. 17, 1992:, Ha process from which the public is shut out is a process in which the public will have no confidence." Yet this is exactly what the NRC has done in establishing its "generic" licensing procedures for dry cask storage at nuclear plant sites. It has decided that even state and local governments do not have to be notified that high level nuclear waste is being loaded in their state or vicinity, in spite of the fact that these are the units of government that will have to provide emergency services in the event of fire or accident.
This "generic" licensing is based on the notion that no environmental impact statement or public hearing is necessary because the original EIS for the construction of the nuclear plant was sufficient to cover the information for the site of a storage pad on which to place dry casks for nuclear waste storage.
There are many instances of this type of decision-making. I can only describe and document a few of them. It is worth bringing them to your attention because I think they indicate a pattern that can result in great harm to the nation if this attitude is not reversed. These decisions, in most cases, amount to the fact that the Agency is avoiding enforcing its own safety requirements.
Some of these instances are as follows:
- 1. In 1992, the NRC decided that 63 of the 109 licensed nuclear power plants do not have to meet the "minimum requirements" of the agency's General Design Criteria (GDC) that were set forth on May 21, 1971, to "establish minimum requirements for systems important to safety." The NRC has managed to circumvent the regulations by substituting the claim that criteria can be found to be met if they meet the "intent" of the GDC. An "intent" is far from a reality, and can be a dangerously lax way to promulgate regulation. (Nucleus, Winter, '94-
'95, p. 9) Michigan plants affected by this decision of the NRC are Big Rock Point, Cook 1 and 2, and Palisades.
- 2. A top nuclear industry engineer, under contract to review Individual Plant Examination (IPE) submittals, has resigned with severe criticism of the review process. In a Mar. 17, 1995, memo to the NRC, the engineer, John Darby, provided specific instances where the IPE underestimates the potential for core damage frequency by as much as 48 %. He noted that he was continually asked to re-write his questions to licensees in such a way as to be "acceptable" to the licensee. Darby has concluded that NRC's review process for IPE's is insufficient to provide a sound, technically-supportable basis for the use of risk-based regulations. (Nuclear Monitor, May, '95, p. 1)
- 3. Since Nov., '92, two consulting nuclear engineers, David Lochbaum and Donald Prevatte, have been urging the NRC to resolve significant safety hazards that they identified at Pensylvania Power and Light's Susquehanna nuclear power station, a GE boiling water reactor. They state that design deficiencies pose a high risk for a catastrophic meltdown in the station's irradiated fuel storage pool. These engineers warn that these same hazards may affect 35 U.S.
nuclear power reactors of similar design. They wrote about their concerns to Senator Nunn because the NRC is doing nothing about this problem. (Letter to Senator Sam Nunn, April 5, 1994) A Michigan plant affected by this design deficiency is Fermi-2.
- 4. The VSC-24 cask used at the Palisades plant site was the first cask to be part of the "generic" licensing process which was promulgated in July, 1990.
While many safeguards were spelled out in that rule, the fact is that in the actual first implementation of this rule in the certification of the VSC-24 cask, the NRC violated any number of its own regulations, which include:
The Agency's soil's expert, Dr. Ross Landsman, addressed this policy when he wrote a memo to Dr. Ivan Selin after he inspected the Palisades site almost a year after the VSC-24 cask was certified and 2 casks were loaded. He described his concerns about not having information about the foundation materials and the storage pad. He also concluded that if the NRC proceeds "with its current ideology" it could lead to "catastrophic consequences." He was referring to the mistaken use of an environmental impact statement for the reactor that is set on a foundation of 8 ft. of concrete on bedrock to apply to a 3 ft. thick concrete pad with no foundation to bedrock.
To this point, the NRC has not responded in any way to this grave warning by its own expert. And the process of excluding the public from this dangerous course of placing high level radioactive waste at reactor sites is permitted to go forward. Since reactors are located on all the major fresh water supplies in the country, this is an appalling threat to our national security through potential danger to the nation's fresh water supply.
Chairman Selin at the same conference in Chicago said: "public credibility cannot be achieved without public participation." He is right.
Sincerely,
~
cc. Vice-President Al Gore NRC Chairman, Ivan Selin Senator Carl Levin Senator Spencer Abraham Congressman Fred Upton Congressman Dave Camp Attorney General Frank Kelley
Jim Edgar Governor DOCKET NUMBER *
- Secretary of the Commission PROPOSED RULE Pl Ml s&
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( 60 Ff<. 1b6rs)
Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Draft Report on Responsiveness to the Public, NUREG/BR-0199 Gentlemen:
The Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (Department) hereby submits its comments on the referenced document. Our comments are from the perspective of an Agreement State, and we do not consider Agreement State functions in the same context as the "public" as used in the first sentence on page 2, except under the umbrella term "all with whom we do business." We believe that Agreement States have a distinct and unique role in their relationship with the NRC, and this relationship should be accurately described in the subject NUREG.
For example, the NRC has included a discussion of the Office of State Programs (OSP) program on pages 28-33 . The discussion focuses entirely on the Agreement State program and never mentions other State related functions such as high-level and low-level radioactive waste disposal, and OSP's involvement in non-materials programs. In addition, the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Plan (IMPEP) was not mentioned, but should be mentioned under Planned Improvements in the Program Reviews of Agreement States (p.29). The Th1PEP proposal is a dramatic change in the way NRC evaluates Agreement States.
The Agreement State Training section (p.32) describes NRC's commitment to assist Agreement States with training to increase technical and regulatory knowledge of Agreement State personnel. Please note that Agreement States received a le~r from OSP dated March 14, 1995, indicating that NRC may no longer fund these training courses. If NRC continues forward with its plan to eliminate funds for training Agreement State personnel, this NUREG should not use space to take credit for a program that may be severely curtailed by this policy decision.
..WN 2 O 19951
@ recyclable Acknowf9dged by eartf**----*"*--
S. NUC!.E.~.:-; ?i:*:c1):..,;,0fn' COfv1i,11SSION DOC:- !::1 i:~3 & SERVICE SECTION OFF-ICE: OF THi: SECRETARY OF TH E COMMISSION DrJCUment Statistics Postman1 Date 6 I 5 115 Copies R ceived _ _ _.,,.. 1_ _ _ __
Md'! Copies Reproduced --=J,___ _ _ __
Secretary of the Commission June 2, 1995 Page 2 Absent from this NUREG is a description of proposed changes to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). These changes should be described in the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research's section describing Improvement of the Rulemaking Process (p.25). The proposed changes to FACA would allow Agreement States the opportunity to work with NRC in developing regulations or guidance documents that can benefit both NRC licensees and Agreement State licensees.
If you have questions regarding these items, please contact me or Kathy Allen at (217) 785-9947 or at the address on our letterhead.
Sincerely, J~c.~
Steven C. Collins, Chief Division of Radioactive Materials SCC:KAA
5711 Summerset ~KETEO Midland, MI 486'4t\JSNRC May 29, 1995 Mr. John C. Hoyle Secretary of the Commission
- 95 JlN -s p 3 :09 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - ,, .- ,,.. _ ,. ..-""" -- V Washington, D. C. 20555 r fr ...
~
DOCKET NlNBERPI Attn: Docketing and Services Branch PROPOSED RULE...;;..,;;
Dear Mr. Hoyle:
( 6o FR J, 6 t-sJ These comments are offered in response to NUREG/BR-0199, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Draft Report on Responsiveness to the Public.
There are many staff members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who are responsive to the public's questions and concerns both at the Washington office and at Region III.
However, in several ways that I am aware of the NRC has been totally unresponsive to a degree that has caused a lot of confusion and and has been the source of a good deal of misinformation in the country. Although many citizens have been asking the NRC to frame a better definition of so-called "low-level" radioactive waste for decades, the NRC has neglected to do so. This has contributed to the fact that the public and politicians are being mislead about the real content of "low-level" radioactive waste, and the fact that when the real content of these wastes is made known there are major battles about its disposal everywhere in the country. The NRC will license these faciiities for 100 years, yet will allow highly toxic wastes that will last for centuries to be included in them. This indicates* an irresponsible approach to these dangerous wastes.
Another area which the NRC has been asked to correct for decades is the classification system. It has been criticized by scientists, environmentalists and the utilities themselves. But the NRC has done nothing to correct this system.
It is also my view that there is a philosophy that pervades the policies and decisions of the NRC that increasingly shapes decisions that do and will continue to adversely affect the public. It also diminishes the primary obligation of the Agency to protect public health and safety.
This philosophy is that the best interests of the nuclear industry must take precedence in the decisions of the Agency over the concerns of the public.
JU"I 1 6' 1995, Acknowledged bv card
- , ********* , ********** .,,--. ** ,19
( - ,
. \
\J.S. NUCLE.~ f ,::GUi.ATORY CdMf-it'$'$fOt.
DOCKE TING & SERVICE SECTION OFFiCE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postma~ Date ~:/ 3 I q I l Copies Received _ _--,-/_ _ __
Aden Copies Reproduced _ _ _ __
Special Qistribution tZr: Kl~ PP/!,.
Id.IL Ir, r-J cM n~ H ~yip
~td
There are many instances of this type of decision-making. I can only describe and document a few of them. It is worth bringing them to your attention because I think they indicate a pattern that can result in great harm to the nation if this attitude is not reversed. These decisions, in most cases, amount to the fact that the Agency is avoiding enforcing its own safety requirements.
Some of these instances are as follows:
- 1. In 1992, the NRC decided that 63 of the 109 licensed nuclear power plants do not have to meet the "minimum requirements" of the agency's General Design Criteria (GDC) that were set forth on May 21, 1971, to n establish mini.mum requirements for systems important to safety." The NRC has managed to circumvent the regulations by substituting the claim that criteria can be found to be met if they meet the "intent" of the GDC. An "intent" is far from a reality, and can be a dangerously lax way to promulgate regulation. (Nucleus, Winter, '94-
'95, p. 9) Michigan plants affected by this decision of the NRC are Big Rock Point, Cook 1 and 2~ and Palisades.
- 2. A top nuclear industry engineer, under contract to review Individual Plant Examination (IPE) submittals, has resigned with severe criticism of the review process. In a Mar. 17, 1995, memo to the NRC, the engineer, John Darby provided specific instances where the IPE underestimates the potential for core damage frequency by as much as 48%. He noted that he was continually asked to re-write his questions to licensees in such a way as to be "acceptable" to the licensee. Darby has concluded that NRC's review process for IPE's is insufficient to provide a sound, technically-supportable basis for the use of risk-based regulations. (Nuclear Monitor, May, '95, p. 1)
- 3. Since Nov., '92, two consulting nuclear engineers, David Lochbaum and Donald Prevatte, have been urging the NRC to resolve significant safety hazards that they identified at Pensylvania Power and Light's Susquehanna nuclear power station, a GE boiling water reactor. They state that design deficiencies pose a high risk for a catastrophic meltdown in the station's irradiated fuel storage pool. These engineers warn that these same hazards may affect 35 U.S.
nuclear power reactors of similar design. They wrote about their concerns to Senator Nunn because the NRC is doing nothing about this problem. (Letter to Senator Sam Nunn, April 5, 1994) A Michigan plant affected by this design deficiency is Fermi-2,
- 4. The VSC-24 cask used at the Palisades plant site was the first cask to be part of the "generic" licensing process which was promulgated in July, 1990.
While many safeguards were spelled out in that rule, the fact is that in the actual first implementation of this rule in the certification of the VSC-24 cask, the NRC violated any number of its own regulations, which include:
a) Section 72.218 of that ruling states that management of spent fuel at the reactor "must include a plan for removal of the spent fuel stored under this general license from the reactor site." No such plan has been required from management. Recently after a good deal of pressure from the public, the President of Consumers Power Co., Michael G. Morris, has written to Hazel O'Leary that a new cask will be developed to take the waste off site. However, there is no record of any plan of this kind in the public documents room, and staff in the information dept. of the NRC had no knowledge of such a plan. The NRC should require details of this plan to be placed in the public documents room by the utility since this is a point of great concern by the public, and rightfully so. The Agency is allowing the placing of high level nuclear wastes in untested casks in the heart of the Great Lakes region with no plans for offsite transport, contrary to its own regulations.
b) The rule states that the NRC "will ensure that each cask is fabricated under an NRC-approved quality assurance program." However, 8 casks and 3 metal baskets were built even before there was a certificate of compliance. The first NRC inspection of the casks occurred after 5 were built. The workers had no knowledge of the Am. Concrete Institute code for building the casks. Other deficiences were so bad that construction had to be halted. Similarly, an initial NRC inspection of the metal fabrication facilities showed serious quality control problems in 1992. There was no follow-up inspection until July, 1994. The inspectors found 194 deficiencies. The NRC information staff in Washington did not have any record of the 194 deficiencies or how they were corrected.
Consumers Power Co. halted loading for awhile. Then started loading again even though it did not have a workable, useable document for procedures for unloading cask #4 which had a defective weld. This was a requirement for certifying the cask. The NRC has done nothing to stop further loading of 9 more casks even though the utility is clearly in violation of its certification for the cask since it does not know how to unload it.
Chairman Ivan Selin stated the following before the American Nuclear Society and the European Nuclear Society in Chicago, Ill. on Nov. 17, 1992: "a process from which the public is shut out is a process in which the public will have no confidence." Yet this is exactly what the NRC has done in establishing its "generic" licensing procedures for dry cask storage at nuclear plant sites. It has decided that even state and local governments do not have to be notified that high level nuclear waste is being loaded in their state or vicinity, in spite of the fact that these units of government that will have to provide emergency services rn the event of fire or accident.
This "generic" licensing is based on the notion that no environmental impact statement or public hearing is necessary because the original EIS for the construction of the nuclear plant was sufficient to cover the information for the site of a storage pad on which to place dry casks for nuclear waste storage.
The Agency's soil's expert, Dr. Ross Landsman, addressed this policy when he wrote a memo to Dr. Ivan Selin after he inspected the Palisades site almost a year after the VSC-24 cask was certified and 2 casks were loaded. He described his concerns about not having information about the foundation materials and the storage pad. He also concluded that if the NRC proceeds "with its current ideology" it could lead to "catastrophic consequences." He was referring to the mistaken use of an environmental impact statement for the reactor that is set on a foundation of 8 ft. of concrete on bedrock to apply it to a 3 ft. thick concrete pad with no foundation to bedrock.
To this point, the NRC has not responded in any way to this grave warning by its own expert. And the process of excluding the public from this dangerous course of placing high level radioactive waste at reactor sites is permitted to go forward. Since reactors are located on all the major fresh water supplies in the country, this is an appalling threat to our national security through potential danger to the nation's fresh water supply.
Chairman Selin at the same conference in Chicago said: "public credibility cannot be achieved without public participation." He is right.
Sincerely, cc. Vice-President Al Gore NRC Chairman, Ivan Selin Senator Carl Levin Senator Spencer Abraham Congressman Fred Upton Congressman Dave Camp Attorney General Frank Kelley
3911 Campolindo Drh*e Moraga, CA 94556-1551
- 95 JJN -6 Al 1 :32 510/283-1850 Fax:510/283-1850 Henry H. Kramer, Ph.D., FACNP OFFICE OF SECRETARY Executive Direcwr ooct~ETI G & SERVIC BH~.NCH Secretary May 30, 1995 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 DOCKET NUMBER
?nOPOSED RULE Pl M.
t SG Attn.: Docketing and Service Branch (60 F~ Jt 6 t-s)
Reference:
NRC Draft NUREG/BR-0199, Responsiveness to the Public, Draft Report for Comment, March 1995.
These comments are submitted on behalf of the Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals (CORAR). CORAR members are the major manufacturers and distributors of radiophannaceuticals, radioactive sources and research radionuclides used in the USA for therapeutic and diagnostic medical applications and for environmental, industrial and biomedical research and quality control. As indicated in previous communications to the NRC concerning the regulation of major material licensees, CORAR is committed to promote enhanced responsiveness to the public.
We are encouraged by the numerous actions proposed in this draft report and believe that they will improve the timeliness of response to public needs. We recognize the importance of updating NRC procedures for responding to the public. Other important factors are the content of the response and the overall perception that the NRC is creating with the public. CORAR believes that important elements missing from this draft report are: 1) the need for the NRC to convey a balanced view of the level of safety achieved by NRC licensees; and, 2) the enormous benefits that the use of radionuclides provides to society.
We have attached detailed comments on this draft report and would be glad to provide clarification or further information.
Sincerely yours, Leonard R. Smith, CHP Chairperson CORAR Subcommittee on Regulating Major Material Licensees
'JUN 1 6' 1995 Acknowledged by carcf ""."""'"'""""'~
IJ; NUCLEAR kE:GULATORY COMMISSIOl"t DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmar11Date S /Jt!J/15 Copies Received _ _ _ / ..,..__ __
pec1al Distribution uo~ PiJf!
.Add'I Copies Reproduced _,_~L..----=-~- -
/fa,l f P>"-: 1 U-1/L>:J ]C.,_J~
~
May, 1995 CORAR COMMENTS ON DRAFT NUREG/BR-0199 RESPONSIVENESS TO THE PUBLIC
- 1. Page 2 Paragraph 3 "Making NRC documents readily available to the public.... "
The NRC places notices in the Federal Register to indicate new publications.
However, in about 10% of our requests for these documents they are not available.
- 2. Page 4 Paragraph 3 "NRC telephone directories" Broad scope licensees who have to communicate with the NRC on numerous issues need current directories of NRC staff and staff functions. Licensees need telephone numbers, facsimile numbers and electronic addresses. NRC staff are often difficult to access even when the licensee has a valid telephone number.
Message recording devices appear to be frequently malfunctioning.
- 3. Page 12 Paragraphs 1, 2 etc.
This section on "Management of Allegations" implies that allegations only involve industry whereas institutional and other licenses and generally licensed individuals can all be subject to allegations.
- 4. Pages 15-16 Emergency Preparedness NRC communications with the public on emergency response has inadvertently contributed to the publics exaggerated perception of the risks involved in emergencies with licensed material. There is a need to convey information to ensure that the public obtains a proper perspective. The NRC should indicate how they intend to manage this educational effort to ensure appropriate public perspective. Education should include informing the public on the benefits to society from the licensee practice because the public are more likely to achieve a correct perception if they are aware of the necessity of the practice.
1
- 5. Page 34 Materials Licensing The effort to improve the timeliness of licensing actions is appreciated. We have the following additional recommendations for enhancing this process:
- a. Most license amendments are treated as additions to the license. This results in unwieldy accumulations of attachments that impede licensee and NRC staff from reviewing the license. Some NRC staff permit obsolete material to be deleted from the license by amendment. This should be standard practice since it will provide workable licenses and speed up the review process.
- b. License renewals are often repetitive without new material. However, NRC staff often request additional material not previously requested. This essentially doubles the number of submissions made by licensees. This duplication of effort could be avoided by NRC indicating the need for additional material when the renewal notice is issued to the licensee.
- c. It is not clear to material licensees why it is necessary to have both a license amendment and license renewal process. If obsolete material was deleted from the license as part of the amendment process there would be no need for license renewal.
- 6. Pages 36, 37 License Fee Inquiries We agree that "providing a pamphlet containing typical questions and answers" could reduce the need for licensees to make inquiries on fees. However, a more profound preventive action would be to improve the quality of information provided in the Federal Register. Examples ofimprovements to consider are:
- a. The implementation date for a new fee schedule should be clearly indicated in the purpose section of the notice in the Federal Register.
- b. For license renewals there is a need to clarify the intent of the implementation date of a change in fees. It is not clear whether the fee implementation date applies to the expiration date of the license, the date of the renewal notice, the date the renewal application is sent or the date the renewal application is received by the NRC. When NRC staff were questioned on this issue they were unable to answer the question. This ambiguity results in delays and unnecessary work for both the licensee and NRC staff.
2
- 7. Pages 44, 45. Quality and Timeliness of Correspondence Two areas of NRC and licensee correspondence could be improved:
- a. Licensees who request a written interpretation of an NRC inspection should be provided with this information.
- b. NRC staff should determine who is responsible for responding to a public request and ensure that the request is addressed. For example when NRC HQ-staff were informed of the need to correct an error in the regulations their response was to advise the licensee to seek a license amendment.
Regional staff disagreed and advised that a regulatory change is needed. The issue has not been resolved.
- 8. Page 53 Paragraph 7 "a post card response system to acknowledge receipt of each rule making comment" The post card response system uses a reference number in the federal register.
Licensees seldom keep back copies of the federal register for more than two months and may not be able to recognize the NRC response when comment period and NRC acknowledgment timing exceed two months. It would be more useful to licensees if the post card response also indicated the date of the comments and the title of the subject.
- 9. Pages 54, 55. Informing the public through press releases We are encouraged that the NRC intends to address the program for issuing press releases and intends to include information on the uses of radionuclides. CORAR has often expressed concern that NRC press releases inadvertently convey false impressions to the public. Concerns include:
- a. The issuance of a press release implies that the content is of national importance which is seldom the case. Instead only licensees that can learn from the event should be copied.
- b. Press releases should clearly indicate the severity of an event by comparison with events (like vehicle accidents) that the public understands.
- c. The majority of NRC press releases concern licensee failings. This practice inadvertently causes the public to mistakenly perceive that material licensees have poor safety programs. Instead the NRC should be promulgating a balanced view of the high level of safety that generally prevails. This should be done by issuing press releases on licensee achievements in a proportional manner.
3
- d. Press releases should include the benefits of the licensee practice to society to enable the public to have a balanced view of the costs and benefits.
- e. The NRC should involve licensees and their trade associations in generating public infonnation on the use of radionuclides. CORAR offers to participate in this important educational activity.
- 10. Other Issues Not Included in Draft NUREG/BR-0199.
- a. The NRC uses part of licensee fees to provide information notices, newsletters, regulatory guides, etc. It would be useful if licensees had a list of the materials that they are entitled to, together with the frequency of scheduled publications.
- b. Licenses should not be sent material that is irrelevant to their operations.
For example material licensees receive a large amount of information concerning power reactor engineering standards.
- c. Licensees with multiple licenses should not automatically be issued multiple copies of NRC documents unless they specifically request this.
- d. Licensees often have difficulty in acquiring current versions ofNRC regulations. For example one of the members of CORAR paid in advance for a set of current regulations and received a set 27 months out of date.
The licensee was advised to pay for and request a replacement set. The replacement set was identical to the previous set but included twenty seven monthly sets of replacement pages! Two weeks later the licensee also received an unrequested third set of outdated regulations. The licensee returned the outdated material but has never been reimbursed. It is clear that such practice does not make for good relations with the public.
- e. When communicating regulatory proposals to the public, the NRC should make more effort to explain the costs and benefits to society. The NRC should carefully explain the value of the regulatory proposal, the benefit of the regulated practice to society and the costs to society in regulating the practice. By these means the NRC can consistently educate the public and further meaningful participation of the public in the regulatory process.
4
~~~
DOCKETED USHRC w
~
mmmm *95 JUN -6 All :31 lmlVirul IH91IWDu1ll. lmDI \1mll ~
~
MaoF?lCEdf9 §fC ETARY Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissi on DOCKET I G & SERVICE BRA . CH Washington, D.C. 20555
- JOCKET NUMBER
- ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch ~ ?ROPOSED RULE Pl M t5 0 C6 o F '12- t6 6 ;,-- :,
RE: COMMENTS: RESPONSIVENESS TO THE PUBLIC, NUREG/BR-0199 :SJ
'Responsivness' is no longer a sufficient level of interaction between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and a public who feels an instinctive responsibility to protect their families, and their future generations.
Established models already used by the NRC should bring stakeholders together for long range planning, site specific planning and ongoing monitoring of nuclear generating sites .
The public perception of what would safeguard the health and safety of their families is very different than those who have the responsibility of solving the problem in the cheapest way possible ,
The Chenango North Energy Awareness Group (Chenango North), will a o cept nothing less than full dee ~ ion making participation for any public who may be at risk . from radiation connected actvity.
It must be noted that people who want to assure themselves that an activity is being implemented according to agreed upon_.specifications, aren't motivated by obstruction. Please don't confuse legal strategies used by environmental advocates to delay projects with community oversight groups, whose best interests would be served by ceope ration.
Although the outcome may cost more money than the generator's solution, at least the money wouldn't be poured down a legal drain. It would be used to protect the people who have a right to be in control of the quality of their life.
It must also be understood that intelligent people, who don't have scientific backrounds are perfectly capable of understanding complicated scientific theory and practice.
~JUN 1 6' 1995
- Acknowledged by card ........................... ,......
lS. NUCLEAR !-lEGUi.ATORY COMMISSIO~
DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics stmar1( 0a1e ~/1.,0 I cts Copies Received _ ____ _ __
Add'I Copies Reproduced _a_ _ _ _
Special Distribution YL,j; tl~ 1tfJ/l ll/2 {fb~ LM~ Ho;t7~
Responsiveness to the Public - P2 Community Boards should, however, have access to educational opportunities that would enhance their backround knowledge and understanding of the activities.
The nuclear industry must be honest about the length of time which any site may be above 'backround' for their given area.
This will inform the public honestly and they will be able to see the benefit of passing down their participation on the community oversight committee, to the next generati on of the committee. r The NRC should represent the p ublic, not the nuclear industry. The NRC should act as expert consultants to community boards. The 'recent improvements' in 2.206 process, demonstrates that you are still holding the public at a distance. Fact finding or interceding in what people feel could be detrimental to their families, should not be an adversarial process.
Other recent NRC actions have l ed to less information being available to the general public. The NRC's recent elimination of the meeting notices in the Weekly Highlights of Information from the NRC, has cut off the ability of everyone without a computer and modem from f ollowing the numbers and kinds of meetings in which the NRC participates. Chenango North requests that they be reinstated into the Weekly Highlights.
Whether the nuclear industry encourages meaningful public participation or not, the NRC must be committed to educating the public about the continuing responsibility they and their future generations will have , caring for radioactive waste. This transition begins with involvement in the process.
Agreement States must be able to impose stricter regulations than NRC standards if desired. The concept of
'compatability' should be a minimum standard.
Respect ful ly su~ *tted ,
- 5. Uz.: fJOfL.
l,u, Ls/J,..,. J c i-<t<<, l4 ; y'-'--5 yo,11;te5
In January 1993, Executive Director of Operations established a Regulatory Review Group. The Group conducted a review of power reactor regulations and related processes.
At the same time I decided to conduct my own somewhat different review which was documented in APG Report #28 titled; "Where do we go from here in the U.S. nuclear safety regulation". This report was presented to the Review Group, ACRS and subsequently to Commissioner Rogers. It was also appended to our Company's comments on the draft of the Review Group report.
In our report, I have arrived at a profound conclusion, from the standpoint of nuclear safety, that the existing regulations overemphasize the hardware aspects to the point of obsession while paying no due attention to the human dimension which may contribute to as high as 90% to severe accidents.
The NRC staff essentially did not want to deal with this profound nuclear safety issue. Hence, my report and associated verbal explanations received next to no attention. Commissioner Rogers was the only one who took my points seriously. It led to a mutually beneficial dialogue. The NRC staff continues to display lack of interest to deal with this challenging with potentially profound impact on regulations.
- 3. Procurement My Congressman, Randy "Duke" Cunningham 51 st District California, has written a letter on behalf of our company. The letter, addressed to Chairman Selin, was mailed on January, 6 1995.
To my knowledge, the Commission has never responded to the letter.
Hopefully, the above three examples provide an illustration of my concerns and will serve a purpose.
ly,
'~/-
. Vojin Joksirnovich resident 2
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Medical Center DOCKETED Danville IL 61832 USNRC May 25, 1995 J.IN -s P3 :47 In Reply Refer To :
OFFICE OF SECRETA RY 55o; PPfKETING & SERVICE Secretary, BRANCH U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 DOCKET NUMBER ..
Attn: Docketing and service Branch PRgPOSED RULE Pl M l s CJ
(. 6 O F- R I l, 6f's}
Re: Comments concerning the "Draft Report on Responsiveness to the Public; Availability"
Dear Sir:
Regarding the draft report listed above, we wish to encourage the NRC to continue pursuing methods to improve the responsiveness to the public.
Current methods we have found particularly useful are the workshops and seminars which discuss a certain topic, such as the new Part 20 and the Quality Management Program requirements.
We also encourage continuing to send proposed rule-making to each of the licensees for comment prior to enacting those rules.
Newsletters, such as those in the format of the NMSS reports, are easy to read and are an excellent way of relaying current information and inspection history to the licensees. These are much more useful to the average user than are the many federal register notices, which may tend to be overlooked at times because the pertinent information may become buried in literature which is. m;:>t applicable to our license.
Licensees are also concerned with costs, due to the incredible price increases experienced over the last several years. Because of this, many are sensitive to apparent wastefulness on the part of the NRC. Publications of large volumes of inspection data and sending this to every licensee could be eliminated by summarizing each event in a newsletter such as the NMSS publication. Also, we do not feel it is necessary to include the specific names and addresses of the facilities involved in inspections.
A recent set of several volumes concerning use of high dose rate after-loaders would be applicable to only a small percentage of licensees, and would not need to be sent to every licensee. Rather, the availability of these books to those interested could be published in the newsletter. We expect the mailing of the large volumes to every licensee involves a substantial cost.
The draft also discusses a pilot program of opening enforcement conferences to the public. We feel this is of limited usefulness to medical licensees, as the time to attend outside conferences and seminars is severely limited. Time spent outside the facility would be better spent attending a seminar pertinent to our
'JUN 1'6' 1995 .
JJiiN4 ....
U.S. N'JC' ,. - ., :-- '=\ EGUU,TORY COMMISS!Ot-.
o:x< '. ~G & SERVICE SECTION OFF1CE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date - -----------'-"- - - - -
Copes Rec ived _ _ --;,---'----"
Add'! Copies ReprOduced _ _____ _
Special Distribution J.
fb:tJS y
/JOfL.> _
J w{/s OJ.. * ./
CM l'J..JJ Ho !-I t -
\J I
2.
operations. Open enforcement conferences may be of interest to the press and public interest groups, but is not of great importance to other licensees. Again, information on inspection results from other licensees can better be transferred by newsletters.
We are in favor of continuing to survey licensees on ways to reduce the regulatory burden on the licensees.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our opinions on the above items.
Sincerely, Mukund L. Gai, M.D.
Radiation Safety Officer
Northeast 107 Selden Street, Berlin, CT 06037 Utilities System Northeast Utilities Servi~G,I~~
P.O. Box 270 UUL.r\t.
TE r Hartford, CT 06141-0270 USN RC (203) 665-5000 May 30 , 1995 *95 JUN -6 P4 :16 Docket Nos. 5 5~ OF SECRETARY DOCKET NUMBER l E0POSED RULE Pl MIS. 6 5 -
TIM G & SERV CE
'6 BR ANCr:
50-423 (60 Ff< J66t'"S) B15232 Re : NUREG/BR-0199 Mr . John C. Hoyle , Acting Secretary U. S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention : Docketing and Service Branch Washington , DC 20555 Haddam Neck Plant Millstone Nuclear Power Station , Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Comments on NRC Responsiveness Initiative The purpose of this letter is to provide the NRC Staff with comments on NUREG/BR- 0199, "Responsiveness to the Public , Draft Report for Comment ." 1 This draft report reflects the initial results of the NRC initiative to develop public responsiveness plans in those areas where public interaction is relatively frequent and contains improvement plans developed by the NRC in these areas .
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) and Northeast Nuclear Ene rgy Company (NNECO) , on behalf of the Haddam Neck Plant and Millstone Nucle a r Power Station , Unit Nos . 1 , 2 , and 3 , have revie wed the NRC Staff ' s draft report and offer the following comments . In general, CYAPCO and NNECC s~pport the NRC St aff ' s initiatives and consider them to be valuable. However, we are concerned that these ambitious undertakings could detract from the success of the existing NRC programs such as the Cost Beneficial Licensing Action s. Our specific comments are provided below .
CYAPCO a nd NNECO support the NRC ' s initiatives in the area of ele ctronic communications , with respect to both the increased electronic ava ilability of industry documents and the electronic tran sfe r of documents between licensees and the NRC . We would also be in favor of the investigation of the application of video conference technology to , in some cases , take the place of NUREG/BR-0199 , "Responsiveness to the Public, Draft Report for Comment, " dated March 1995.
JUN 1 6' 1995 Acknowledged by card .........................~-::.,.
0S3422 REV. 1-94
.S. ~--' * **:: . / -:.;i7Y COMMISSIOI\
L-1... _ & f ~ '*<VICE SECTION C* ~ * ,.*t=' H 1t SECRETARY
'..;f THE COMMISSION Document Statistics ostmart. Data sJ3 J]<:f .>
C-0p:es rit:c,:*:M;d _ ___/ _ _ __
- \dd'I C*1
- : r~ Hc~r0<iucoo ~Y--..~.,,.......-
vi}AC1:. _c ;:,; .~'.:o!1 >z.rY.Jr PPR,,
JAj Lr /)/\, ,I Hoy1/4,; CMIL/
Mr. John C. Hoyle Bl5232/Page 2 May 30, 1995 face-to-face meetings between licensees and the NRC Staff. The use of video technology was referenced in the discussion of improvements for the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. We believe that there may be appropriate application in the area of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Establishment of an electronic bulletin board for future rulemakings and routinely holding public workshops for complex rulemakings could greatly enhance the public's participation in this process. Moreover, public accessibility could be greatly improved by increasing communications with such organizations as the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) . The NRC could improve public knowledge of its research activities by establishing cooperative research programs with organizations such as EPRI, similar to the Department of Energy's current efforts on advanced light water reactors.
With regard to license fee inquiries, we believe that if the invoices provided a greater level of detail in charges showing the hours billed by each NRC employee, the number of licensee inquiries requiring NRC response would be greatly reduced.
Concerning the responsibilities of the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), the responsibility to respond to public inquiries for specific power reactor regulatory activities should be transferred to the Project Manager level. Timeliness would be improved and OGC review of routine regulatory activities (e.g.,
license amendments) would no longer be needed.
We appreciate the NRC's efforts to improve responsiveness to the public, including licensees. We look forward to seeing these initiatives come to fruition.
Very truly yours, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY J. F .a ~
Executive Vice President cc: See Page 3
Mr. John C. Hoyle B15232/Page 3 May 30, 1995 cc: T. T. Martin, Region I Administrator A. B. Wang, NRC Project Manager, Haddam Neck Plant J. w. Andersen, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 1 G. S. Vissing, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 2 V. L. Rooney, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 3
- w. J. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Haddam Neck Plant P. D. Swetland, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3
- u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555
SECRETARIAlBEWRlf iw UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETED r:::;,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555:-0()01 US RC ~
June 1, 1995 "95 JUN -2 A10 :31 OFFICE OF THE DOCKET NUMBER M- OFFICE OF SEC RETARY INSPECTOR GENERAL PROPOSED RULE tS G OOCKET i 'G & c-ER VICE BR ANCH (60 F R /hb?- r)
MEMORANDUM TO: John C. Hoyle Secretary to the Commission Office of the Secretary to the Commission
~ ?-lw-t, FROM: David C. Williams Inspector General
SUBJECT:
DRAFT REPORT ON RESPONSIVENESS TO THE PUBLIC The Inspector General Act requires that my office review statutes, regulations and policies and to make recommendations concerning the impact of these statutes, regulations and policies on agency programs and operations. The purpose of this review is to analyze and comment on their effect on the economy and efficiency of programs and operations administered by the agency.
In accordance with that statutory obligation, this memorandum comments upon the "Draft Report on Responsiveness to the Public."
Two preliminary comments are offered. First, the agency's initiative in seeking to be more responsive to the public is applauded. The 31 individual action items enumerated in the publication are uniformly positive. Second, we have previously reviewed and remarked on several of the proposed changes and will not repeat our earlier comments here, but rather will identify them as having been the subject of previous commentaries.
Our first suggestion is that "OIG Activities" be added to the publication. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) section would identify and describe our publications, in~luding "The OIG at the NRC", "Fraud Awareness" and the Semiannual Report. It could also include information on how to obtain OIG documents and the OIG Hotline number.
Under "Infrastructure", the planned policy changes are positive.
However, as we have previously commented, implementation of the new electronic media communication systems requires concurrent action to protect against abuse and fraud. (Regulatory Commentary, "Information Technology Policy Guidance", dated December 5, 1994).
Lal ', .. _., . ,TO,T'i" COMMISSIOI'.
[J'.:;i ,* i.- . .. ..-, 6ERVICE SECTION Off:Cr. JF THE SECRETARY OF fHE COMMISSION Document Stattsties
- stmark Duts F~~J-rHv-,11"'.L G,P; JvX topies Received._ _ _,__ _ _ __
A<ld'I Cop:es Reproduced ....£--: _____
Spoc,al Distribution lz.-C q, /JIJll.,
/AJ, 1r12 c,..., C frl f'/~ H 4J 'i 1-e.,
within the 11 Mission Related Changes" topics, we have provided audit recommendations (Audit 94A-28) as well as regulatory commentary on issues related to the 2.206 Petition Process.
(Regulatory Commentary, 11 10 CFR Part 2.206 11 , dated April 25, 1995.) We have also provided an evaluation of the Management Allegation System (Regulatory Commentary, Management Directive a.0 11 , dated August 2, 1994), and provided an extensive review of Decommissioning actions in a recent audit (Audit 94A-07).
we note that within the subtopic of "Agreement States", the newly formulated Termination Procedures are not addressed. Although we have commented on other aspects of this matter, (Regulatory commentary, 11 Final Statement of Principals and Policy for the Agreement State Program and Procedures for Suspension, Termination of an Agreement State Program", dated April 14, 1995), it would seem to be a process of interest to the public and worthy of inclusion in this publication.
Under the "Administrative Activities", Office of General Counsel heading, we would add ethics advice as an additional topic.
Ethic advice, for eligible prospective and former government employees who need conflict of interest guidance, is a valuable service with benefits to the agency and the public.
Please provide a copy of future draft documents and the final publication. If you have any questions, please contact Maryann L. Grodin at 415-5945.
From: " PMBLANCH@aol.com" ("PMBLANCH@AOL.COM")
To: jaz@nrc.gov Date: Thursday, June 1, 1995 10:01 am
Subject:
OI REPORT (SMTP Id#: 51060) DOCI-ETING &
SERVICE BRANCH SECY-NRC John:
'>-. .. *\ [;
Another broken promise. This a.m. I talked to Rog er Fo rt UJJ.9\. i. *. , ..
Jean Hunt of OI and Natalie Brown from the FOIA Of f ice. The OI report, promised by you on Feb. 15, then March 3, and now June 1, 19 95 will not be available for at least one more month. Roger and Jean reported they had forwarded the document to FOIA on April 26, 1995. My initial FOIA request was dated and sent to the NRC on June 11, 1993. What levels do I have to go to in order to get some results? One more month doesn't seem like a long time, but with the history of this I will be told on July 1 that there is another unanticipated delay. I have heard that part of the delay is due to the interference of Northeast Utiliti e s and their legal position that this document should not be released. Again, who is the NRC serving, the licensee or the public?
On a related topic, please review your most recent document titled "Responsiveness to the Public" and see if this stonewalling is consistent with this document.
While I'm on this subject, this document is one of the most pathetic documents ever issued by the NRC. My main comment is that the NRC now defines the "PUBLIC" to include licensees, vendors, industry groups. This is totally inconsistent with other NRC documents discussing the public. Please look at NUREG 1525 on page ES-1. This NUREG clearly distinguishes the licensees and related groups from the public.
For example, when the NRC holds a closed meeting with the licensee, is this now considered a meeting with the public because the licensee is considered the "public"?
This document should be scrapped, rewritten and separated into those areas that help the nuclear industry and those areas that benefit the general public.
This document is nothing more that an "Illusion of Action" that the NRC is serving the public.
If I'm not too late, please consider these official comments on the NRC document titled "Responsiveness to the Public".
CC: JMT@nrc . gov, E- M;L I Acknowledged by card .........................r,. .....
- s. r ..:-~- * *: * **-.. -; .JI ,v COMi-A1SS10t-.
DO,, :. . ;._ ~-*::rr.:iCE S-ECTIO CH*tC ,~ *. ;r= t Ht:: SECRETARY OF 1*HE COM.MISSION Document Statistics
STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 1,/':;-
mv1s1ON OF RADIATION PROTECTION *i
- Airdustrial Center, Bldg. 5
- P.O. Box 47827
- Olympia, Washington 9850 - 7
( I 1
- ** OOCK~ING 2a
, ,* \ s~RVlCE aAAtiCH
,*: _:.~ ',. SECY-HRC/4 May 31 , 1995 /~r-r*:-***,*,Vj*~
.., ,_ I , ' * ~ \
I * ..
Secretary U.S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 DOCKET NUMBER ,
Attention: Docketing and Services Branch PROPOSED RULE Pl Mis o
(,o Ff< 11,bi--S)
Dear Secretary:
This is in response to the request for comments on NRC's draft report "Responsiveness to the Public" dated March 1995. Overall, we commend NRC for the substantial planned improvements which are proposed to improve its relationship with the public and those groups and individuals with whom NRC does business. The following are our specific comments:
Use of Electronic Media:
The establishment of a "list server" to distribute lists of new items as they become available electronically is the key to "placing the customer first" . This would save your "customers", including the Agreement States, considerable time. We would only need to connect to NRC's bulletin boards when new and desired information was added and this would have the additional benefit of reducing the amount of traffic on NRC's bulletin boards. Notifying the public and the Agreement States of new items would also "encourage public participation". In the past I have accused NRC of using the Pony Express for delivering mail to the state of Washington. Your request for comments arrived on May 22; however, the state of Colorado had already informed me that the document was available and I had successfully downloaded relevant portions from INTERNET long before the arrival of the hard copy. In our opinion, this notification could and should have come directly from NRC. An automatic list server would function extremely well for this purpose.
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Management of Allegations:
We agree with NRC's planned improvement fo r managing allegations pertaining to NRC's licensees.
However, we are concerned that the revision to Management Directive 8.8 could negatively impact the ability of Agreement States to effectively investigate allegations concerning Agreement State 0
'U.S. ~n ,r, ,: ' ~ - ;,-,. !_;: ,HORY COMMISSION CU ...,ERVICE SECTION Cifh(.,i:. OF- THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistica L
Postmar'K Date FtAJ>I.-~ µ+>--it ~v;: ;-£-Jtt;_*
1 J--
Copies Received I Add'I Copies Rep-rod _uc_ed_F_ _ _ __
Special
- tribution~..:..w..-=- YJ~S~ ~;:.,-.,...
W,/St>"-
Page Two Secretary - U .S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 31, 1995 licensees when the allegation is originally received by NRC. Management Directive 8.8 should be revised to allow the name and contact number of the alleger to be communicated to the assigned Agreement State investigator so that he/she can confirm and elicit further details of the allegation.
Our concern is that information passed through NRC staff must be considered "hearsay" unless it can be verified by direct contact with the alleger. We will not conduct investigations based solely on "hearsay". If NRC cannot communicate the required contact information to the Agreement States, NRC should inform the alleger that no action will be taken with respect to the Agreement State licensee unless the alleger is willing to speak to the Agreement State personnel.
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research:
We agree with the state of Colorado that a cooperative process for regulatory change should start at the beginning of the process - when a regulatory change is first considered. We believe that prior to initiating any actions NRC should publish the complete data which would indicate that a rule change may be needed and call for a discussion of options. This publication of data showing that a problem exists should precede even the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Once a problem has been documented it should be agreed that a regulatory change is the most efficient way to improve radiation safety. Only then should the NRC begin to draft regulatory language in cooperation with the Agreement States and others.
Electronic Information Exchange:
A positive way to encourage public participation would be to post all comments received on a rule or issue to the appropriate bulletin board. Full access to all comments (not just those that have been uploaded) is essential to bulletin board users for a full and complete understanding of the issues surrounding a particu!ar rulemaking Qr other activity, This should faditate the receipt of well rounded comments. This comment applies to each area where the use of electronic bulletin boards is mentioned (for instance, the Office of Public Affairs and the Office of the Secretary).
Technical Assistance to Agreement States:
In order to provide meaningful comments on the planned improvements in this area, more information is needed as to the current baseline level of response. Without information on the current level of response we cannot judge whether the planned improvement goal is overly or underly ambitious.
Page Three Secretary - U .S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 31 , 1995 Regulatory Review of Agreement State proposed regulations:
NRC proposes to allow itself 60 days to provide comments to the states on their regulations.
However, NRC often restricts the comment period on its regulation to less time than that. It's only thanks to the U.S. - Canada Fair Trade Agreement that a 45 day comment period for most "technical rules" is allowed. To demand more from other states unreasonable. In our case, we must allow a 3 0 day comment period for proposed regulations. Perhaps more critical is the need for NRC to comment on early drafts of our regulations and not wait for the final rule to determine whether there are problems with compatibility. NRC should respond, within the time period specified, to every draft state regulation submitted (even if it is only to acknowledge that you don't have time to review it!)
We also agree with the state of Colorado's comment that those who fail to comment on a regulation are bound by their decision not to comment and, in NRC's case, failure to comment in a timely manner according to state requirements should, at the least, entitle the state to a grace period if NRC belatedly determines there is a compatibility problem with an adopted regulation.
Agreement State Training:
We agree with NRC's background statement that NRC should provide "consistent high quality training" to Agreement States and that consolidation of the training program will help "provide greater uniformity in materials training programs for NRC and the Agreement State staff II However, NRC's action in eliminating funds for Agreement State training in future fiscal years puts this objective in jeopardy. If Agreement States must pay for training, our procurement systems will require purchased training to go to the "low bidder" . Considering NRC's current fees for materials licenses as compared to other full cost recovery regulatory programs, NRC is unlikely to win any bid.
Therefore, it is probable that other suppliers will provide the training and there will be less likelihood of maintaining "uniformity in materials training programs for NRC and the Agreement State staff' .
To truly remain responsive to Agreement States in this area funding for training must be reinstated.
If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact the undersigned at (360) 753-3461 or via E-mail at TCF0303@HUB.DOH.WA.GOV.
Sincerely,
~~sor Radioactive Materials Section TCF:amw CC : Richard L. Bangart, Office of State Programs Agreement States
I DOCKETED USNRC NUCL EAR ENERGY I NSTI TU TE
- 95 MAY 31 A9 :Q7 William H. Rasin SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OFFI C. OF SEC ' ETJ R CHNICALJREGULATORYDIVISION cc*~- ~ i 1,L, u __ . , ; 1,.*:
May 30, 1995 DOCKET NUMBER ,
Mr. John C. Hoyle PROPOSED RULE PR M*5 G Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (60ffl l6f;f"s)
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch
SUBJECT:
Responsiveness-to the Public -- NUREG/BR-0199 (60 Fed. Reg. 16685 -- March 31, 1995)
Dear Mr. Hoyle:
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 1 offers the following comments on behalf of the commercial nuclear industry on NUREG/BR-0199, "Responsiveness to the Public." We support the NRC's goal of public responsiveness and the efforts to improve interaction and communication between the Commission and the public.
We believe that this program should be fully coordinated with the NRC initiative to improve the National Performance Review (NPR) Phase II effort. We urge continued top-level emphasis of the NPR objectives to cut obsolete regulations; reward results rather than red tape; move decisions outside Washington and create grassroots partnerships; and negotiate, not dictate. This initiative to improve public responsiveness should be an _integral part of the NRC's program to meet the NPR objectives. For your information, our letter dated today to Dr. Jack W. Roe, NRC Director of the National Performance Review -- Phase II Ste~ring Committee, provides a discussion of specific areas where other potential cha~ges should be considered in the spirit of NPR, Phase II.
The public responsiveness program should be part of an overa11 plan for outreach by the NRC to help the public understand its role and methods. A pro-active approach 1 NEI is the organization responsible for establishing unified nuclear industry policy on matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues. NEI's members include all utilities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect/engineering firms, fuel fabrication facilities, materials licensees, and other organizations and individuals involved in the nuclear energy industry. *JUN 1 5* 1995 Acknowfedaed by card""*"-"'_..,..-,_
1776 I STREET, NW SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, DC 20006-3708 PHONE 202 739 8000 FAX 2027854019
.s.Nll'.. -,- --- : l :,"
co:.>*.. - ; & ~Glv!CE SECTION Of-f1Gi: OF THE SECRETARY COMMISSIU~
OF TH E COMMISSION
/
Dc-cumer.t Stat1..
st1cs Jlosimarl< Date H d....J r/Adtj~
Copies Recei>'~~ l AacJ' I Co Oles :=,er:rn::iuced ~ ~
Special D1::;*r;bu'.i0;1 ~Id .
~ ~ Zr, I ra -.1/.c~r
- 7~
Mr. John C. Hoyle May 30, 1995 Page 2 is important, since, if communications are delayed until an issue of major interest arises, efforts to provide adequate background information may fall short.
There should be an opportunity for meaningful involvement in the regulatory process for all of the public. Public responsiveness, accomplished in an effective and efficient manner, should concentrate on enhanced decision-making by the agency.
Implementation of this activity must encourage true stakeholder input and recognize and give more limited consideration to those organizations and others with motives inconsistent with logi~al and objective decision-making by the agency.
While the NRC's definition of the public on page 2 of the subject report correctly includes the "individual citizens, public interest groups, petitioners, licensees, industry groups, contractors, the Congress, and others with whom we do business,"
we believe there needs to be further segmentation of the public in order to develop an effective policy of public responsiveness. The kinds of information and the types of interactions that the various segments of the public needs and expects are different for different segments of the public. For example, the general public (those interested in an issue, but not informed) needs information conveyed differently than special or public interest groups, who understand the technical language and may want more technical information and dialogue. We would encourage the NRC to recognize the important role of the licensee in communicating with the public, and assure that the respective roles, and the resulting communications, are well planned and coordinated.
Channels of communication with the various segments will be different as well.
It may be helpful for the NRC to determine where people get information and if the publications and other methods used by the NRC are accomplishing the
- objectives of good communication. An evaluation of the effectiveness of the communication process for each segment of the public can remove some potential miscommunication that erodes trust. Further, }..rac should avoid institutionalizing methods of outreach before they are well proven for effectiveness and efficiency.
Effectiveness of public outreach will also depend on local conditions, so some customizing may be required on a local basis. Coordination with the licensee, who has a good understanding of local conditions, will be the most effective way to achieve outreach on a local basis. However, the NRC must be cautious about directing licensee approaches to public outreach; licensee programs continue to be_
within their prerogative.
We support the availability of licensing documents and other regulatory information to the public; however, the planned improvements in NUREG/BR-0199 should recognize that there are preliminary and/or proprietary documents which appropriately are not made available to the public. Also, it is very important that
Mr. John C. Hoyle May 30, 1995 Page 3 none of the suggested actions and planned imp'rovements in this report inhibit open and frank communication between the NRC and the licensee. This communication is necessary to assure a clear understanding of issues between the parties.
Since 100% of NRC's costs are passed on to licensees in the form of user fees, we request that the NRC assure that the costs of implementing the planned improvements discussed in NUREG/BR-0199 are evaluated and are justified.
Although public responsiveness programs have substantial merit and support objectives of a better informed public, these public responsiveness initiatives are not health and safety issues and do not warrant increased regulatory costs. Ultimately, with improved communication equipment and methods, we would expect that cost-effective implementation of the improvements finally resulting from this study will reduce NRC costs which would, in turn, be reflected in reduced user fees. We suggest that, after the first year of j.m.plementation, the Commission direct its Office of the Inspector General to conduct an audit of the programs to assure that licensees are not being burdened with unnecessary costs to implement these recommendations.
Better understanding by the public will enhance public confidence in the regulator, the licensees, and in applications of nuclear technology in general. While we are encouraged by the NRC's initiative in improving public responsiveness by preparing NUREG/BR-0199 and the proposed* improvements, we suggest that the overall plan could be improved by talring a more integrated and systematic approach and by subjecting the resulting recommendations to a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Also, NRC senior management must remain involved in monitoring the effectiveness of the plan to assure that the processes are, arid will remain, efficient and that any ineffective or inefficient practices do not propagate.
Enclosed are some specific comments on selected sections of the report. If you have any questions, please call me or Arland MacKinney, of my staff.
Sincerely,
,ot!:/ir WHR/ALM/ec Enclosure
Nuclear Energy Institute Comments on Selected Sections of NUREG/BR-0199 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation:
Public Petitions:
This section, while included under the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation section of the report, is not specific to reactor licensees, and the applicability should be clarified.
We suggest that Planned Improvement No. 7 be revised to read: "Establish a goal of a director's decision within 120 days from the date of the acknowledgment letter."
Licensing Actions:
Planned Improvement No. 2 calls for establishing a process for improving the prioritization of licensing actions. We believe it has been the practice of the NRC to include the licensee, or industry organizations for generic issu~s, in the process of establishing priorities. We suggest that this involvement of the licensee or industry organizations be specifically noted in helping establish priorities.
We encourage the efforts of the NRC to improve and expedite processing of licensing actions by reviewing the level of signatures required as noted in the Planned Improvement No. 4.
We believe the NRC should establish more aggressive goals in closing out licensing actions. A goal of 100% of the inventory less than one year old seems reasonable.
If that goal is not achievable, we concur that Planned Improvement No. 5 is appropriate.
Management of Allegations:
Management of allegations is not limited to reactor licensees although it appears in this section of the report.
The NRC should encourage industry employees to inform the licensee first, if at all possible, if there are concerns regarding safe operation of the plant or facility. The licensee can maintain or place the plant in a safe condition more expeditiously than the NRC, and we believe that this report should explicitly acknowledge the industry workers' responsibility to inform their management.
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation: (Continued)
Emergency Preparedness:
Emergency preparedness programs are also in place at facilities other than reactor power plants, although discussion of this subject appears only in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation portion of this report. The applicability of this discussion should be clarified.
The opening paragraph of this section notes that, "Emergency preparedness is an integral part of the defense in depth philosophy of NRR." Emergency preparedness is also a part of the defense in depth philosophy of licensees. The industry takes the communication aspects of emergency preparedness very seriously and makes a substantial effort to assure that the population is kept informed. We not only see it as a regulatory requirement, but part of being a good neighbor and being responsive to our customers.
We believe that communications with the public is of the utmost priority and the NRC has a role in supporting that effort. Typical utility emergency preparedness programs include: development and distribution of emergency preparedness information, public emergency education programs, information programs for civic leaders, and news media briefings.
The NRC public responsiveness program should complement already existing programs along with those of the state and local governments. The NRC must recognize that the threshold at which the NRC engages the public in this area must be set higher than the threshold of the licensees and their state and local agencies.
The planned improvements in this area should emphasize the role of the licensee as the primary source of public information, with the NRC and stat,e and local governments providing support as appropriate. In particular, we believe that conducting additional NRC public meetings, for example, following EP-relawd inspections, will not significantly contribute to improved EP performance, and will have negligible safety significance.
Electronic Information Exchange:
We encourage an efficient, cost-effective approach to improve the exchange of information among the NRC, the licensees, and the puJ:)lic. This effort, which is not limited to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, must be a cooperative effort between the NRG' and the licensees in order to assure mutual compatibility and an economic approach.
2
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards:
Enrichment Facility Licensing and Certification:
Although the background on licensing enrichment facilities is interesting, it is not clear how this section of the report contributes to improved public responsiveness.
For example, Planned Improvement No. 2 calls for increasing "the time allowed for public comment on Draft Environmental Impact Statements to balance the interests of the applicant, the NRC, and the general publiG." Why does increasing the time balance the interests?
Decommissioning of Sites and Facilities:
The workshops described in the "Background" section were beneficial; however, due to the mixed segments qf the public, it appeared that some did not fully understand what was being communicated. The NRC might consider workshops geared to a specific segment of the public, perhaps followed by a more general workshop. Similarly, Planned Improvement No. 3 calls for developing and distributing a brochure on the NRC's regulatory process. This brochure must be carefully prepared to be responsive to the targeted segment of the public.
In Proposed Improvement No. 5, a decommissioning plan does not necessarily offer an opportunity for a hearing. Also, our understanding is that NRC plans to propose a substantial change to the decommissioning process requirements. The wording of this Proposed Improvement may not *be consistent with those plans.
3
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research:
Improvement of the Rulemaking Process: .,_
Planned Improvement No. 1 suggests the expanded use of workshops to elicit early, substantive comments on particularly complex or controversial rulemaking. Our earlier comments suggesting that workshops be geared to a specific segment of the public, perhaps followed by a more general workshop, apply here as well.
Planned Improvement No. 3 suggests the use of electronic media, such as REG NET, to further enhance public involvement in rulemakings. Although there are many who are familiar with REG NET as an element of the Vice President's National Performance Review, we suggest that you define the term in future revisions of this NUREG.
Petitions for Rulemaking -- 10 CFR 2.802:
In the background section of this section, it is noted that the average rulemaking exceeds 30 months. We believe that, except for rules involving long-range and policy-based issues, rulemakings should be completed in less than nine months.
More details of suggested targets for completing rulemakings and recommendations for streamlining the rulemaking process are contained in a letter from NUMARC, a predecessor organization to NEI, to the NRC in December 1993. 2 In addition, the industry, through NEI, will provide comments on NRC's proposed amendments to 10 CFR 2.802 pertaining to petitions for rulemaking.
2 Letter, Joe F. Colvin to the Honorable Ivan Selin, "NRC Rulemaking Process," December 7, 1993 4
Office of State Programs:
Program Reviews of Agreement States:
Unless the public is defined as including state agencies, it is not clear how the planned improvements in this section will contribute to public responsiveness.
Technical Assistance to Agreement States:
In Planned Improvement No. 1, it is noted that a goal is to ensure that the original completion date (for providing assistance to the states) is met 80 percent of the time and that, if the date cannot be met, the original or extended completion date be met 95 percent of the time. We believe these targets are too low, and that the NRC staff should strive for meeting their negotiated targets 100 percent of the time.
Regulatory Review of Agreement State Regulations:
We suggest that Planned Improvement No. 2 acknowledge the NRC's responsibility to provide comments within the public comment period set by the state. If this period is 60 days, then NRC should meet that requirement. If the period is longer, more flexibility should be available.
We suggest adding a Planned Improvement No. 4 as follows:
(4) The NRC will establish a mailing list of NRC licensees who do business in agreement states and mail them copies of the draft regulations and written comments at the time they are placed in the public document room.
Agreement State Training:
It is not clear how this section contributes to public responsiveness.
5
Administrative Activities; License Fee Inquiries:
The targets for answering correspondence appear too low to us. There should be some justifiable reasons for allowing 8 percent to 18 pe,-cent of the correspondence to remain unanswered after two months.
Commercial Payment Inquiries:
Planned Improvement No. 1 states a goal of improving on-time payments from 82 percent in Fiscal Year 1994 to 84 percent. We suggest a more aggressive goal.
Office of the Secretary's White Flint Activities:
In the interest of ma.king this report more readable by the public, we suggest explaining the acronym SECY.
6
DOCKETED USNRC National Mining Association Foundation For America's Future
?.5 MAY 31 AlO :01 Richard L. Lawson May 30, 1995 Offic~r OFFI CE OF SECRETARY (202) 463-2647 OOCK ETIHG c:: , \ IC Secretary BR.A CH U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike DOCKET NUMBER .
- Rockville, Maryland 20855 PROPOSED RULE PR MIJ G Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Draft Report on Responsiveness to the Public cbOF{l /bb g-v
Dear Sir:
The National Mining Association (NMA) submits these comments in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) request for comments on its Draft Report on Responsiveness to the Public. 60 Fed. Reg. 16685 (March 31, 1995). NMA's comments focus specifically on two sections of the draft report: the administrative activities relating to license fee inquiries and the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards' (NMSS) plan to increase public involvement in the decommissioning process.
NMA was established on February 13, 1995, following the merger of the American Mining Congress and the National Coal Association. Its 381 members represent producers of most of America's coal, metals, industrial and agricultural minerals; manufacturers of mining and mineral processing machinery and supplies; transporters; financial and engineering firms; and other businesses related to coal and hardrock mining. These comments are submitted by NMA on behalf of its member companies who are NRC licensees. These members include the owners and operators of uranium mills and mill tailings sites and in situ uranium production facilities.
NMA agrees with NRC that the assessment of fees required by Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990 to recover approximately 100 percent of its budget each fiscal year has caused serious administrative problems. NMA is pleased that NRC intends to take steps to respond to fee inquiries in a more timely manner. In particular, NMA strongly supports plans to: 1) improve the timeliness of bills so that licensing and inspection bills are issued within 30 days after the end of the billing cycle; 2) improve the format of invoices to make them more understandable; and 3) provide interim responses acknowledging receipt of licensees' letters which involve more complex questions.
NMA is troubled, however, by NMA' s plans to utilize contractors in performing research and in drafting correspondence during peak periods. NMA is concerned that contractors have no day-to-day experience or understanding of NRC's fees or licensing actions to which they relate. While the use of contractors may help NRC respond to fee 1130 17TH STREET, N W, WASHINGTON O C 20036-4677 (202) 463-2625 FAX* (202) 463-6152
,_ . .' '( ,.,c; '.,ilSSION
- , H, Cc: 5t:CTION
- 1t
- EC~ETARY cc i:-li= co* M,SSiON L,.
- j., *r.: Statistics
. ;-l~ YI )._ ~I(II L , ~
,_.- ..Q:_ _
. . . l'LLl'J-1--@2~
J,,u, Is t1 A.,./ Crh,._f'J7 J:::I ~ 0 _
inquiries in a more timely manner, contractor inexperience in answering questions on fees may lead to additional questions and problems. If NRC hires contractors to answer fee letters, NMA recommends that NRC use them only to respond to the most basic or straightforward letters. For example, it may be appropriate for contractors to draft letters acknowledging receipt of licensees' letters (although developing a form letter may be cheaper) . Any detailed research should be left to NRC staff with experience in the fee area.
The draft report states that NRC hopes to improve the fee inquiry situation by reducing the need for incoming inquiries. As NMA recently recommended in its comments on NRC's proposed fees for Fiscal Year 1995, NRC could greatly reduce incoming inquiries from uranium recovery licensees by: 1) acting legislatively to amend OBRA; 2) ensuring that charges are more consistent and 3) providing greater itemization of bills. NRC would receive many fewer fee inquiries if the inequities caused by OBRA are eliminated. NRC should actively pursue legislative amendments to OBRA by drafting specific legislative proposals to present to the Administration for Congressional consideration.
NRC also needs to address consistency in its charges by ensuring that similar types of work (i.e., processing a simple amendment request) submitted by different licensees to different project managers are be completed in similar lengths of time resulting in similar hourly charges. NRC should develop and distribute to its licensees a cost sheet describing sample charges for different types of work. Regarding itemization of bills, NMA notes that while there has been some improvement in the presentation and content of bills since uranium recovery licensees met with NRC staff in October 1994, problems still remain. For instance, while bills now indicate names of individuals who completed the work, hours spent, hourly rates and the week (not the date) work was done, the bills do not contain any meaningful description of the work actually performed. In some instances (i.e., if there were more than one activity during the time period in question) it may not be obvious to the licensee what the NRC work entailed and therefore, more detail is needed.
Regarding the NMSS "Public Responsiveness Improvement Plan" as it relates to decommissioning of sites and facilities, NMA agrees that effective communication with the public early in the decommissioning process can prevent problems in the future. NMA however, has one major concern regarding NMSS' planned improvements. NMA objects to NRC' s intention to make all NRC meetings with contaminated site licensees and responsible parties open to the public for observation. The development of decommissioning plans is necessarily going to involve discussions of a preliminary basis, enabling NRC staff and licensees to "brainstorm" and test out various theories. NMA believes it would be inappropriate and premature for NRC to allow the general public to attend these types of preliminary meetings. If there is a chance for the release of inaccurate information or disclosure of predecisional information, licensees will be less likely to try out ideas or discuss new proposals.
As NMA (formerly AMC) , noted in its comments on NRC's Interim Guidance on Public Meetings, having the public present at every meeting will interfere with licensees' 2
willingness to meet with NRC to resolve technical questions and disputes over decommissioning plans. Licensees will be very reluctant to discuss private business matters with the public present. Such a result would be contrary to NRC's long-standing position that there be a free exchange of information between the Commission and licensees. Instead, allowing the public to attend all licensee decommissioning meetings will chill the free exchange of ideas and information and, in effect, create a significant roadblock to fulfillment of NRC's regulatory responsibilities.
NMA also is troubled by NRC's plan to develop and distribute a brochure on the regulatory process for decommissioning, which would include a description of radiological criteria that are currently being used to evaluate the adequacy of decommissioning actions.
NMA is concerned that trying to provide meaningful information on such a highly technical issue in a manner understandable to the general public will prove impossible.
NMA does, however, support many other aspects of the NMSS plan. NMA has no objections to NRC's plans to 1) identify the project manager as the principal point of contact for each decommissioning site; 2) announce the availability of decommissioning plans and related documents in the Federal Register; 3) offer an opportunity for a public hearing on proposed license amendments; 4) generally solicit written comments on the draft documents prior to taking licensing actions to approve site decommissioning plans; 5) hold a public meeting on the intended scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) if NRC determines an EIS needs to be prepared and 6) to provide additional opportunities for public information and involvement in the decommissioning process on a site-specific basis as needed.
The NMSS plan sets up an important and mostly appropriate framework for providing information to the public. NMA supports providing appropriate information about decommissioning but believes that, in general, licensees should take the lead in involving the public located near their sites.
Finally, as NMA advised in its January 20, 1995, comments on NRC's proposed rule on "Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning", NRC must start considering decommissioning issues comprehensively rather than on a piecemeal basis. NRC needs to look at the whole framework of decommissioning issues when deciding whether to finalize the NMSS plan outlined in the draft report. For example, NRC must consider whether the NMSS proposals will further impede uranium recovery licensees' ability to meet the time frames for completing the decommissioning process as set forth in NRC's final rule on "Timeliness in Decommissioning of Materials Facilities." (59 Fed. Reg. 36026, July 15, 1994). In opening up opportunities for increasing public involvement regarding decommissioning issues, NRC obligates itself to respond to issues raised by commenters.
NMA hopes that during NRC 's consideration of the NMSS plan, NRC will use this occasion to address the serious concerns NMA has raised regarding NRC 's past decommissioning efforts.
3
NMA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft report. If you have any questions or if we can be of assistance, please contact Katie Sweeney, NMA Associate General Counsel at 202/861-2812.
Sincerely, 4
DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE DOCKETED
{_r:, o F fl J6__:;.
6~ ;....,..'>)
.............._ USHRC May 28, 1995 v; MAY 3l P4 :04 Mr. John Hoyle, Secretary Office of the Secretary OFFICE OF SE:CRETA Y U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission DOCKETING ERVICE Washington D.C. 20555-0001 BRANCH
SUBJECT:
Draft policy statement, Responsiveness to the Public, NUREG/BR-0199. March 1995.
Dear Mr. Hoyle:
On behalf of the many people concerned with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's nonresponsiveness to public input, WE THE PEOPLE, Inc wishes to make comment to the subject of the draft policy statement as listed above.
WE THE PEOPLE, Inc. is a nationally known organization that is committed to freedom of speech, right to association as well as giving support to nuclear industry workers that have risked their 1 i ves and careers to promote public heal th and safety. Our organization has not seen the type of openness that is written about in the draft statement. Permit us to describe how we the public see the NRC's so-called public participation.
The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation is an area that disturbs us the most. The idea that the NRR group responds to the public is ludicrous. Public meetings are scheduled with five days notice, the meeting notice not being sent out until the meeting is over (see letters dated 1} 5-14-95, from Region II's John Jaudon to Oliver Kingsley, Tennessee Valley Authority, 2} 5-19-95 from NRR's Peter Tam, NRR to Fred Hebdon, NRR (both in D.C.). These two examples of the type of public notice of public notices are not a rarity but have become the norm in the NRC's atterna,t to exclude the public from participation in the licensing of the TVA's Watts Bar Nuclear Plant.
When called upon to seek public participation, the word participation as defined by the NRC is for the public to "watch" the NRC and the utility put on a dog and pony show that not only does not permit any input but excludes the public by the very rules that are enforced by the NRC.
Region 2 managers have recently began to make statements at these meetings that "we will be available after the meeting to the press and public to answer any questions that you may have". The head of NRR ALWAYS has to catch a plane and is not available for questioning.
1 letter from Johns Jaudon to Oliver Kingsley dated April 14, 1995 2 Memorandum from Peter Tam to Frederick Hebdon dated April 19, 1995
U.S. N'IS' t:_i;, !:.*;).;!ATO. Y COMMISSIOt-.
OC';>,c. ~I \.' ~ SCRVICE $ECTION Cr+ :~f. OF THE SECRETARY or- THE COMMISSION Dvcu:-nenl Statistics
page 2, continuing John Hoyle, Secretary, NRC May 28, 1995 Meetings are held behind closed doors, for as much as a week, prior to the "public meeting" and it is quite evident that every thing has been orchestrated so that questions about safety wi 11 be answered "at a later date" or "as we previously discussed" or "as we agreed upon the exact wording in our discussion yesterday".
The 2.206 process does not bear discussing because it has proven to be a mechanism that gives "lip service" to public participation.
You readily admit that the process has not worked for the public when you point out under the "licensing actions" heading that you have used the process over twelve hundred (1200) times (in one
- year) to give licensees exemption from the code (10CFR).
Why have a process that even you admit is not working. The utility is covered up with providing you with paper to obtain exemption from the law and you give that same exemption hundreds of times, with out exception, but will not permit due consideration for a
- 2. 206. Take it off the books. It is using valuable time and resources and serves no purpose for the public.
Under the "management of allegations" take a really good look at how, we the public, view how you are managing input on safety issues:
I personally have been yelled at, harassed, called names, knowingly been given wrong answers to allegations, had my name turned over to the utility with out my knowledge or consent, threatened, given material false statements, shrugged off as a anti nuke, had my written requests to Enforcement and Investigations ignored by the NRC. None of the Department of Labor complaints were investigated (the complaints were settled out of court, therefore nothing happened to me (!!!)
according to the NRC).
The NRC repeatedly has stated that it wants industry employees to come forth with safety allegations. The actions against these people by the NRC gives a very different picture.
Recently in Tennessee, an ex-employee's attorney (of the TVA) asked for the notes taken during an investigation of alleged wrong doing by a TVA manager, the NRC refused to cooperate.
What is the message sent to the employees of the TVA and other utilities?
Industry employees know that the utility is coming after them but never sees the NRC as an enemy until it is too late.
page 3, continuing John Hoyle, Secretary, NRC May 28, 1995 In 1993, the NRC was found to be intentionally misleading TVA employees as to confidentially, the numbers of TVA employees going to the Department of Labor (DOL) were and are very high (over 325 as of this date). The Office of Enforcement held enforcement conferences in Atlanta, the door was locked against all employees that had filed, with the DOL, against the TVA. The excuse was that some personnel information might be talked about that could hurt a TVA manager! No consideration was given to the poor dumb suckers that had given up life long careers, jobs, homes, families, bank accounts and held up to public ridicule by the TVA!!
In March of 1995, another enforcement conference was held in Region II offices in Atlanta, concerning another DOL complaint. Violations were written, TVA gave a job back to the employee, TVA's investigations confirmed harassment, NRC's OI found harassment, BUT when the complaint was with drawn, the settlement a matter of record, the manager fired, the NRC came back and stated that nothing had happened therefore no action would be forth coming. The TVA took the fired manager to the meeting so that he could say that he demoted the manager because "he was not a team player". Good job NRC! !
The event never happened as far as the utility and the NRC are concerned. The person that filed the complaint is never going to trust the system again. The NRC and the uti 1 i ty have made sure that the employees will not come forth because they will see what happens to those people dumb enough to come forward. Hundreds of employee complaints to the DOL does not warrant a place at the table of the enforcement conference but one manager that got caught is enough to turn an enforcement conference around with a few words given in direct conflict to the actual circumstances shown in the documents.
Double standards, of course! The NRC sees the allegation process as an inconvenience instead of a dedicated, career nuclear employee coming forward, in good faith, to protect the public health and safety. No allegations on the books, therefore, no enforcement action is needed is the prevailing attitude of the NRC.
page 4, continuing John Hoyle, Secretary, NRC May 28, 1995 When the NRC uses words such as "credible, self assessment, audits, slightly, some, few, could be, possibly, reasonable assurance", the public sees the commission as an arbitrary and capr1c1ous organization alluding to regulation, but is, in fact, squarely in the corner of the industry and is oblivious to the public health and safety. And the NRC sees the public as interfering and unintelligent sources of interference as the commission performs it's duties.
The area of tirnel iness of correspondence is a matter of some concern to our organization since correspondence has never been received on specific letters sent to specific offices in the commission. Response time equates to the desire of the offices to have written remarks become a matter of record. If no response is forth corning then nothing is on record to be questioned about!!
When a request is made by the public as to the process of having an opportunity to participate in the decision making process, the response is given by a member of the Office of General Counsel at the NRC. The OGC takes that as an opportunity to give that same ambiguous response to the public that does not have a law degree and therefore gets rid of another interfering problem. THE PUBLIC.
The TVA has never licensed the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. The permit is over 23 years old! Some of the people surrounding the plant were not even born when the first public hearings were held. Now that some of those people that could be most effected, the OGC has reverted back to the polite words of the lawyer and denied the process to the public inquiry to be able to ask questions and be educated to the changes that are effecting their lives. Where is the NRC's responsiveness to the public on this issue? (Please see the enclosures to this statement).
The continued fear by the NRC to hear and have public comments is further indication that the commission is turning a deaf ear to the needs of the public in most instances.
The Public Document Rooms are a disgrace and must be cleaned up.
A quarter ($.25) is charged to receive a copy that is generally unreadable. The machines are so out dated, non working, and inefficient that putting the film on them is a lesson in patience itself. The information that is needed or sought is usually not at the local PDR. It is at a room 3000 miles removed. The response that "the information is in the public document room", is misleading.
page 5, continuing John Hoyle, Secretary, NRC May 28, 1995 The location or region of that PDR is never brought to the attention of the poor soul dumb enough to trust the NRC to be forth right and open with the requester. It would be so simple for the NRC to put a computer system at each PDR and give public access with out charging any fees for public information requests. Since our area is over 75 miles away from the plant that it serves, public announcements about the holding of training sessions surrounding the PDR use is of little, if any value. The weekly papers, that serve the area where the PDR serves, never see the announcements; therefore, the NRC holds to the letter of the policy but does not serve the public!
A public response to public inquiries must be defined as to who is the public. The statement constantly discusses numbers of people that are served by the NRC. The public has to become more than the utility and or industry that the NRC serves. Serving the needs of the very people that the commission is to protect is no more than lip service as long as the public is led to believe that the NRC is serving the public when in fact the NRC has become the public relations guru of the nuclear industry.
Abuse of public trust is what is at issue, therefore when the accident happens in the U.S. the NRC will be responsible. Not the utility that has been given a free hand. Not the employee that gave all to protect the public health and safety. Not the NRC inspector, in the trenches, writing up the problems and seeing them watered down or disregarded by the regional management or exemptions given with out regard to the rules by the NRR group.
Egos must take a back seat before the industry is killed off by the very people that have a duty to insure public health and safety.
WE THE PEOPLE, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to respond to the draft policy statement and sincerely hope to see changes in the very near future along with direction changes on how the NRC responds to the public .
R.;;';':tf~ , i AfJJ/14. e ~ Director WE THE PEOPLE, 305 Pickel Rd Ten Mile, TN 37880
Enclosures:
1.letter from Johns Jaudon to Oliver Kingsley, dated 4-19-95.
2.Memorandum from Peter Tam to Frederick Hebdon , dated 4-19-95.
3.letter from Frederick Hebdon to John Johnson, dated 4-7-95.
4.letter from Edwin Reis to Stephen Smith, dated 8-11-93.
'JUN 1'81 1995 Ak e ge dby card""".."""'""".
c nowId --* """" ,:;-
UNITED STATI:S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION II 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W .. SUITE 2900 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323--0199
- ~pril 14, f995 Tennessee Valley Authority ATTN
- Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley, Jr.
President, *rvA Nuclear and Chief Nuclear Officer 6A Lookout Pl ace 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801
SUBJECT:
MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT - TO DISCUSS ISSUES RELATED TO THE WATTS BAR VENDOR INFORMATION CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM AND ALSO TO DISCUSS THE WATTS bAR MASTER TRACKING SYSTEM - WATTS BAR - DOCKET NOS. 50-390, 50-391 Gentlemen:
This letter confirms the telephone conversation between Mr. B. Schofield of your staff and P. Fredrickson of this office on Agril 14, 1995. concerning a management meeting which has been scheduled for Apr~l 19. 1995J at 1:30 p.m.
The purpose of this meeting is to ~,sctiss issues re ated to the Watts Bar Vendor Information Corrective Action Program and also to discuss the Watts Bar Master Tracking System. The location of the meeting will be in the Region II office, 101 Marietta Street, Suite 2900, in Atlanta, Georgia. This meeting is an open meeting as per "Staff Meetings Open to the Public; Final Polic¥ Su.tg_ment" {September 20, 1994; 59 FR 48340),-
Should you have any questions concerning this meeting, please contact Mr. P. Fredrickson at (404) 331-5649.
Sincerely,
,,, _J.,_....... ~~Deputy Director n
Division of Reactor Projects Docket Nos. 50-390, 50-391 License Nos. CPPR-91, CPPR-92 cc: (See page 2)
I UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. ~
April 19, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick J. Hebdon, Director Project Directorate II-3 FROM: Peter S. Tam, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II, NR
~>3L Division of Reactor Projects - I/II, NRR
- ~
SUBJECT:
FORTHCOMING MEETING WITH TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
{TAC NO. M91559)
- DATE & TIME:
LOCATION:
Agr11 27, 1995 {Thursday)
! :30 a.m. - 12:00 noon One White Flint North Room 4 B 11 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland PURPOSE: To discuss with TVA its plans to perform and document a Rreasonable assurance" quality review of Watts Bar Unit 1.
This review would trace the history of the project and provide TVA's assessment of its confidence in the quality and completion of the construction of Unit 1 .
PARTICIPANTS: .tIB.c.
F. Hebdon, J. Jaudon, P. Tam, M. Thadani, S. Varga, et al.
B. Schofield, et al.
Docket No. 50-390 cc: See next page
--A-Meetings between NRC technical staff and applicants or licensees are open for interested members of the public, petitioners, intervenors, or other parties to attend as observers pursuant to *staff Meetings Open to the Public, Final Statement," 59 Federal Register 48340, 9/20/94. Persons who wish to observe should contact the project manager at 301-415-1451 within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> before the meeting.
CONTACT: Peter S. Tam, NRR 415-1451
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20S65-0001 April 7, 1995 Mr. John Johnson P.O. Box 281 Chattanooga, TN l7401
SUBJECT:
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO VOICE COffitENTS ON WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT (TAC NO. M72494)
Dear Mr. Johnson:
- By letter dated March 15, 1995, to -William Russell, Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, you requested an opportunity for interested members of the public to ask questions of the NRC regarding the status of the
-Watts Bar Nuclear Plant.
You stated that the public has not had an opportunity to corrment on Watts Bar and safety related issues for over twenty year.s. By letter to Stephen A. Smith dated August 11--l.9__93_(..copy enclosed), Edwin J. Reis of the NRC Office of the General Counsel explained the opportunity for members of the public to corrment .on various aspects of a nuclear power plant.
The Convnission's Policy Statement on Staff *Meetings Open to the Public (current version dated September 20, 1994), .and NRC Handbook 3.5 specify that the public may participate in public *meetings to observe, speak and ask questions of the NRC staff. The NRC's policy regarding opening meetings to the public balances competing interests: the need for the NRC and the utility to exchange technical information, and the right of the public to observe that process. One of the Co11111ission's major efforts in recent years has been to open meetings to the maximum extent possible, consistent with the concern for exchanging technical infonnation. The *NRC staff member in charge of the meeting may, at his or her discretion, accept questions from observers after the formal agenda is completed. After the111eeting, observers may supply any information they believe relevant to the NRC, or they may submit comments on the information presented at the meeting to the NRC staff. --While the NRC welcomes public involvement, it has been our -experience that this meeting format, as opposed to an 'open dialogue fonnat,' is the -most _practical one to exchange technical information.
- Most of the staff's meetings with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) have been public and ~ere, therefore, open to:members of the public to participate.
Similarly, members of the public *may participate in the manner stated above during the April 12, 1995 meeting.
\
J. Johnson In addition, *the staff has met with members of the public to specifically receive their comments and concerns. For example, the staff held a formal meeting on November 9, 1993; and on January 10, 1995 the staff held a public meeting to discuss the draft supplement to the Final Environmental Statement for Watts Bar.
Finally, you expressed concern about QA/QC issues at Watts Bar. The staff has likewise expressed such concerns (e.g., in a letter to TVA dated December 22, 1994). The staff will not issue an operating license to Watts Bar until such issues are resolvea.
If I can be of further assistance or if you-would like to participate in the
,meeting on April 12th, please call me at (301) 415-2024 .
.Sincerely, y
~ 5 Hebdon, D i r t Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects I/II
__ __Qffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-390
Enclosure:
E. Reis letter to S..Smith dated August 11, 1993 cc-w/enclosure: See -next page
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. 0 C la566-0001 August 11, *1993 Docket No. 50-390 Stephen.A. Smith, D.V.M.
'The Foundation.
- For Global .su'staina.bili ty P. o. Box 1101
- Knoxville, TeMessee .37901
Dear Mr. .Slli th:
- 1 did not receive .a copy of your latter of June 18, 1993, .until July 19, 1993, when I waa given a taletaxed copy .of that ietter.
'I apologi'ze for the delay in this response. *you inquired a.bout the licensing atatus of the Watts *Bar plants. *The .specific questions you asked -and responses to those questions *a.re set forth ..below.
Q. Please outline the par:mit .and licensing process specifically applied to th* watts Bar Nuclear Plant, The licensing process for the Watts Bar plants i ongoing. 'Tha standard procedures, iset forth in 10 C.F.R.. Parts :2 Jtnd '50, have been and will be 'followed. *Th* Tennessee Valley Authority'11 (TVA's) target date for issuance of a low-power operating license (OL) tor Unit l is April 1994. No OL for **ither of the Watta .Bar units will be issued to TVA until the *NR.C *staff is atiafied *that
- such operation i consistent with maintaining protection *of the public'** health and safety. See th* Watts Bar Safety Evaluation Report NUREG-0847, and Supplements, which are- in the public document room. A chronology of *th* licensing procea *to.date for the Watts Bar units .i ,a follows:
- TVA filed it initial application for construction :panait* for Watts Bar Unit.a 1* and 2 .on...:11ay* .14,, l:~71~* An ,enviromaental report was .filed by TVA on November 9, .197.2. Notice of
- hearing'_,on_ the construction penit *application vaa *publlabed.
'on*~- *septnb4r. 27, * :-*1:97-2" -~(37 F.R 201'91:).;*** ~*'"llo~titl-ona u intervene were .filed. Pursuant to 10 c."F.R.. ,S :2.751a, .a special pre-hearing conference va beld in 'Dayton, 'Tenn--**
on Noveml:)er ,6, 1972, followed by -* bearing in Dayton on
.November 20_, 1972. The NR.C staff and TVA were repr-ented .at the hearing, during which no appearancea "or .:atat..enta 1Vere made -in oppoai tion to issuance .of the -construction peraits 'for Watts 'Bar. *On December 19, 1972, th* .AtOJ1ic safety -and Licensing Board (ASLB) filed its decision authorizing issuance of the construction permits to TVA. s..
Authority (Watts
- Bar Nuclear Plant, Unites 1 and 2),
ws Mr. Stephen Smith August 11, 1993 Licensing Appeal Board thereafter Teviewed and affirmed the ASLB'
- decision on January 26, 1973. See id., ALAB-97, 6 AEC.37.
On .January ,23, -197.3, construction permits (CPs) tor Unit* 1 and 2 were iasued, with respective expiration dates ot August 1, 1976, and May 1, 1977. The expiration dates ot the CPa have been extended several times. The most recent extensions were issued on June 27, 1991. Unit 1'* CP .ia now
.scheduled to *expire on December 31, 1993. Unit 2'* CP is now scheduled to expire on June 30, 1997.
- TVA filed ita initial application for operating licenses (OLs) for Watts Bar llnits 1 .and 2 on .September 27, .1976. Notice of
- .a 30-day opportunity to request intervention and a hearing in the OL proceeding, pursuant to the requirements of 10 c.F.R..
S 2.714, was published on December 27, .1976 (41 FR. 56244), and an ASLB panel was established. one intervention petition was tiled by Jeannine Honicker. on May 25, 1977, the ASLB ruled that Ms. *aonicker did not have the requisite interest necessacy for *standing *to intervene in this NRC proceeding, and denied her intervention petition * .See hnnessee *valley Authority (Watts Bar _N\U:_l_e.ar Power Plant, Units 1 and.-2),
LBP-77-36, .5 NRC 1292. .on appeal, *the decision was affirmed.
Saa id., ALAB-313, 5 NRC 1418 (1977).
Q. What is the present :status of licenses granted to *the Watts Bar nuclear plant? . ("Include TVA'-* -submission date, time periods for -public intervention/public *hearings, and NRC'* granting of th* license.)
No operating licenses have .been granted to TVA for*th* Watts Bar plants. 'TVA filed ita initial application for OLa for Watta .Bar Units 1 -and ~2 on September *21, l.976. Notice of a 30-day opportunity to raquut intervention -and ,a hearing in *th* OL proceeding, pursuant-to the requirement* of 10 C.F.R. S 2.714, was published on December 27, 197.6 (41 n 56244). t:Any intervention petitions 'fil-1 now -.ould :;'lbav* t.o -.llleat. ~
- raquirementa in
,10 :c.~.~;,:2."7.1-4(.a) (.1) (1)-tv,) :;tar::nontillely~titions, in addition
- to th* ,other intervention :r.egu+/-r.eunta in *S 2. 714.,
Q. Whan *does th* construction permit *granted to Watta Bar expire?
Unit 1' s CP is now scheduled to *expire on December 31, 1993. Unit 2 1 s CP is now scheduled to expire on June 30, l.997.
Q. What is the process for renewing or -extending the pennit?
TVA would request such extensions *pursuant to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S S0.55{b). Under 'the terms of the Administrative
M.r. Stephen Smith - J - August 11, 1993 Procedure Act, 5 u.s.c. S 558(c) and 10 C.F.R. S 2.109, an NRC license or perm.it remains in effect until the application for an extension. ia acted upon. The NRC *taff .may authorize an immediately effective construction perm.it extension if the staff determines that no ignificant hazards considerations are present *
.Any ataff decisions on 10 C.P.R. S 50.55(b) requests are publiabed in*th* Federal R*giater, and the notice explains the procedure for
- requesting intervention in the permit extension proceeding pursuant to the intervention requirements of 10 c. r .R S 2. 714. Unlike an OL proceeding, *the... acope of litigable issues in a permit extension proceeding (if intervention is granted) i* generally lillited to whether the *requirement* of 10 C.F.R. S 50.SS(b) are met.
Q. ~f citizens requested public hearings around 'TVA'*
request to renew the construction perm.it, what ia the process available to them to regyest public hearings?
'The procedure for requesting a hearing i* part of the 10 C.F.R.
- S -,.714 process for petitioning for leave to intervene in .an NRC
- proceeding. Aa in .any OL or license amendment proceeding, .a hearing on .a yaquest for .a construction permit extension is held only i t an intervenor is admitted as a party by an ASLB and tha
.ASLB -admits one or more .of the intervenor'* contentions.
Q. Please outline the process *for meaningful public participation in the granting of the Watts Bar operating licensing *from here onward?
The OL proceeding for the Watts Bar plants is uncontested, as no intervenors .have _yet met the requirements ot 10 C.F.R. S 2.714 *
.See *Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units l and 2), LBP-77-36, S NRC 1292, -affirmed ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418 (1977). An intervention petition now tiled would have to meet the requirements for nontimely petitions *in 10 C.F.R.
S .2.714(a) (1) (i)-(v), in addition to the other intervention requirement* in -S l.714. A request to institute .a proceeding to
.suspend, ..modify or revoke -an NRC license may also be made under 10 C.P;R. S 2.206.
Q. Because it has been twenty years since construction
.waa initiated on the plant, there have been two atop work orders and a multitude of safety concerns which have been
.brought to the surface by both the NRC and TVA wbistleblowers. In light of *thi* information coupled with the length of time the plant has been in construction, is there any reason why the NRC cannot hold public bearings for the construction permit or operating license?
-Under the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act applicable to Watts Bar, the only mandatory bearing is on the question of whether a
.construction permit should be issued. 'That haaring has already been bald. As we have also stated, a notice of an opportunity for
Mr. Stephen *Smith August 11, 1993 a hearing on the issuance of the operating licenses for Watts Bar was provided, and no one succeasfully intervened in that proceeding. At thia time, i petition to intervene and to initiate a hearing would have to meet the requirements for nontimely petitions in io C.F.R. S 2.714(a), aa th* original time to intervene haa-expired. A determination of whether to institute a public hearing would be .made on th* basis of that petition and the Commission's regulations. The HRC Staff doea not intend -to separately initiate,a hearing at *this time.
Q. What' i* the present HRC position on construction recapture with regards to the watt* Bar-Nuclear Plant?
It is presumed you are inquiring about a license amendment which
- Would "recapture" the period spent in construction of a *nuclear facility, so as to provide that ,an operating license issued for a shorter period is extended *to .expire 40 years after th* facility goes into operation. *see At011ic Energy Act of 1954, S 103 .c, 42 u.s.c. S 2133(c). No operating license ha been issued for
- either Watts Bar Unit. TVA has not aada a request -to *recapture" any portion of the construction period. Should -an operating license *be issued for les than -40 year and .a request for "recapture" filed by TVA, _the NRC staff would consider the merits of 'TVA's request and develop a position at that*tiJae.
I hope this letter answers your questions.
Sincerely,
- .~~
Edwin.J. Reis Deputy Assistant General counsel for Reactor Licensing cc: Senator James Sasser Representative Jim Cooper Diane curran Rick Parriah Service List
COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 PENNSYLVANIA AVENU°E *, N . W . DOCKETED P . O . BOX 7566 USNRC WASHINGTON . D.C . 20044 - 7566 LECONFIELO HOUSE 1202) 662 - 6000
'93 MAY 31 AlO :38 CURZON STREET LONDON W l Y BAS TE L EFAX : 1202 1 662 -629 1 ENGLAND HERBERT ESTREICHER TELE X: 89 - 593 ICOVLING WSHI TELEPHONE : 44 -!7! - 495-5655 DIRECT DIAL NUMBER CA BLE : COVLING QFflCE QF SECRETAR~m .x: 44 -171-495 -3 10 1 1202) 662-5576 QQCKE T!NG & S[R~Jfs&sco~NDENTomcE BR AH CH 44 AVENUE DES ARTS BRUSSELS 1040 BELGIUM May 25, 1995 TELEPHONE: 32 512- 9890 TELEFA X : 3 2 502 - 1598 BY CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Draft Report on Responsiveness to the Public
Dear Secretary:
These comments are submitted by Kerr-McGee Corporation ("Kerr-McGee) and its subsidiaries in response to the draft report entitled Responsiveness to the Public (NUREG/BR-0199) (March 1995) (Draft Report for Comment)
(hereinafter "Draft Report") that was published by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") on March 31, 1995. See 60 Fed.
Reg. 16,685. The Draft Report describes a number of proposed changes to NRC programs that are expected to enhance the public's involvement in the Commission's regulatory activities .
Kerr - McGee strongly supports the Commission's efforts to provide the public with information on its activities and to conduct business in a manner that is more open and responsive to the public. There are a few areas, however, where we believe the NRC proposal can be improved and made more practicable. Our specific comments on the Draft Report are as follows:
- 1. NRC Meetings With Licensees And Responsible Parties Concerning Site Decommissioning Activities.
The Draft Report states that the NRC intends to make all NRC meetings with licensees and other responsible parties concerning the decommissioning of nuclear facilities open to the public for observation (consistent with the NRC "Policy Statement on Staff Meetings Open to the Public" at 59 Fed.
Reg. 48,340 (September 20, 1994 ) (hereinafter 11 1994 NRC Policy Statement")). Draft Report at 23. To implement this policy, NRC intends to provide advance notice, to the extent feasible ,
t.S. 1L!*. . ,./; ,\' C.*"Jfit,llSS IOI\
- J; "*' , 1r ,: SECRETARY L-** f"':C. COh*,\11SSION Postrnn:t C* * $ IJ-...5 / t;f C(,pic: .. ,* ~ _ _..!,../_ _ _ __
COVINGTON & BURLING Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 25, 1995 Page 2 of these meetings to State, Tribal and local officials and the public. Id. The NRC also intends to conduct a significant portion of these meetings in the vicinity of the affected site. Id.
Although Kerr-McGee agrees that the public has a legitimate need for, and interest in receiving, information on decommissioning activities, we believe that having the public present during all meetings between licensees and the NRC staff is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. The presence of the public at all staff-licensee meetings could unnecessarily complicate NRC and licensee discussions, adversely affect the candor of those discussions (because the public would likely misunderstand and misconstrue the content of conversations), and interfere with the staff's ability to exercise its regulatory responsibilities without undue administrative burden.
As we understand, site project managers have become increasingly reluctant to hold face-to-face meetings with licensees. We believe that this is a direct consequence of the administrative burdens of opening meetings to the public.
Indeed, project managers have been encouraging the conduct of licensee-staff discussions by telephone in an apparent effort to avoid holding a public meeting. Some matters can be dealt with effectively by telephone, but some cannot. We believe this practice decreases the overall effectiveness and quality of licensee-staff discussions. The difficulties licensees have experienced in arranging face-to-face meetings with staff have compromised the ability of both parties to develop a full and complete understanding of the many highly complex and technical issues involved in the site decommissioning. The proposal in the Draft Report to expand the number of meetings that would be open to the public would only serve to exacerbate this problem.
We urge that the Commission limit the number and kinds of meetings that are open to the public. For example, only meetings for which members of the public have expressed interest, or there is reason to believe that the public may have a substantial interest, should be open to the public.
Alternatively, public meetings should be limited to situations where it is expected that the NRC staff will reach substantive decisions on major aspects of the decommissioning. Moreover, the Commission should make clear that the public's role at such meetings would be limited to that of an observer. There
COVINGTON & BURLING Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 25, 1995 Page 3 should be no opportunity for members of the public to interrupt the meeting to pursue a personal agenda or raise public policy issues.
- 2. Improvement Of The Rulemaking Process.
In a limited number of recent rulemakings, the NRC has held public workshops or has otherwise provided the public with the opportunity to participate at an early stage in the rulemaking process. Kerr-McGee believes that the Commission should provide such opportunities on a more frequent and consistent basis. In particular, we believe that public workshops should be held for all major rulemakings. Public workshops are invaluable and, in our view, provide the most effective mechanism for the staff to obtain the public's views on the pertinent issues and potential regulatory approaches to a problem. The opportunity for meaningful public participation at this early stage would also serve to improve the quality of proposed rules that are published for formal notice and comment. The NRC thus should strive to provide these early public participatory opportunities on a more consistent and frequent basis.
Kerr-McGee supports the proposed initiatives for increasing the NRC's responsiveness to the public, but we urge that the Draft Report be revised to reflect the above comments.
Respectfully submitted, Herbert Estreicher Counsel to Kerr-McGee Corporation
.JUN 1f 1995.
,Arkrinwled 13d bv card .......................::::::..
COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT, uRESP O~
DOCKETEDESS TO THE PUBLIC,"
J NUREG/BR-0199 Raymond c. Vaughan *ss MAY 30 P3 :so May 27, 1995 Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Wastes 135 East Main Street OFFICE OF si=cRETAR Y Hamburg, N.Y. 14075 DOCKET~~iH ~ C~ C NUMBER .,
PR9POSED RULE p fl/_t:s 6
<.to FR, lt, ~s
- 1. In the area I am most familiar with (NRC involvement at West Valley, N.Y.), NRC's responsiveness to the public has been some-what variable and unpredictable. I have not seen any clear trend in recent years. (As background, note that NRC was given several diverse roles at West Valley by the West Valley Demonstration Project Act. These NRC roles include informal review and consul-tation with regard to DOE activities at West Valley, prescription of requirements for decontamination and decommissioning at the site, and an optional role of prescribing a concentration thresh-old for transuranic waste generated by the West Valley Demonstra-tion Project. I am most familiar with NRC's involvement in the last of these roles-prescribing a concentration threshold-and will base my comments primarily on this.)
- 2. NRC does a good job of saying what it will do in a publicly responsive manner. However, when it actually does something, NRC tends to proceed in a more careless or expedient manner, forget-ting or ignoring the publicly responsive things it said it would do. Whether this is due to a poor institutional memory or a preference for conducting its business away from public scrutiny is unclear.
- 3. One example would be NRC's record in putting relevant docu-ments into the M-32 West Valley file at the NRC Headquarters PDR.
Consider the first five documents generated as NRC set up a procedure to prescribe a transuranic concentration threshold for West Valley Demonstration Project wastes:
a) Letter from M. Knapp (NRC) to W. Bixby (DOE) dated 8/18/87: apparently no copy in NRC Public Document Room.
b) Letter from M. Knapp to me dated 2/26/88: apparently no copy in NRC Public Document Room.
c) Minutes (one page) of NRC-DOE meeting of 4/27/88:
apparently no copy in NRC Public Document Room d) NRC Task Plan dated 4/27/88: ACN 8806280243.
e) Letter from R. Bangart to me dated 6/8/88: ACN 8806280243.
Only two of the five documents appear to have been deposited in the PDR. If true, this is not a very good success rate. Note
'JUN' 1'f 199~
1
J **
U.S. NU LUil fit..: LATORY COMMISSIOt-.
DOC KETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CF THE COMMISSION Docurr:em Statistics stmmk o::i10 _ S J,..,.. Jq_r J
also that the Task Plan does not appear to have been deposited on its own. It apparently would not have been deposited at all if Bangart had not enclosed it with his letter to me (hence the single ACN number for both).
- 4. As another example, consider Malcolm Knapp's statement (in his 2/26/88 letter cited above) that NRC would put me on the distri-bution list "for copies of all [NRC] correspondence to DOE on this subject." I presume Mr. Knapp was sincere in saying that NRC would do so--but, for whatever reason, it has never haP.pened.
NRC has never volunteered any of its correspondence with DOE on this subject. The only time I received such correspondence was when I heard about it from other sources and wrote to NRC to inquire:
a) Letter from M. Olsen (DOE) to J. Wolf (NRC) dated 3/23/92.
b) Letter from R. Bernero (NRC) to M. Olsen (DOE) dated 6/8/92.
c) Letter from G. Comfort (NRC) to me dated 7/9/92, transmitting and summarizing the Olsen and Bernero let-ters.
- 5. The above-cited letter from Olsen (DOE) to Wolf (NRC) was a follow-up to a meeting that these two men had had in West Valley.
(The first sentence of the Olsen letter is: "Pursuant to our discussion in West Valley, NY on December 4, 1991, the Department of Energy [DOE] would like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[NRC] to prescribe, in accordance with provisions of the Act, a different concentration of transuranic elements for the defini-tion of TRU. 11 It is clear from page 3 of the letter that Wolf had indicated at the meeting that an NRC rulemaking might be an appropriate way to change the transuranic threshold.) A meeting on this subj~ct between an NRC lawyer and a DOE lawyer was not specifically covered by Malcolm Knapp's pledge (in his 2/26/88 letter cited above) to put me on the distribution list for NRC's c o rres po ndence with DOE on this subject. Nevertheless, I think it falls sufficiently within the spirit of Knapp's pledge, and within the general spirit of responsiveness to the public, that NRC should have informed me of the meeting.
- 6. Consider also Malcolm Knapp's pledge to put me on the distri-bution list for NRC's correspondence with DOE on this subject versus NRC's decision to participate (as a cooperating agency) in DOE's West Valley EIS. As explained in DOE's Implementation Plan for the EIS, "The WVDP Act defines TRU wastes as those containing more than 10 nCi/gm of transuranic radionuclides, but allows for future adjustment of this definition at the discretion of the NRC. The importance of this definition to the [West Valley Demonstration] Project is the reason for the NRC's participation in the EIS as a cooperating agency." (Quoted from Implementation Plan, DOE/EIS-0226, p. 41, footnote.) It seems likely that NRC corresponded with DOE on this subject before becoming a cooperat-ing agency in the West Valley EIS. NRC should have sent me copies of any such correspondence.
2
- 7. As another example, consider the standards that NRC said it would require of DOE versus the standards that DOE is employing in the above-mentioned West Valley EIS. In particular, consider the appropriate level of site-specific detail, standards for long-term stability of the site, and strictures against ongoing active maintenance. In various documents cited above (five docu-ments cited in paragraph 3 plus Bernero letter in paragraph 4),
NRC outlined the application of these standards to the analyses that DOE must perform at West Valley in order to show that the 10 CFR 61 performance objectives will be met. It now appears that NRC, in becoming a cooperating agency in the EIS, has acquiesced to DOE's very loose interpretation of the aforementioned stand-ards. The issue here is accountability to the public. It is not good policy for NRC to state very clearly what it will do (in this case, what it will require of DOE) and then quietly proceed to do something else.
- 8. With regard the overall NRC role at West Valley, I support the second Planned Improvement listed on page 23 of NRC's "Respon-siveness to the Public" report. Minor modifications in language may be necessary to apply this Planned Improvement to the West Valley site. Its intent is to "[m]ake all NRC meetings with contaminated site licensees and responsible parties open to the public for ob se rvation ... NRC will provide advance notice, to the extent feasible, of these meetings ... " Gary Comfort of NRC should institute such a policy for his dealings with DOE at West Valley.
3
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION Ill DOCKETED /(;')//
801 WARRENVILLE ROAD US RC ~
LISLE, ILLINOIS 60532-4351 May 25 , 1995 "95 MAY 30 All :21 OFFICE OF SECRETARY
. hor.KE TING & SERVICE MEMORANDUM TO: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm1s~T<rn
- B ANCH Docketing and Service Branch FROM: Cynthia D. Pederson, Director Division of Radiation Safety and
SUBJECT:
NUREG/BR-0199, "RESPONSIVENESS 0 THE PUBLIC" DRAFT REPORT FOR COMMENT, MARCH 1995 DOCKET NUMBER p .
PROPOSED RULE f-1, Su a
This is in response to the request for comments on NUREGJBR-0 199 , (6 F Yl 16 6f-f}
"Responsiveness to the Public."
Our comments and observations, limited to the Nuclear Materials Licensing section entitl ed, "Regions," on pages 34 and 35 are as follows:
- The Draft NUREG should be expanded in two key elements, the Nuclear Materials Inspection Program {NMIP) in all four regions and the Nuclear Materials Licensing Program {NMLP) in Regions II, III and IV.
- The NMIP's public responsiveness takes several forms but primarily consists of face-to-face interactions with licensees hundreds of times each year, in the course of routine and non-routine inspections, allegation investigations and enforcement proceedings. The NMIP staff also handle numerous telephone inquiries from a variety of sources, including licensees, the public and the states.
- All four regional offices implement the NMLP. The NMLP engages the public in many ways that extend beyond just reviewing casework actions.
Examples include pre-licensing meetings, workshops, pre-licensing site visits, and hundreds of telephone inquiry calls each year from the general public, the regulated community, consultants, the states, etc.
- Both the NMLP and the NMIP focus on responsiveness, timeliness and the prompt identification and resolution of safety problems via performance based inspections and quality licensed radiation safety programs. The staff in both program areas strive to achieve these goals by minimizing adversarial relationships with the "customer," the regulated community, radiation workers and the general public. To the extent possible , the staff is challenged to conduct business using the "partnership" philosophy, while maintaining objectivity.
- The Advisory Committee for the Medical Uses of Isotopes {ACMUI) also provides a forum for public participation among NRC staff, the regulated community and other interested parties. The ACMUI meets twice each year.
0
")0 S :*'. 1* l .. . *. tr *: COMMISSIOl\t D*~,Cld:, , ;'.::R ,CE SECTION OFF:~ ,_,,. £HE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Dou: . ent ~*a istics -
Secretary, USNRC
- The Business Process Re-Engineering Project (BPR) proposes to enhance the responsiveness of the NMLP staff to better meet the needs of "customers," i.e., licensees and the public. The Customer Service Center will ease and strengthen communications between the staff and the regulated community. The technological improvements will enable licensees to prepare better quality applications and will enable the staff to review those applications in a much more efficient and timely manner.
- Region III is considering re-instituting the postcard acknowledgment system for pending actions, already in use in Region I and described in the NUREG. The BPR project, however, is expected to include a similar component, which may take precedence.
- Region III staff have lent support to the Agreement State Program by providing training opportunities for state licensing reviewers and inspectors and by personally assisting with inspections of state-regulated licensees, upon request.
- In summary, this section should be revised to present a more balanced picture of all of the regions' efforts in improving public responsiveness for both NMIP and NMLP.
CONTACT: Colleen Casey 708-829-9841
DOCKETED (jj) consumers USNRC Power Robert A Fenech POWERING "95 MAY 30 Al 1 :22 Vice President Nuclear Operations
/IIIICHlliAN"S PROGRESS Site Offices: 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway, Covert Ml 490e,tpft,ft 70'};13~~i:~~f~RY DOCKETING & SERVI CE May 15, 1995 BRANCH BOCK T NUMBER P OPOSED RULE....:...;.:~,c;;===s Secretary (lDFR 166r-5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT ON RESPONSIVENESS TO THE PUBLIC - NUREG/BR-0199 Our predominant interest in this report is in the planned improvements in the rulemaking process and i n the petition for rulemaking process as allowed in 10 CFR 2.802. The improvements planned to: (1) expand the use of public workshops to elicit early publi c input on complex rulemaking; and (2) use electronic bulletin boards to facilitate public review of and comment on future rulemaking and allow on -line viewing and downloading of supporting documents by the public, do have the potential to keep the public better informed and to expedite and decrease the cost of rulemaking.
Likewise, the improvements planned for petitions for rulemaking will result in more complete, accurate and substantiated petitions while, at the same time, will discourage petitions for rulemaking based on incomplete information based on misstatements and unfounded suppositions. Also, the planned improvements for keeping the petitioners well informed, providing incentive for including sufficient information and establishing criteria for prioritizing petitions should alleviate delays in the rulemaking process.
As always, we are in favor of improvements which :
- 1. Focus the process on legitimate concerns for public safety.
- 2. Quickly weed out and eliminate those items alleged to be of legitimate concern, but which are in reality subterfuges to provide a forum for legal maneuvering to increase the cost of and delay nuclear operation .
- 3. Discourage those who only want to shutdown, delay or increase the cost of nucl ear powered electric generation by asking questions which are based on irrational supposition, innuendo or incomplete information and which can cost licensees tens of thousands of dollars to provide the rational response which the responsible public deserves .
~JUN. 1"r 1995 A CMS' eNER<SY COMPANY
- f I i ; . .."
... 1'*
, t
- (' NL'. *. ' . 'J J *, crn~:r*/;i SSIOl't DCi:. *1 ~G ex :E:rtVICE SECTION 0, * ..;E OF THE SECRETARY Or TH E COMMISSION Document Statistics Fos:r:1 ;xD~*ta f /1...5/C,.f C,:,j)::; rleceivc~ ____J _ _ _ __
f, d'! ' ,;;:ie;; r eprocucs-d 1 f .. ,, _, "> **:_ .::1o:,r __il;I:_.. .fJ'--
.J. .-fJ,,__.
f)-~-
- Lui Li 6~:1 --C,.M..OS/ 1---loyl.1,
Consumers Power Company May 18, 1995 Page 2 RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT ON RESPONSIVENESS TO THE PUBLIC - NUREG/BR-O199
- 4. Prevent unnecessary legal hearings which result in diverting the attention of licensee and regulatory personnel whose primary duty to the public is to maintain vigilant control of the processes which result in maintaining the margin of safety the public deserves.
Sincerely, ZL-1~ ~
Robert A. Fenech Vice President Nuclear Operations
DOCKET NUMBERPI . .
PROPOSED RULE /'~h -S v (t,OFR }bb <i-S)
From: "Arlene s. Allen" ("AASAP@DELPHI.COM")
To:
Date:
Subject:
secy@nrc.gov Saturday, May 27, 1995 1:46 am Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan (SMTP Id#:
@)
/ I 47153)
North Bethesda Congress of Citizens' Associations, Inc.
Task Force on Environmental Awareness (TFEA) c/o 9928 Brixton Lane, N. Bethesda, MD 20817 Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch l: . , MAY 2 7 1995 OCKETING c\
AVICE SRANCtt
~~QY*NRC COMMENTS:
PUBLIC RESPONSIVENESS ASSURANCE PLAN
~-;~*---~
T . t.
The North Bethesda Congress of Citizens' Associations, Inc.,
applauds the intent of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to strengthen its Public Responsiveness Initiative and all of the steps it has taken to assure that the public is included to the greatest extent possible. However, TO A PETITIONER THAT WAS GIVEN LESS THAN TWO WEEKS TO COMMENT ON A DECISION THAT TOOK THE NRC MORE THAN A YEAR TO CONSIDER, AND THEN TO BE REFUSED A REQUESTED EXTENSION, WE CANNOT BUT DOUBT THE GOOD FAITH OF THIS "PUBLIC RESPONSIVENESS ASSURANCE PLAN." To us, the rest is window dressing.
If the Agency truly wishes to "encourage public participation," it cannot then act in ways that discourage public participation. Insisting on an unreasonable time limit for a volunteer group of petitioners from the community to comment on a Decision so long in the making, does little to inspire public confidence in the Agency. Our members did not petition the NRC in order to be dismissed so abruptly, as we were. We are volunteers, with jobs and families, who are trying to protect the public health of our community.
In more than a year of waiting, we were never provided copies of the pertinent correspondence and we were not notified of the status of our petition. In fact, we were told that it would be ready months earlier. Then, with no idea of what your rationale would be, we were given less than two weeks to prepare an answer. As members of the general public, we should have been given guidance and ample time to participate in the Final Decision.
We sincerely hope that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will study the handling of our petition more closely because we are an ideal example of what the grassroots public is all about.
The bottom line in winning the confidence of the public is to A,.;...IL..,,..A,!r:,c',
w\.' . \
.,<'.\d by card
- , , \
- * J~ c;l E - M_A,/: l
- tU f t ** tttt, l f!tt f*t'Jl.f ~-~!-' *1\U4..._
S NUS 1 EAR r.:=:G~LATORY COMMISSIOI'.
DC*,,I' ,~l ,,-..(.; & SERVICE SECTION OH ICE OF THE SECRETARY Cf "iH E COMMISSION Do:.:t;r.ient Statistics l'oslrr.ar!( C::'.J ....c_E_ --_.{_'---1._A-1 _ _ __
C0pies Re::~: .~d_ _ _, _ _ _ __
Ac!d'I Cor,:es Fl,:;pro,.:i:.ced _,f,______
Spec:~I D:str:bution /1;t IQ > ff/)/( ,
!&2:5-:S;l~~tl:r
£l tl~ 5 M
allow them to participate in a meaningful way, and THIS AGENCY, BY NOT PROVIDING US WITH TIMELY INFORMATION, NOR ADEQUATE TIME TO RESPOND, DENIED US THE OPPORTUNITY TO FULLY PARTICIPATE IN A MATTER OF GRAVE IMPORTANCE TO OUR COMMUNITY.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this unfortunate experience.
sincerely, Arlene s. Allen, President
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OOCKElE*D WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555--0001 USNRC May l Z~ 1995 *95 MAY l 8 P\2 :08 OFF ICE F SEC ETAR Y OOCKET\NG & SER\JICE ,
. BRA CH .
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. John C. Hoyle Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Service Branch FROM: Vandy Miller, Director SBCR
SUBJECT:
Per discussion with Valerie Wilson regarding the subject document, we would like to offer the following recommendation. On Page 39, revise the first two sentences of the first full paragraph to read as follows:
Individuals and firms interested in doing business with the NRC, interact with agency personnel in a variety of ways. For example, our office of small business and civil rights in addition to our contracting staff frequently receive inquiries from small, small disadvantaged, and women-owned businesses regarding NRC contracting opportunities.
Should you have any questions, please contact Harris Coleman, my small business program manager on 415-7381.
~d~¢~~
ffice Rights rr Small Business and Civil
'MAY 2 2 1995, Acknowledged by card ........................._.,~
. .1..*
1l0
- isJO U.S. N!JC, ~t ' , .*:* -:oRY COMMISSIOt-.
DOC'{Er 1r s t SERVICE SECTION oti:1u OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Ovcument Statistics r*D te J,/ fl-0 t o/~
c lved._ _ _~ ::;;--- - -
Reorcoueed _ ____ _ _ _
- but1on 12-;r.
-=-t v~ Is fuJ -c:S 1:t, /) y :.U
Jl 1111 1 11111 11 DOCKETED USNRC May 9, 1995 LD-95-022 OFFICE OF SECRETARY DO CKETl JG SE VI C£ BRA~ Cl*
John C. Hoyle Secretary US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
Comments on Draft Report , "Responsiveness to the Publ ic"
Dear Mr. Hoyle:
In response to your March 27, 1995 call for comments on the subject draft report, we submit for consideration the following suggestions:
o Many helpful electronic bulletin boards are in place or are under development throughout the agency. There should be established some CLEARINGHOUSE FOR INFORMATION ABOUT BULLETIN BOARDS, and a coordinator to standardize their formats and search languages.
o The NRC has the technical capability for the making of VIDEOTAPES OF COMMISSION BRIEFINGS AND SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS. (Recent examples of such significant gatherings would include the FOIA, Shutdown Risk, and CBLA/TSIP meetings). Presumably, such videotapes would be a beneficial supplement to communications between (and among) NRC Headquarters and the Regions; Local Public Document Rooms would also be logical recipients of such tapes. Most important, in these days of limited travel budgets, greater numbers of both the public and licensees could benefit from such relatively inexpensive access to Commission meetings. (Such tapes could be made available for a fee from the Public Document Room.)
o DOCUMENTS ALREADY RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM THROUGH FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS should be accessioned on, and available through, the NUDOCS and Public Document Room Bibliographic Retrieval Service in a timely fashion. (These documents, although shelved at the Public Document Room, are currently subjected to artificial delays of many months in their integration on these databases. )
o THE ANNUAL NUCLEAR REGULATORY INFORMATION CONFERENCE SHOULD INCLUDE AN ANNUAL BREAKOUT SESSION ON NRC COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS POLICY EFFORTS. This forum should summarize the agency's progress over the past ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Power Combustion Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 500 Telephone (203) 688-1911 1000 Prospect Hill Rd. Fax (203) 285-5203 Windsor, CT 06095
- -. ' ; ,- I ' ~ - r'* t ; ;-\*; ()HY
- *c*i~~}~t SStON
..,.. .:HN ICE SECTION i,. -1 1CE *. rHE SECRETARY OF H', :O,/iMlSSION Pc: * ' '>;l\-J SJ
~ ~Y ~ ~----- )
C;- I :re. _..;../_ _ _ _ __
fa., .*
Page Two LD-95-022 Comments on "Responsiveness" year, and future plans for, such subjects as electronic information exchange, video conferencing, Public Document Room services, and, of course, agency responsiveness to the public.
If you have any questions about these comments, please call me at (203) 285-5204.
Very truly yours, COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.
- c. B. Brinkman Director Nuclear Systems Licensing CBB/lc
DOCKET NUMBER P QPQSED ULE p /1, 5 G May 1st, 1995 (6 0 F R. l 66 ~5) DOCKETEO US RC Secretary, USNRC, WDC 20555 ATN: Docketing and Service Branch
~ HAY -5 Ala .
Per request, comments on NUREG/BR - 0199 follow: -
- 05 95% of local citizens know nothing or ver lf.fJt{!tf~r,~lear power and less of the NRC. Of the remain~ R'l/ e-street" view is that the Commission sides too much witllBliAHCH pera ' ng utility. The public does however understand the need for power to operate their washing machines, TV's and VCR's. This is the view of this commentator.
That the NRC makes things public is good. That the NRC is willing to change in a public direction is even better. BR-0199 refers to response times of 30, 60, and 90 days. This is too long to respond. The target goal should be intermediate response within fifteen days and an answer within sixty days. This goes for all petitions, license requests etc. Where the 60 days cannot be finalized, status reports should go out every 30 days even if the answer is just, "We're working on it."
On page 9 of the draft the statement on paragraph (4) is "resubmit it as an allegation." The word "allegation" is one that brings up fear of reta l iation in the public's mind. Rather than use allegation, CONCERN would be a better word. The NRC's prime mission is to or should be to protect the public while enhancing power development.
The average public member or even employee is not aware of all engineering, budget, political, or even site locale elements of any one project or problem, but NO public citizen should be afraid of contacting the regulatory body designed to protect them and the NRC needs as much accurate information as it can get. In paragraph (1) who would pay for the hearing? Details need to be provided the petitioneer(s).
Moving to page 15 of Draft BR-0199, the phrase "Defense-in-depth" philosophy is used. This element was the source of my petition.
The nuclear .industry is phasing down or out on security and safety.
Cost-cutting and competiveness are the key terms thrown out, yet; at each plant a large local utility bureaucracy exists in nearly every department. In the sense of security, any plant which does not maintain an outward perimeter defense, cannot have a "defense-in-depth" mode. Cost-cutting should not affect basic security, fire protection or other necessary safety related equipment. Bluntly, I DON'T WANT CHERYNOBYIL IN MY BACK YARD. We as a people are going to need the power in the future. Rather than the industry concentratio~
being on cost-cutting I would like to see it concentrate on safer plants, and solving the rad-waste problem with some other method of disposal than burying stuff all over the country. If the cost has to be passed on to the consumer, so be it. If public safety requires the use of federal marshals on site rather than private security companies, so be it. Until the commission can absolutely guarantee me of safe plants, I want the "defense-in-depth" philosophy to ABSOLUTELY over-ride ANY form of cost cutting. In my terms, spend less on charts and more on parts.
Ac owfedged by eard .........................~-
Comments on NUREG/BR-0199 page two On page 47 of draft BR-0199, the LPDR program is discussed.
This is excellent. Yet, I have worked at the Zion Illinois nuclear generating station for over five years and I have seen no such document room. I would strongly urge the NRC to bolster this program as much as possible with the stipulation that the information contained therein be as absolutely honest as possible. The NRC people should not be salesmen but rather public protectors and information passers-on. This would be an excellent enhancement to nuclear power to have a local public library where such questions could be put to the NRC as well as problems and solutions.
On the whole, NUREG/BR-0199 is a positive upgrade. I would recommend that this type of review and self-examination be done annually. But no regulation can instill mission-ormentea d zeal or elan. The nuclear industry must change but none of that change should impact public safety. During our petition we made a comment that "terrorism has not abated" - witness:
The tragedy in Oklahoma city. --
In summary, A: The change in NUREG/BR-0199 are positive and good and it has been a privilege to comment upon them and an honor to have been requested to do so.
B: No industry pressure to cost-cut should affect the NRC's basic mission of providing public safety in ALL elements of nuclear power generation. Any speed up on information processing or reduction in the apprehension level of the public to communicate with the NRC should be incorporated as much as possible.
C: The commission should maintain as much local contact with the local public around nuclear stations as much as possible.
The commission should view itself as a public defender rather than an industry agent.
Please note that the draft 0199 has areas in it which are beyond the familiarity scope of this comment responder. Again, thank you for this comment opportunity.
Sincerely, rf?K~~
ROBERT K. RUTHERFORD SSAN: 530-30-5049 5514-55th Avenue, Kenosha, WI 53144-2315 TP: 414-656-1257
DOCKETED USHRC
- 95 HAY - 2 P2 :56 What does the NRC mean by OFFICE OF S[Cl1ETARY OOCK E flNG & SEf VI Cf RESPONSIVENESS TO THE PUBLIC BH~Nli in its draft report for comment?
Marvin I. Lewis 3133 Fairfield Street Philadelphia, PA 19136 (215)676 1291 USNRC Washington, D. C. 20555
. ar Sir or Ms; The NRC invests a lot of time, effort and political ammunition in developing draft regulations. fhis investment makes the NRC biased toward convincing the public that the draft regulation should be accepted as proposed without change. The result is that the NRC defines 'responsiveness' as convincing the public that the draft regulation should be accepted as proposed.
Nowhere in the 'Responsiveness to the Public'document does the NRC admit or suggest that deficient or inappropriate draft regulation will be improved thru the process of public comment.
This is the purpose of public comment : to improve and refine deficient or inappropriate draft regulations before finalization.
The same deficiency exists in the 'Management of Allegations." Allegers are given some help, but nowhere is action t mitigate allegations involving the health and safety of the b lic suggested. Upon reading this 'Responsiveness to the b lic' document, I come to the conclusion that the NRC has forgotten about protecting the health and safety of the public.
I suggest one improvement : check out the cause of the allegation and fix it!
The NRC may define any action as "responsiveness." Sending a postcard acknowledging receipt of my comment in a letter may be considered a 'response.' The NRC must respond adequately and appropriately to the comments of the public. Ending the response of the NRC to a comment by sending a postcard acknowledging receipt fails as an adequate and appropriate response.
I admit that on occasion the NRC has sent me a final document which specifies clearly how the NRC answered my comment. More often the final document throws my comment into a grab basket of irrelevant comments with nebulous assurance that the comment was answered adequately. I do not consider this nebulous assurance adequate response.
The best way to show responsiveness to the public is that the NRC remember to protect the health and safety of the public instead of trying to convince the public to accept deficient and inappropriate regulation.
MAYIO 2 l99S Res pc,tf
~ ul y / sub~
4 mitted, r Acknowredrmr.l hv eartJ...._"..._----- 1
""' ""~ --
- \J.S. NUCLEAR RE:2UIJ1*t'ORY COMMISSIOt-.
DOCKET! JG & SEFWICE SECTION Or-FICE C.F THE SECRETARY OF THE COW 1:GSION stmnrk f':i,::- . £ Copie2 F\c; =-,-
/ _ _ _ __
Addi C'o(c~ R , ,. *~-- j -a,-......,_ ..,,...._ _
S,,ecicl ~
- triblH or
/ oyk. C &.rf.
,,Hi,,,('
- 95 MA' - 2 P3 :Q 7 From: "Lou Varricchio" ("VARRICCH@INET.CHAMP To: SECY@nrc.gov Date: Monday, May 1, 1995 5:08 pm
Subject:
Comment (SMTP Id#: 19028)
Dear Secretary:
We strongly applaud the NRC for its candor as well as its committment for ensuring the world's safest nuclear power program. In the years since the Three Mile Island mishap, the NRC has proven itself to be a valuable government agency worththe taxpayers support! However, we would like to see the NRC become more proactive of nuclear energy and actively (and publically) demonstrate that its safety and regulatory efforts are worthwhile to the average American. We recommend that a strong, nationwide (or regionally focused), educational outreach program by the NRC to the public be undertaken. This may include exhibits about NRC operations and atomic power, demonstrations and perhaps public tours of nuclear facilities. We support the NRC, but more importantly, we support nuclear power as an important energy source for the U.S. Therefore, as concerned citizens, we would like our comments to become part of the record re: draft NUREG/BR-0199. Thank you.
Louis & Marilyn varricchio, RR 3, Box 498, Middlebury, Vt. 05753 e-mail address: varricch@champlain.edu Aeknowfedged by j
U:§ 11s-i _ . . *. 'RY C0fv1MISSIOI'.
~ A>:. r .~ ~CTIOfF.>
o;:r.1< CRHAfW-*;:
C !$$ION . '
(fJ STATE Ol9q~@l0RADO (C, Roy Romer, Governor Patti Shwayder, Acting Executive Director Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorad* 5 N,1 ' -1 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Laboratory Building Denver, Colorado 80222-1530 4210 E. 11th Avenue Phone(303)692-2000 Denver, Colorado 80220-3716 (303) 691-4700 DfFIC c, c:- Y Colorado Department DOCK L r1 .,l r of Public Health c~t? and Environment APR 2 5 1995 DOCrET NU BER p .
P u"""f) RULE ,01
-, If C Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 (_ b O F rz_ JI, 6 ~D Attn: Docketing and Service Branch.
The following are Colorado's comments on the NRC's draft report Responsiveness to the Public, dated March 1995. In general, we think the NRC is moving in the right direction to improve its relationship with outside entities, and to improve the practice of radiation safety.
The following are Colorado's specific comments:
- 1. Regarding the planned Improvements for the use of electronic media, the establishment of a listserver that distributed lists of new items as they become available electronically would 1) allow individuals to connect to NRC's bulletin boards only when new, desired information was added, and 2) reduce the traffic on NRC's bulletin boards.
- 2. There are activities that would improve responsiveness by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
First, the most fundamental change that should be made is to involve persons impacted by proposed rules (licensees and Agreement States) in an earlier and more substantial manner. An Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking should become the norm. A cooperative process for regulatory changes should start at the beginning of the process - when a regulatory change is first considered. NRC and its partners could then evaluate the need for a change; develop criteria for the change; and agree on a level of compatibility. After the need has been documented, and it is agreed that a regulatory change could improve radiation safety, then the NRC would begin to draft a regulation.
The use of electronic bulletin boards is an improvement in public responsiveness, and should be continued. One improvement to the current system would to post all comments to the bulletin board, not just those that have been uploaded.
- 3. The section on planned improvements for Petitions for Rulemaking identifies activities to make the filing easier and more complete.
However, it does not address any internal procedura~ changes to be made in order to reduce the average time of review to less than 30 months.
- 4. The section on the Office of State Program fails to address the most critical issue facing the NRC and the Agreement States - functioning under the partnership that was envisioned by Congress and embodied within the AEA. While progress has been made by the NRC in this area, a
- - MA¥' G. ~ 1995 le owtadaad by card ........................., . .,. ...~
l) s. ,-. ' L."\, JP.Y COll:M'SSIOl't
- 1. *.::; ,.: ,-,:-'u * ~,ERVICF: SECTiON
'], - *: I ;: (,;= 1HE Sl:CRETARY
'. J : l- [ co;&ilS SION
/1---6 /qf
(,CJ :sr .. c,~\"*_
l,~~d'l Cu \C5 1\.,* *ce j _Y-_____
";:cicial r.i:-:,t 1~iJ11 n /2X IO>;J Y?tJ ,
H12 y I'-;; Cn.. a; h 4 (s,t1,..,
Secretary, U.S. NRC Page 2 perusal of previous letters from Agreement States to the NRC will clearly indicate that this partnership has not yet been achieved. It is difficult to expect the NRC can be responsive to the public, when it is not always responsive to its partners.
- 5. The planned improvement for technical assistance to Agreement states is to complete requests either within the agreed schedule, or within an extended schedule 80 percent and 95 percent of the time respectively.
In order to provide meaningful comments on this planned improvement, one must first know the current baseline; and secondly understand why 80 and 95 percent were selected. Without this information, one cannot judge whether the goal is over or under ambitious.
The NRC should provide this information to the Agreement States and ask for additional comment.
- 6. Regulatory review of Agreement State Proposed Regulations is an important topic for both the NRC and Agreement States. The proposal for the NRC to provide comments to the states within 60 days after the draft is received is reasonable. It is recognized that at times, priorities may prohibit the NRC from commenting on a State's proposed regulations.
If the NRC is unable to provide comment, than the NRC must ac cept, just as any state licensee, that if they fail to comment on a regulation and that regulation is adopted, they are bound by the regulation and their decision not to comment. No regulation upon which the NRC fails to comment should be able to be the basis of determining incompatibility.
- 7. There appears to be a disconnect in the area of Agreement State Training. The background information states the NRC wants to provide
" *** consistent high-quality training *** " to Agreement States; and that consolidation of the training program will " *** provide grater uniformity in materials training programs for NRC and the Agreement State staff."
Reality is that in eliminating funding for Agreement State training, the states will obtain training from the source that meets established criteria at the lowest cost. It is probable that many states will receive training from suppliers other than the NRC, and there will be no "uniformity in materials training programs for NRC and the Agreement State staff."
If there are any questions, contact this office at (303)692-3030.
Robert M. Quillin,
- Director, Radiation Control Division
DOCKET NUMBER p LA
- F1 ,. ~ 'lS:D RULE /VI 11 C. (j)
April 25, 1995 (b of '{2. /6/, f5 Secretary *95 APR 28 P2 ~ 5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, o.c. 20555 on w* 'i Attn: Docketing and Service Branch OOC \L*"
To Whom It May Concern:
I have recently finished reading your document: Responsiveness To The Publ ic - Draft Report for Comment issued March 1995. I have served as a consultant Community Relations and Public Involvement Manager for the USEPA, USDOE, NASA and the USACE. As a practitioner of these items, I respectfully submit the following comments:
- The entire document reads as though it is written by bureaucrats for bureaucrats. It is not reader friendly or understandable by the general public or lay audiences.
- The writing is convoluted, redundant, awkward, and in some cases, irrelevant.
- The content of the document is entirely meaningless to the general public. It reads more like an Employee Orientation Handbook.
- It reinforces the wide-spread belief that the government tries to hide the real issues behind incomprehensible technobabble.
- The document strongly suggests that a major focus of the program is to spend more money on the education and training of NRC staff rather than implementing cleanup alternatives.
- TOO MANY ACRONYMS!
- On p. 13, the word "alleger" is used repeatedly
- According to my copy of Webs ter's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1988), this word does not exist.
- Too many references to agencies, directives, rules, regulations, boards, management positions, rulemakings and findings of obscure committees and associations.
These references are incomprehensible to the public.
On a personal note, in the past week, I have attempted to contact several individuals at NRC offices through published telephone numbers. I was relegated to the limbo of voice mail and, despite MAY1 o. 2 1995 Acknowfedged by eard......................._,_
U.'... \
(' I
'*, ** J
leaving my name, affiliation and telephone number, I have yet to receive any response. Perhaps your employees should read this document.
Finally, I applaud the Commission's focus on public involvement and their attempt to become more open and accessible, however, if the people who wrote this document worked for me, some serious explanation would be required, and the document (in it's present form) would never have seen the light of day.
Gerry . Za Senio
- ns Specialist Foster Whee er vironmental Corp.
1 Oxford Valley #200 Langhorne, PA 19047 (215) 752-0212
STEVENSON & ASSOCIATES (f) a structural-mechanical consulting engineering firm 9217 Midwest Avenue* Cleveland, Ohio 44125 * (216) 587-3805
- Telex: 5I060l583~ 0 Fax: (216) 587-2205 0..,..,
5".:. .~06.l~tr4.18
- <
- "', c:,
D CKET NUMBER
-' OSED RULE PR M .
/ -,_' 5 <..,
' :; ~
-o c.-
v'5C")0 April 18, 1995 .,.-;:r.
- rr,
- o - l
{__ t OF R.. l-66YS) "" .,!"T"\
-0 CJ
.)
Mr. John C. Hoyle LI' Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
°'
Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch
Dear Mr. Hoyle:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your request for comments regarding the NRC' s policy to conduct its business activities in a more open and public manner. As part of your Public Responsiveness Initiatives to Develop Public Responsiveness Improvement Plans, I hope you might consider revising the manner in which generic technical positions are formulated by the NRC and its staff. While the legal responsibility of the NRC to regulate commercial nuclear power and certain other civil nuclear activities is clear and well understood, the process by which the NRC arrives at its technical positions could and should, in my opinion, be more open to participation by the public. Of specific concern is the NRC Staff's current review, acceptance, and use of industry consensus codes and standards in its generic technical positions.
In the past the NRC and its staff have strongly supported and participated in the voluntary consensus standards activities of the American National Standards Institute which form the backbone of industrial standards activities in the U.S. In my opinion this association has served both the nuclear power industry and the NRC well. The U.S. nuclear industry standards are used worldwide as the basis for nuclear plant construction and operation and NRC regulatory guides and standard review plans make numerous references to such standards. Unfortunately, in recent years T have ck:tected a more adversarial relationsrjp developing betv.een the industry consensus standards groups and the NRC staff. A case in point is the controversy between the NRC staff and the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (relative to changes in seismic design criteria for piping) where individual NRC Staff members have questioned the veracity, objectivity and independence of the Code committees. Similar concerns have been expressed by members of the ASME Code committees concerning the NRC Staff.
In my opinion as a result of recent controversies where the objectivity and veracity of industry standards groups and NRC staff have been brought into question there is a need to develop a new mechanism where such disagreement may be adjudicated in a fair, open and impartial manner.
I believe a modification of the German Nuclear Safety Standards Commission, KTA organization should be studied by the NRC for possible application to issues where there is serious technical disagreement between industry standards groups and the NRC staff.
~AV' 0 2 1995 Ackno ,tc. f! d y ~ard ....................=.::.:.
. NL.JC!.~'". l * ',,:,-,,;:--;> '. MISSION DC.l(f<; T!r ': , ,*=- <\ -,, ~ .._. '.TION Ci- r,Cr: (/ , ,;.: :-' ...r>:: \MY r- .
Mr. John C. Hoyle Page 2 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission April 18, 1995 The German Nuclear Safety Standards Commission, KTA was established by the German Federal Ministry of the Interior in September 1972. The objective of this Commission was to establish safety standards for all kinds of nuclear installations but primarily for nuclear power plants. The Commission is composed of 5 groups of 10 members each. The groups include the following interests:
(1) Manufacturers (2) Utilities (3) Licensing and Regulatory Authorities (4) Safety Review Organizations (Standards Organizations and National Laboratories)
(5) Public Interest (Universities)
The organizations in parenthesis would be the equivalent organizations in the U.S. I do not believe such a group is needed in the U.S. to develop safety standards or regulatory guides as is the case in Germany. However, such an organization's participation and advice in resolving technical disputes between the industry standards groups and the NRC staff I believe would be in the direction of conducting the NRC' s activities in a more open and public manner.
Thank you for your attention. Please advise if you desire any clarification of the thoughts presented in this letter.
Sincerely,
~\.~
Q ~~~~-D.
President Stevenson JDS:pad cc: R. Reedy
UNIFIED SAN DIEGO COUNTY CARLSBAD CHULA VISTA CORONADO Emerg_en~y Servicrfjj;r,~ 1 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DELMAR EL CAJON ENCINITAS ESCONDIDO Organ,zat,on '95 Am 1a Ale :49, IMPERIAL BEACH LEMON'1;/tJ:f OFFICE OF DISASTER PREPAREDNESS NA noNAL c1TY 5201 -0 Ruffin Road, San Diego, California 92123 OCEANSIDE POWAY Phone 619-565-3490
- Fax 619-694-2514 SAN MARCOS SANTEE SOLANA BEACH VISTA DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE..::...:.:.~ ~~-
CJcDrR- \ lo(;,c:a5) April 13, 1995 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch
Dear Sir:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft document NUREG/BR-0199, Responsiveness to the Public. As a primary agent for Off-Site Planning for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in Southern California we welcome the increased participation of the NRC in local planning and exercises.
We are very interested in the planned improvements noted on page 16, Planned Improvements, Item (4). It is our position that a greater involvement in off-site planning by the NRC, while providing clear and specific direction to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), would greatly enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the off-site planning process.
We look forward to the enhanced relationships which will be afforded by this initiative. Should you have questions, or desire additional information please contact me, or Ralph Perry at (619)565-3490.
Yours truly,
~~ San Diego County, CA Office of Disaster Preparedness APR*? A -1 ~
Ar.rnow1ooaed by cant.."........ ,,,.,, ..., ....~
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO~
OOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION
\ OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document ~tatlstics Pos!mark Date -----'-\-'-'+-"-. . __ _ __
Coples Receiw~a _ __.___ _ __
Add'l Co i~S ReD s
~
Dr. Karl Z. Morgan Office: 113 Danbury Drive Oak Ridge, TN 37830 DOCKETED (615) 482-9814 US RC Homes: 207 High Cliff Circle 20216 Gulf Blvd. Town of Seven Devils Indian Shores, FL 34635 Banner Elk, NC 28604 *95 APR 17 P3 :2Q (813) 595-6370 (704) 963-7632 OFFIL ..: JF s:: .
OO CK E TI G i p ~( '
IJ.S. NlJCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OOCl<ETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFIC OF THE SECRETARY Or THE COMMISSION Dooum nt Statistics
DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE..,;..;;.;.~ ,~ - *95 APR 13 P2 :S 3 April 10, 1995 (1.d:) FR..\ bb'1, 5)
@ Of -,-~L COMMENTS OF OHIO CITIZENS FOR RES PONS IBLE fiWfE'R'GY, INC. ( " OCRE")
ON DRAFT NUREG/BR-0199, REPORT ON RESPONSIVENESS TO THE PUBL IC OCRE is generally pleased with this draft report and with the NRC's initiative in undertaking such an examination of its opera-tions. The following comments are not directed to specific aspects of the report, but are a broad assessment of the agency's activities.
- It is important for the NRC to realize that the nuclear industry is not its only "customer"; the NRC's primary and most important customer is the public which the NRC is supposed to protect from the hazards of the nuclear industry.
From the public interest perspective, process is extremely impor-tant, as process presents us with the opportunity to participate in the development of regulations for our own protection.
The following is my assessment of the NRC's policies and activi-ties with respect to effective public participation in the NRC regulatory process.
- First, I think it is important to reflect on why we should public participation in such a highly technical area at aside from the various requirements of the AEA and APA.
To me, public participation is the essence of America.
have all, That's what this country is all about: government of, by, and for the people.
I believe the Commission recognized this when it declared, in its Principles of Good Regulation, that "Nuclear regulation is the public's business."
There is also a pragmatic aspect to public involvement. The late Linus Pauling once said that the best way to get a good idea is to have lots of ideas. And, clearly, a good way to get lots of ideas is to get the input of many people.
Public participation is also a crucial test of the validity of
'~PR 1 4 -199S' -
1 Acknowledged by card .......................... ,.... ,
U:S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0MMISSIOt-1 DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION
\ OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Sta!istics Postmark Date --=~~__.___ _ __
Copies Receiv... _ _,__ _ _ _ __
Add'l Copiea Rt:prOd.1,ed _ _ _ __
Special Distribut:o _ __ _ _ __
the industry's and NRC's positions. A contested proceeding pro-vides a critical check on the quality of the licensing process.
Both the license applicant and the regulatory agency staff may be affected by what psychologists term "scenario fulfillment,"
i.e., people see what they expect to see. If the license appli-cant seeks to obtain a license and the agency staff expects to grant a license, then both may view the technical data in a light favorable to licensing. This is llQ.t. implying any bad faith on the part of either the applicant or agency staff; it is simply human nature. But, in a contested proceeding, the intervenor will view that data from a different perspective. The intervenor will present evidence supporting denial of the license. The intervenor will force the NRC to take a hard look at the hazards posed by the nuclear industry.
Why should we have public involvement in the NRC's highly techni-cal regulatory process? Why shouldn't it be sufficient to ex-press one's views to Congress? First, appealing to Congress affords little relief because the Member of Congress usually refers the constituent correspondence to the agency, and usually defers, to the agency. Second, one must recognize that Congress responds to majority pressures. Minority interests must seek protection through the legal system.
I have donated a book that I highly recommend, !.he. Public Involvement Manual, by James L. Creighton, to the NRC's library.
The first few chapters discuss more fully the rationale £or public involvement, and address the most common objections to public involvement. While I won't go through all the arguments here, I will include this wonderful quotation from Thomas Jeffer-son: "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves. And if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control ~ith wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it.from them but to inform their discretion." Jefferson could have been responding to one of the nuclear industry's standard ,arguments against public participation, i.e. , "This should be left to the experts." *
- ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION There are three elements necessary for effective public partici-pation: meaningful participation rights and opportunities, access to information, and resources. All three of these ele-ments must be present for effective public participation. If any one element is missing, the effectiveness is diminished.
2
MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES I consider public participation rights and opportunities to be of utmost importance. One can have plenty of facts, ideas, and evidence, but without the opportunity for meaningful public input, one might as well not have them.
The test of whether a participation opportunity or right is meaningful is whether the participant has the ability to affect the outcome. Note that by this definition I would not classify the opportunity to attend and observe meetings between the NRC staff and licensees, including open enforcement conferences, as meaning£ul public participation opportunities. Rather, I believe they are properly classified under "Access to Information." I am not saying such opportunities are not valuable, but I do not believe it is accurate to consider them participation opportuni-ties.
Reviewing the various mechanisms for participating in the NRC's regulatory process, I find some positive trends and some negative trends.
In the area of rulemakings, I am greatly encouraged by the En-hanced Participatory Rulemaking on Residual Radioactivity for Decommissioning, which I view as representing a paradigm shift in the NRC's attitude towards public participation. This is the first time the NRC has actually engaged in an aggressive attempt to reach the interested public in a rulemaking proceeding, in-stead of just publishing a notice in the Federal Register and if they got any public comments, fine, and if not, that's fine too.
I would like to see this approach used for additional rulemakings in the future, although I realize that it cannot be used for all rulemakings because of its resource-intensive nature.
In the area of regulatory guidance, I am pleased with the NRC's practice, begun about three years ago, of publishing proposed generic communications in the Federal Register for public com-ment. It would, however, be useful to have a longer comment period than the typical 30 days.
With regard to licensed facilities, the opportunities for public participation can be classified by the manner in which they are initiated: licensee-initiated, NRC-initiated, and citizen-initiated.
3
Licensee-initiated proceedings are license amendments. While these do have the advantage of providing the opportunity for a Section 189a hearing, the scope of that hearing is strictly limited to the subject matter of the particular amendment in question.
I am concerned about the NRC's trend in encouraging nuclear power plant licensees to remove items from plant technical specifica-tions and relocate them in internal plant documents, where they be changed by the licensee under 10 CFR 50.59 with no notice or opportunity for public input. The effect is that of diminishing the universe of potential license amendment proceedings in which the public has the right to an evidentiary hearing. I am not opposed to simplifying Tech Specs, but can it be done without diminishing public participation opportunities?
NRG-initiated proceedings are enforcement proceedings. Opportu-nities for public participation are very limited here because of the Bellotti case. rBellotti Y......... N.R.C., 725 F.2d 1380 (D.C.
Cir. 1983.] While the licensee has the right to a hearing in enforcement cases, members of the public have no right to inter-vene if the licensee does not seek a hearing.
The only mechanism available for citizen-initiated proceedings is the 2.206 petition. Several regulatory trends within the NRC in recent years place even more importance on the 2.206 process.
First, the license renewal rule, 10 CFR 54, relies on the assumed adequacy of the current licensing basis, rather than conducting a thorough reexamination of the CLB as part of the license renewal application review, with an opportunity for a public hearing.
Any citizen concerns about the adequacy of the CLB must be raised through a 2.206 petition.
Second, as mentioned earlier, the relocation of items from plant Tech Specs is diminishing the universe of potential operating license amendments. Citizens are left with the 2.206 process for raising issues related to changes to the items so removed from the Tech Specs.
Third, the 1990 revisions to 10 CFR 72 which allow the onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel in dry storage casks approved under a general license also diminish the opportunities for an adjudi-catory hearing on this issue. Any site specific concerns must be raised through the 2.206 process.
4
While I am pleased that the NRC has made some reforms in its internal procedures for handling 2.206 petitions, the reforms do fall short of what I had recommended:
- independent review of Director's Decisions by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
It is too early to tell whether the 2.206 process can now be described as meaningful. We need some experience with the ne~
procedures to see if they are sufficient or if additional reforms are needed.
ACCESS TO INFORMATION "Knowledge is power" may be a cliche, but it is true. And, the 1989 revisions to the Rules of Practice make access to in£orma-tion absolutely essential.
In general, I think the NRC does a good job in this area. I do favor the placement of more documents (using that.term in its broadest sense) into the PDR so that the public will not have to use the FOIA process as much. OCRE's concern with the use of FOIA is the cost, i.e., search fees, which can accumulate to prohibitive amounts (from the perspective of the poorly financed public interest sector).
However, there is one disturbing trend: reducing licensee report-ing requirements. I first noticed this trend in generic communi-cations in the late 1980s, and recently a proposed rule was pub-lished in the Federal Register which would extend this trend even further. The problem is that if licensees do not submit informa-tion to the NRC, it does not get into the PDR and is not even available under the FOIA. This trend, along with the new rules of practice which require petitioners to present the best possi-ble information at the earliest opportunity, will severely hamper public participants.
I have offered a solution to this problem in my petition for rulemaking, PRM-9-2. My approach would not increase reporting burdens on licensees, but would establish procedures by which any person could request documents directly from a licensee, with appeal provisions to an ALJ if the licensee refused to provide the requested documents.
One trend I do like is the nuclear information superhighway, or the beginnings of it. I am very pleased with the BBSs the NRC has established and with the addition of a documents on diskette option to the PDR's standing order program. However, I suspect that the items made available in electronic form are but a small fraction of what could be made available, as the NRC must have been generating most of its documents on computer for at least 5
the last 5-10 years .. I would like to see more documents (i.e.,
virtually everything) made available electronically, either on a BBS or on disk. The standard should be that if a document is placed into the PDR on paper, then it should also be placed into the PDR in electronic form, if it exists in that form. Some early candidates for inclusion are 10 CFR, regulatory guides, standard review plans, all transcripts of open meetings (e.g., ACRS, ANCW), NUREGs, and NRC issuances (decisions of the Commission and ASLB). I would like to see all materials made available on BBSs retroactively, as far back as they are available in elec-tronic format. I would like to see software (public domain computer codes used by the NRC) freely available on disk or on a BBS. I would like to see the entire PDR, or at least significant parts thereof (e.g., NUREGs), available in full text on CD-ROM.
I think it is essential that, as this superhighway develops and virtually all communication between the NRC and licensees will be done electronically, public access be maintained and be afford-able. I would note that the GIDEP program (Government-Industry Data Exchange Program) is open only to government and industry, and the general public does not have access. I believe that if there is a public component to this program, there should be public access.
Finally, I must comment on an area in which the NRC could do a much better job: public education on how to participate in the regulatory process. This is not a matter of common knowledge, and it isn't taught in schools (except for administrative law courses in law schools, and few people are exposed to that).
Both industry and government need to educate the public on the science and technology of nuclear energy, and on the regulatory process, and how to effectively participate in it. You should encourage people to ask questions, to challenge you, and to participate in the regulatory process.
One cost-effective way to provide public education is to make internal staff training materials available to the public. The NRC does this with the news media (see attached press release);
opportunities such as this should also be available to the pub-lic.
One area where public education is absolutely crucial and urgent is the standard design certification process under 10 CFR 52.
It is imperative that the general public understands the conse-quences of failure to participate in the standard design certifi-cation rulemakings for the designs now undergoing staff review.
In Part 52, the NRC has created a process that requires people to be proactive. I believe that, having done so, the NRC also has a concomitant responsibility to inform people of that fact.
6
RESOURCES Finally, we must consider the resources available to the public participant. One of my favorite sayings is: "Public participation rights mean little without the resources to use them effective-ly. "
I believe funding of public participants is an essential part of environmental justice. The U.S. EPA's Environmental Justice Office has developed this working definition of environmental justice: "the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, culture. income or educa-tional level with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies."
REASONS IN FAVOR OF INTERVENOR FUNDING
- 1. Fairness. Do we have a fair legal process when the industry applicant has millions of dollars to spend on a case and the intervenor has to raise money through garage sales?
- 2. Quality of the decision. *can the ALJ reach the proper result when the hearing record is one-sided, on the side of the appli-cant, and evidence which would refute the applicant's does not get into the record because the intervenor can't afford it?
Decisions should be made on the basis of a complete and balanced evidentiary record.
Due process of law consists of two parts: procedural due proc-ess and substantive due process. In my experience, administra-tive law judges usually do a good job with procedural due process, but often fail to deliver substantive due process be-cause of the inequity of resources, and, consequently, evidence, among the parties. In complex technical cases such as these, intervenor funding is necessary to ensure that substantive due process is rendered; i.e., that the correct result is reached.
Respectfully submitted, Susan L. Hiatt 8275 Munson Road Mentor, OH 44060-2406 (216) 255-3158 7
RIV: 95-23 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Joe T. Gilliland Telephone: (817) 860-8128 (Office)
(817) 472-6771 (Home)
NRC MEDIA WORKSHOP SCHEDULED The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is planning an instructional seminar for reporters and editors April 25-26 at the NRC's Technical Training Center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Instructors who normally train NRC power plant inspectors T.
and supervisors will provide some basic training in how both boiling water and pressurized water reactor systems operate.
w training will be especially useful for reporters and editors e news organizations cover nuclear facilities in or near their communities.
Additional subjects to be covered include radiation protection, emergency planning, handling of radioactive waste, and transportation of nuclear materials.
The training center has four control room simulators which
~ere built originally for nuclear power plants and are connected to computers for realistic duplication of actual operations and problem events. Those attending the seminar will supplement classroom instruction with hands-on work with the simulators.
There is no charge for attending the seminar or for instructional materials, but participants must provide their own t~sportation, food and lodging. Instructional materials are d gned to be used later for reference. The size of the class is imited.
News staffers may register by notifying the Region IV public affairs officer at the address on this announcement or by contacting a public affairs officer in NRC Region II office in Atlanta. Its telephone number is (404) 331-5503. The mailing address is: Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 101 Marietta Street NW, Suite 2900, Atlanta, GA 30323. Registration deadline is April 19.
DOCKET NUMBER PR OUCKET[O PROPOSED RULE,..:..:.:~ ~ ~ ,,~llRC t.*~n' (l.,DFR-\1.dc<!.5)
To: secy@nrc.gov OF FICf C!f ':r P.l T.t\RY Date: Tuesday, April 11, 1995 11:31 am DOC t- r1***~
({ I_
- I* ,, rr:-
l ,'
Subject:
Comments on Public Responsiveness Document (SMTP Id : 6!-c~ 1,1 1*
19737)
The NRC is to be congratulated on having the culture which has motivated it to produce this document. Although not perfect it is more responsive to "placing the customer first" that any statement I have seen from any other Federal agency. As for perfection you all will muddle through to that in time.
I would like to say that my contact with the NRC has been as an SBIR contractor. I have found your people universally helpful, agressively hel pful in fact. Both my program officer Don Nellis and my contracting officer, Debbie Neff, has been the best I have experienced in this SBIR business.
You all are doing a great job already and with this new initative as evidenced in your Responsiveness document you will get even better.
Dr. W. peter Trower llapr95 11 :22edt Acknowledged y - .. ~ ~~ .;; ,~ a..-
U.S. UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOh OOCl<ETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE C0MMISSlON OocumGnt ... tatisUcs
DOCKET NUMBER (D PROP SEO RULE p
(,;,o ~ \ {.p(o1>5 s OOCKrT,...[J
- t. t From: "Rutherford, Philip D. " ("PDRUTHER@RDYNE.ROCKWELL.COM") US RC To: secy@nrc.gov Date: Monday, April 10, 1995 5:14 pm 95 APR 11 rr 9
Subject:
Comments on Draft NUREG/BR-0199 (SMTP Id#: 18966) . 'u :..,
OFFIC 0, SE' RE. TARY Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission DOCK..: f I~~ 5* .'FFtVICF Washington, DC 20555 BHMHCH Attn: Docketing & Service Branch I read with interest draft NUREG/BR-0199, Responsiveness to the Public. The attempt at greater openness and greater accessibility of i nformation is to be commended. However, I feel that the Internet should be utilized more than it currently is, and more than is apparently planned. Although various "future improvements" made reference to the Internet, there many other key areas where Internet access should be utilized. These include the
- availability of title and full-text, key-word searchable, databases for:
- 1. CFR Title 10
- 2. Reg. Guides
- 3. NUREGs
- 5. Licensee Event Reports
- 6. Information Notices
- 7. Inspection & Enforcement Notices
- 9. Nulcear Plant PRAs
- 10. PDR Bibliographic Retrieval System (BRS)
- 11. Inspection & Enforcement Manual Phil Rutherford, Manager Radiation Protection & Health Physics Services Rocketdyne Division Rockwell International P. 0. Box 7922 6633 Canoga Ave, Mail Stop TlOO Canoga Park, CA 91309 Tel: (818) 586-6140 Fax: (818) 586 -6142 E-Mail: pdruther@rdmail7.it.rdyne.rockwell .com Aeknowfed ed t
I
- H: - ,_h roR
- co~ :M1 s~o, DOC{[:-;- Li & :rnv:vE SECT!
OF f,CF. OF THE SECRETARY OF T, ,E COM,v11SSION Postmark r CvDteS RC1,;(;
Add'! Copie., R<: :_ ~ _,,,
Sµt.ci~1D1s,ribu ion ::1?:UR ;:)\'12~,,
DOCKET NUMBER R PROPOSED RULE..!..!!~ ~ ===--
( lc:DPT\ \ ~lc.'85) [7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCiC,lflJ&
Draft Report on Responsiveness to the Public; Availabil *ty SERVICEBRANCH
's_:) , , SEOY-NRC / r_
V ;> --,-- _,, \ V The Nuclear Regulatory Convnission {NRC} has published its Draft ' Rd~QU~ ~)
on Responsiveness to the Public. It has been a long-standing policy of the NRC to conduct its business activities in an open and public manner, and in recent years NRC has moved to be even more open and responsive to the public.
The public is defined as individual citizens, public interest groups,
- petitioners, licensees, industry groups, contractors, the Congress, and others with whom NRC does business.
Recent initiatives to be more responsive to the public have included increased use of public workshops for rulemaking activities, participatory rulemaking, a pilot program opening enforcement conferences to the public, surveys of licensees to ident ify ways to reduce the regulatory burden on licensees, and the Cost Beneficial Licensing Action Program. While these initiatives represent significant improvements, the NRC has not heretofore
- given responsiveness to the public priority attention in al l NRC programs nor had there been a systematic review of NRC business activities to identify potential improvements.
The National Performance Review has placed new emphasis on Federal agencies "placing the customer first." More can be done to broaden and institutionalize public responsiveness and openness as an underpinning tenet of how NRC does business. In this spirit, on July 27, 1994, the Executive Director for Operations launched the Publ ic Responsiveness Initiative asking NRC program directors to identify the business activities where public interaction is relatively frequent and to develop Public Responsiveness Improvement Plans. The draft report reflects the initial results of that
effort and contains improvement plans prepared by the offices. The improvement plans are being published for public comment so that NRC can consider cofflllents and make adjustments and improvements in the plans as implementation proceeds.
Those considering public comment may obtain a free single copy of draft NUREG/BR-0199 by writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Administration, Printing and Mail Services Section, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
In addition, this draft report is available through the Internet World Wide Web server, which can be accessed by using t he Uniform Resource Locator, (URL)http:\www.nrc.gov. A copy is also available for inspection and/or copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W. (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Written comments should be mailed to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Convnission, Washington, DC 20555. Attn: Docketing and Service Branch. Comments may also be submitted over the Internet to: secy@nrc.gov.
Comments must be submitted by May 30, 1995.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this J7J!.day of Jh~ , 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
mmission
RESPONSIVENESS TO THE PUBLIC MARCH 1995
NUREG/BR-0199 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Responsiveness to the Public Draft Report for Comment March 1995
CONTENTS Page Introduction ........................................................ . 1
~ttu.ct:u.re Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NRC Policy on Assuring Responsiveness to the Public .................. . 2 NRC Policy on Public Access to Documents ........................... . 2 Staff Orientation and 'Irain:ing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Use of Electronic Media .......................................... . 4 Mission-related Changes .............................................. . 8 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ................................ . 8 Public Petitions ............................................... . 8
. Actions ............................................. .
Llcensmg 10 Management of Allegations .................................... . 12 Emergency Preparedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Electronic Information Exchange ................................ . 17 Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards ...................... . 19 Enrichment Facility Licensing and Certification .................... . 19 Decommissioning of Sites and Facilities ........................... . 22 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research ............................... . 25 Improvement of the Rulemaking Process . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Petitions for Rulemaking - 10 CFR 2.802 ......................... . 26 Office of State Programs .......................................... . 28 Program Reviews of Agreement States ........................... . 28 Technical Assistance to Agreement States ......................... . 29 Regulatory Review of Agreement State Proposed Regulations ........ . 30 Agreement State 1taining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Regions ........................................................ . 34 Materials Licensing ........................................... . 34 111 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan CONTENTS (continued)
Page Administrative Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 License Fee Inquiries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Commercial Payment Inquiries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -37 Contracting Process ................................ _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 NRC Headquarters Security Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Employment Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Quality and Timeliness of Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Local Public Document Room (LPDR) Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Public Meeting Notice System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 NRC Headquarters Public Document Room . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Office of the Secretary's White Flint Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Office of Public Affairs Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 ACRS/ACNW .Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Office of the General Counsel Activities 58 NUREG/BR-0199 IV
INTRODUCTION Since its inception, the policy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has been to conduct its business activities in an open and public manner. In recent years NRC has become even more open and responsive to the public. We define the public as individual citizens, public interest groups, petitioners, licensees, industry groups, contractors, the Congress, and others with whom we do business.
Recent initiatives to increase responsiveness to the public have included expanded use of public workshops for rulemaking activities, partici-patory rulemak.ing, a pilot program opening enforcement conferences to the public, surveys of licensees to find ways to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on licensees, the Cost Beneficial licensing Action Program, and improvements to the 2.206 petition process. While these initiatives represent significant improvements, the NRC has not hereto-fore given responsiveness to the public priority attention in all NRC programs nor had there been a systematic review of NRC business activities to identify potential improvements.
The National Performance Review has placed new emphasis on Federal agencies "putting the customer first." In this spirit, on July 27, 1994, the Executive Director for Operations launched the Public Responsiveness
- Initiative, asking NRC program directors to identify those business activities wherein public interaction is relatively frequent and to develop "Public Responsiveness Improvement Plans." This report reflects the initial results of that effort and contains improvement plans submitted by the offices. These plans are being published for public comment so that NRC can take the comments into consideration and make adjust-ments and improvements as implementation proceeds. '
The activities addressed in this plan include only those that are far enough along to bear discussion. We consider this an ongoing process, and other initiatives will be considered as we gain experience from implementing these activities. Some of the mission-related changes are office specific and will be implemented on a pilot basis by the particular office.
Public Responsiveness ~ c e Plan Infrastructure Changes INFRASTRUCfURE CHANGES NRC Policy on Assuring Responsiveness to the Public It is the policy of the NRC to be responsive to the public. The public includes individual citizens, public interest groups, petitioners, licensees, industry groups, contractors, the Congress and all with whom we do business. Responsiveness entails:
- structuring NRC business agivities to facilitate and encourage public participation;
- making NRC documents readily available to the public through public document rooms and electronic media;
- responding in a tim~ly manner to business requests and public inquiries;
- responding to the public in a professional and courteous manner; and
-* understanding and respecting the impact that NRC activities can have on those with whom we do business.
NRC Policy on Public Acce.ss to Documents The policy of the NRC is to make information available to the public relating to its health and safety mission, consistent with its legal obli-gations to protect information and its dehberative and investigative processes. In furtherance of this policy, the NRC intends to auto-matically make documents publicly available that are anticipated to be of interest to the public without anyone needing to file a Freedom of Information Act request.
The agency will review the types of documents that are of public interest that are not now routinely placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) and local public document rooms (LPDRs) and, to the extent that categories of documents can be identified which are likely to be of interest to the public, will expand the scope of information disclosed. To this end, the NRC will make information available to the PDR and NUREG/BR-0199 2
Public Responsivene~ As&lrance Plan Infrastructure Changes LPDRs whenever it is known or anticipated that there is or will be public interest in such information, except when there is a legitimate need to safeguard the information.
When a document that has required protection and also has known or potential interest to the public is deemed releasable in whole or in part as a result of declassification or disclosures under the Freedom of Information Act, the NRC will make the document or a portion thereof available to the public by placing it in the PDR and LPDRs.
Staff Orientation and 'framing
Background
NRC is undertaking a number of innovations to improve how it re-sponds to the public in its day-to-day interactions. In accomplishing its mission of ensuring public health and safety, the NRC understands that it must make every effort to respond to the needs of the public in a timely and prof~onal manner.
To emphasize the importance of this effort, the NRC will incorporate the concept of public responsiveness into all of its activities. For instance, during Orientation for New Employees.
- The NRC intends to take the following actions to ensure that its employees have the necessary training and tools to better serve the public:
Planned Improvements (1) Complete the revisions to the following courses and/or materials to factor in responsiven~ the video, The NRC Story; Conducting and Participating in Medings; Effective Briefing Techniques; The Media 'Ihlining 'Workshop; and Supervising Human Resources.
(2) Inform the staff about the importance of public responsiveness through such courses as Effective Communications for NRC Inspectors; Gathering Inspection Information Through Interviews; NRC: What It Is and What It Does; and The Regulatory Process.
Public Responsiveness Asmirance Plan lnfrastmcture Changes (3) Inform the staff of a university-sponsored course entitled Dealing
'With Upset Citizens and the Public.
(4) Improve telephone communication and etiquette by providing guidelines to employees on how to answer and handle telephone calls.
(5) Revamp the NRC telephone directories so that employees may quickly locate information and direct their calls to the correct office or staff member who can provide the fastest, most accurate response to the inquiry.
(6) Ensure that NRC switchboard operators, who in many cases are the first contact the general public has with the agency, are knowledge-able about NRC offices, functions, and key personnel so that they may properly direct callers more quickly and more accurately.
(7) Increase the number of NRC employees who take the in-house course Clear Writing, which teaches students how to write for a specific audience and purpose, provides guidance to the staff on how to respond in a logical manner, and instructs employees in general correspondence style, editing, and grammar.
Contact Eileen Mason, Office of Personnel, 301-415-7532
.Use of Electronic Media *
Background
Use of information technology to improve responsiveness to the public is consistent with the findings of the National Performance Review initiative of Creating A Government That ffbrks Better and Costs Less, and &engineering Through Information Technology (a report that accompanies the National Performance Review). In an October 28, 1993, letter transmitting his report entitled "Tuchnology for Economic Growth: President's Progress Report," President Clinton stated that technology is a powerful tool for making government more efficient and responsive." To do so, government intends to use technology to improve the quality and timeliness of service, to set up new ways for the public to NUREG/BR-0199 4
Public Responsivene~ Assurance Plan Infrastructure Changes communicate with government, and to make government information more readily available to the public. These goals are consistent with those set forth in NRC's Information Technology Strategic Plan for FY 1994-1998, NUREG-1487, Vol. 1 (November 1993). The Strategic Plan presents a vision to "manage shared data and documents as agency resources and ensure they are accessible, secure, and reliable," and to "update the agency's document management capabilities to meet current and anticipated programmatic needs," thus benefitting not only the NRC but the public as well.
The NRC has traditionally used a variety of methods to inform the public about how to access NRC's electronic information. As an example, computer codes developed under the sponsorship of the NRC are made available through the Energy Science and Tuchnology Soft-ware Center (ESTSC), which is operated under an interagency agree-ment with the Department of Energy. Accessions by the ESTSC are abstracted in Computer Codes and Mathematical Models (NUREG/BR-0083), which is published annually and is available to the public through the U.S. Government Printing Office. ~
Information available on the agency's electronic bulletin board systems is generally announced by Federal Register notice. These bulletin boards are, or will be, available through the Department of Commerce's National Tochnical Information Service (NTIS) by means of its clearinghouse known as FedWorld.
The NRG Office of Information Resources Management (IRM) serves in a support role by providing for the agency's information technology needs. IRM has initiated several activities that have the potential to help the agency be more responsive to the public. One such activity is the agency's toll-free telephone service which allows the public to make general inquiries of, or provide comments to, the staff. A six-month trial of this service is underway. In addition, esrentially all NRC staff can now be reached via Internet electronic mail.
Also, IRM implemented an Internet World Wide Web server to give the public access to NRC information using NCSA MOSAIC software from the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA). A pilot program, comprising 200 NRC employees, began in August 1994, to use this software to obtain information from other public and private 5 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness ~ c e Plan Infrastructure Changes agencies and businesses. Utilizing this new technology, NRC has also created a "home page" for public access to NRC information via Internet. The availability of the NRC home page is cited by reference in the ,home page for the White House, the NCSA (the developer of MOSAIC), and Conseil Europeen pour la Recherche Nucleaire (developers of the World Wide Web), as well as in other domestic and international sources.
Because information technology is changing so rapidly, the agency is continually looking for ways to use new information processing tools to better support its needs and those of the public.
Planned Improvements i (1) Inform the public of existing methods for_ electronically accesmng agency information by revising the "Citizen'~ Guide to U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Information" to instruct the public on communicating with NRC by such electronic methods as electronic bulletin boards, Internet, and World Wide Web, in addition to the more familiar telephone and fax.
(2) Continue to add electronic bulletin boards to FedWorld (3) Develop methods of improving electronic information exchange between the nuclear industry and the NRC.
(4) Conduct an Electronic Infonffi!tion Exchange Workshop with the Nuclear Information and Records Management Association.
(5) Develop automated systems to improve our ability to track and manage the internal work flow, which will facilitate the agency's ability to respond to the public in a more timely manner.
(6) Develop an electronic review, comment, and concurrence process to speed up the review and approval process.
(7) Use new technology and services for the deaf to allow individuals who are hearing impaired to communicate more readily with the NRC staff via the public telephone system. These improvements will also allow NRC employees who are hearing impaired to be contacted by more members of the public.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Infrastructure Changes (8) Assess the use of expanded toll-free telephone access after the 6-month pilot program to determine if the service should be continued
Contact:
Arnold E. Levin, Office of Information Resources Management, 301-415-7458 ,
Walter Oliu, Office of Administration, 301-415-7175 7 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation MISSION-RELATED CHANGES Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Public Petitions
Background
Since its inception in 1975, the NRC has encouraged members of the public to bring potential health and safety isfilies involving NRC-licensed facilities to its attention. The primary mechanism available to the public for raising these isfilies and requesting specific agency action is known as the "2.206 petition process." It is described under Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The 2.206 process provides that any person may file a petition request-ing the CommiS&on to institute a proceeding to modify, suspend, or revoke a license or to take any other action that may be appropriate.
Once a petition is received, it is aS&gned to the appropriate office for evaluation and response. After the evaluation is completed, the office director isfilies a written decision which addresses the* concerns raised by the petitioner and either grants, partially grants, ?r denies the petition.
The office director's decision is final unless the Commission, on its own initiative, reviews the matter ancJ,_determines that the office director's decision should be modified.
The filing of a petition does not automatically result in a formal adjudicatory hearing. In the past, hearings have been rare. Historically, the NRC has granted, in whole or in part, only about 10 percent of the petitions received, which has led to a perception that the NRC is not responsive to public petitions. There ere no definitive standards for measuring the effectiveness of the process.
Consistent with current efforts to improve public responsiveness and enhance public participation in the decision-making process, the NRC reviewed the 2.206 proce~ with the objective of making the proces.5 more effective, more easily understandable, and more credible. As part of its reassessment of the process, the NRC held a public workshop and NUREG/BR-0199 8
Public Responsiveness As&lrance Plan Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation obtained extensive feedback on the effectiveness of the program from citizens' groups, the nuclear industcy, former petitioners, and State and local governments.
It was clear from this review that many believed that the 2.206 process at that time did not afford the petitioner an opportunity to participate meaningfully in the process. In addition, there were no provisions for keeping the petitioner informed of the status of his/her petition or for ensuring he/she received copies of all pertinent correspondence.
As a result of the findings of the review, the NRC has made improve-ments to the 2.206 process to increase public participation and to enhance communications with petitioners.
Recent Improvements:
Under this improved process, the NRC will:
(1) Offer the petitioner, under certain circumstances, the opportunity for an informal non-adjudicatory public hearing as part of the petition review proce~
(2) Provide copies of all pertinent correspondence to all participants involved in the petition.
(3) Identify a single NRC contact for each petition.
(4) Contact the petitioner and inform him/her that the 2.206 process is a public process which does not protect the identity of the peti-tioner or the contents of the petition from the public, and ascertain from the petitioner whether he/she wishes to proceed with the petition or resubmit it as an allegation.
(5) Establish an electronic bulletin board to provide the public with monthly status updates on all pending petitions.
(6) Notify the petitioner of the status of the petition every 60 days, or more frequently if a significant action occurs.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (7) Establish goal of preparing a draft of the director's decision for internal review within 120 days from the date of the acknowledgement letter.
Contact Mohan Thadani, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 301-415-1476 Licensing Actions
Background
licensing actions include such matters as requests from licensees to amend existing licenses, to exempt licensees from regulations found in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and to relieve licensees from code requirements. The process used by the staff to review and approve a licensing action varies according to the type of licensing action re-quested. For example, the process for a license amendment begins when a licensee makes a submittal to the NRC to amend its license as allowed by Section 50.90 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Initially, a determination of "no significant hazards" is made and a notice is published in the Federal Register. Then the application is reviewed by the staff. An amendment package is prepared which includes a safety evaluation that addresses all aspects of the change to the license. The amendment is reviewed by the Office of the General Counsel and signed by the responsible project director or senior project manager. A notice is published in the Federal Register announcing issuance of the amendment.
As part of the current process for evaluating the agency's responsiveness to licensee requests, the agency keeps track of the licensing action inventory and the age of licensing actions. The age of an action is calculated _from the date of the initial submittal by the licensee.
Although the agency completed 1217 licensing actions between October 1993 and July 1994, the inventory of licensing actions has grown over the past year. In addition, the following trends have been noted: the age of incoming actions is trending up gradually, about 5 percent per year, and completion rates have decreased somewhat over the past year.
The current agency goals for total licensing action inventory are: 80 percent of the licensing inventory should be no more than 1 year old, 95 NUREG/BR-0199 10
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation percent of the licensing inventory should be no more than 2 years old, and 100 percent of the licensing inventory should be no more than 3 years old. Presently, NRR is not achieving its inventory age goals: 73 percent of the total inventory is no more than 1 year old, 94 percent is no more than 2 years old, and there are 25 actions over 3 years old.
Th address the increasing inventory and to help the agency meet its established licensing inventory goals, an improvement plan has been developed to assess the agency's responsiveness to licensee requests.
The following initiatives constitute the agency's strategy to evaluate its current processes and to develop needed improvements:
Planned Improvements (1) Reevaluate goals previously set regarding the age of licensing actions and establish a plan to meet new or existing goals.
(2) Establish a process for improving the prioritization of licensing actions.
(3) Evaluate utilization of existing scheduling and work-planning software to improve project/technical staff resource expenditure.
(4) Reevaluate the level of signature authority for all licensing actions.
(5) Establish a process to provide interim response or status to licensees if an action has been stagnant for more than one year.
(6) Evaluate expanding the use of contractors to reduce the licensing action inventory.
Contact:
Cynthia A Carpenter, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 301-415-3641 11 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness Asmu-ance Plan Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Management of Allegations
Background
Since 1987, the Commission has had in place a program to receive, proces.5, and resolve allegations reported by industry workers for NRC-regulated activities. The NRC's allegations policies and procedures appear in NRC Management Directive (MD) 8.8, "Management of Allegations."
The NRC allegations program encourages industry employees to report safety concerns to their management or to the NRC so that these concerns can be processed and resolved in a timely manner. Th ensure
- that individuals making allegations to the NRC are properly treated, the NRC protects the identity of individuals where anonymity is appropriate and poS&ble and notifies individuals of the resolution of their concerns.
- The NRC also takes enforcement action (e.g., levies civil penalties) against licensees who retaliate against employees for reporting concerns to their management or to the NRC.
The NRC's process.for handling allegations involves several offices.
Within 15 days of receiving an allegation, the appropriate regional or program office convenes an Allegation Review Board (ARB) to address the allegation 'in a timely manner. This Board includes appropriate manag~ment and allegation, technical, legal, enforcement, and investi~ -
gative staff from offices pertinent to the allegation. The ARB sets priorities for the staff to evaluate the concerns, conduct inspections and/or investigations at licensee facilities, and intervie\VS affected individuals and employers, as appropriate. When allegers report Jraras.y ment and intimidation from their employers for raising concerns, the NRC informs allegers of remedies available through the Department of Labor to combat the alledged discriminatory practices. The NRC may take action independent of, or in parallel with, the Department of Labor to investigate these allegations.
On July 6, 1993, the NRC Executive Director for Operations set up a review team to reassess the NRC's program for protecting allegers from retaliation. The review team assessed whether the NRC had taken sufficient steps within its authority to create an atmosphere within the regulated community in which individuals who had safety concerns felt NUREG/BR-0199 12
Public Responsiveness .N;surance Plan I '
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regalation free to raise such concerns to their management or to the NRC without fear of retaliation. The review team's report, NUREG-1499, "Reassess-ment of the NRC's Program for Protecting Allegers Against Retalia-tion," issued in January 1994, made 47 recommendations for improvements.
The recommendations included strengthening the NRC allegation program (19 recommendations), modifying enforcement policy for more effective deterrents against violations (11 recommendations}, issuing Commission policy statements to _encourage licensees to maintain an environment in which employees can voice concerns without fear of retaliation (6 recommendations), prioritizing and supporting investi-gations to minimize the impact ofJetaliation (6 recommendations), and increasing NRC investigations and involvement in the Department of Labor process (5 recommendations). The NRC plans to issue a sub-stantially revised MD 8.8 to address the review team's recommendations by February 1995. :..
1~
Planned Improvements (1) Asfilst industry workers.
- Provide industry workers (and allegers) an NRC brochure that inform$ them of NRC's policies and procedures o~ handling allegations. The brochure will include guidance on reportin_g concerns to the NRC. ,
- Inform allegers by letter and brochure about remedies to their employee rights through the Department of Labor.
- Solicit feedback from allegers on the NRC's handling of their allegations.
- Establish a toll-free number for allegers to report their concerns.
(2) Protect alleger identity.
- Inform allegers by phone, letter, and brocli.ure of the NRC's limitations in the area of protecting alleger identity so that allegers do not assume that the NRC can protect their identities under all circumstances.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Nuclear Reactor Regolation (3) Monitor licensee environment.
- Be aware of the licensee's environment-whether it is hostile or conducive to employees raising safety concerns.
- Consider a licensee's environment during the NRC's assessment of a licensee's performance.
(4) Respond to credible reports of retaliation.
- Respond to credible reports of reasonable fears of retaliation against individuals raising safety ,concerns to their management or the NRC before retaliation has occurred. (In this case, the alleger must agree to be identified.)
- Respond to senior licensee management by letter or meeting, notifying licensees of potential NRC enforcement action, and monitoring licensee actions towards the alleger.
(5) Provide fe~dback on NRC actjons to allegers.
- Implement specific criteria and time frames for NRC responses to alleg~rs (e.g., acknowledging allegation receipt and its*
specifics within 30 days; advising allegers within 30 days of the completion of NRC action; and informing allegers every 6 months of the status 9£ their concerns). 4t (6) 'frack, trend and monitor allegations from ;receipt to completion of agency action.
- Implement_ various revisions to the NRC Allegation Manage*
ment System data base, including introducing new fields for tracking and trending all~gations and increasing data retrieval
.functions and data base capacity.
(7) Self assesmient, training, and interface of staff. Establish a Senior Level Service position of Agency Allegations Advisor.
- Conduct annual audits of the Allegation Program in the regions and program offices.
- Emphasize periodic training of appropriate staff.
Public Responsivenes.5 Assurance Plan Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- Include perfon_nance standards for allegation follow-up in the appraisals of appropriate NRC staff and managers.
- Conduct Office Allegation Coordinator counterpart meetings.
Contact:
Edward T. Baker, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 301-415-1282
Background
Emergency preparednes.5 is an integral part of the defense-in-depth philosophy of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) for ensuring a high level of safety at each of the nuclear power plant sites in the U.S. In implementing this philosophy, NRR (1) reviews nuclear power plant licensee's emergency plans to determine if they conform to current regulations, (2) evaluates the licensee's ability to implement those plans through observation of periodic exercises, and* (3) reviews the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) findings on the adequacy of the *state and local offsite emergency preparedness programs.
Other activities in the area of emergency preparedness that involve public participation include (1) holding public meetings following _
emergency plan exercises evaluated by both FEMA and the NRC, (2) reviewing petitions submitted by members of the p~blic for NRC to take action against a licensee under its applicable regulations, (3) re- .
sponding to inquiries from the public on specific emergency prepared-ness i~es, (4) evaluating proposed changes to the NRC's rules gov-erning emergency planning, and (5) responding to allegations from individuals or groups concerning emergency prepai:edness at a specific licensee or licensees.
The population that resides within approximately 10 miles of a nuclear power plant site is provided with information on the radiological emergency plans that would impact them and the actions they are expected to take in the unlikely event of a severe accident at the plant.
This information is provided annually to those residents by each nuclear power plant licensee. Emergency planning and preparednes.5 entails a 15 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness As.5urance Plan Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation number of issues with which the public can readily identify (e.g.,
evacuation of homes, protection of children, and damage to property, etc.). Thus, the public has a genuine interest in emergency preparednes.5, both on an individual and a community level, and may want additional information. However, in many instances, this information has not been readily available and the public is not aware of from where or whom that additional information may obtained.
NRR's procedures for handling emergency preparedness issues do not explicitly exclude public participation. However, there are activities involving emergency planning where NRC and the public could benefit from increased participation by the public. Several improvements are being considered Planned Improvements (1) When revisions to emergency planning rules which significantly impact offsite emergency planning are proposed, every effort will be made to encourage public input and participation through the use of publicity, meetings, and workshops.
(2) When appropriate, respond to public inquiries regarding emergency planning by telephone. H a written response is needed and cannot be IBfil!ed within a reasonable time, provide the requester a status report by telephone at specified intervals.
(3) Conduct, as appropriate, public meetings following BP-related inspections to discuss findings.
(4) Modify, as necessary, the existing memorandum of understanding with FEMA to establish procedures for working more efficiently with FEMA on State and local emergency preparedness issues raised by the public (e.g. 2206 petitions, allegations).
Contact:
Thomas H. Essig, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 301-415-2910 NUREG/BR-0199 16
Public Responsiveness ~ance Plan Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Electronic Information Exchange
Background
In 1992, NRR held a workshop on the current licensing basis. After the workshop, NRR conducted audits of two licensees' electronic methods for locating the facilities' licensing basis. During these audits, the licensees informed NRR of the need for an agreed-upon electronic standard or format for electronic information exchange (EIE) between the NRC and the public.
In 1993, the licensees proposed that a joint effort be sponsored by the Nuclear Information and Records Management Aswciation (NIRMA) and NRC, and acknowledged by the Nuclear Energy Institute, to investiga~ and recommend to the NRC a standard for EIE. Every three or foµr months since June 1993, a joint NIRMNNRC task force has been holding public meetings during which a number of standards, formats, and related ismles have been examined. Automating the ex-change of information with th~ licensees and improving public access to regulatory documents will play a pivotal role in managing the large volume of documents generated within and received by the NRC. NRC electronic initiatives will make it easier for the public to gain access to NRC materials. An open workshop was held on December 7, 8, and 9, 1994, to present the findings from the NIRMNNRC task force, to -
solicit public recommendatio~ and to inform the public of the status of information technology activities within the NRC. The NIRMA report is scheduled to be presented to the NRC in the middle of 1995.
Electronic transmittals will ultimately replace paper. However, for the time being, while paper is still required, the NRC and licensees will benefit from receiving infonnation that is ready for direct input to
~xisting or planned data/text files. The NRC, its licensees, and the general public will be able to retrieve information more readily as these data/text files are established and opened to the public as read-only systems. NRR and the Office of Information Resources Management (IRM) will continue to support these EIE and related communication efforts by establishing a pilot program with licensees to actively demonstrate proposed solutions in the EIE and communication areas.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Planned Improvements (1) Implement a pilot program with two licensees in each region on a voluntary basis to exchange complex documents to test the various formats and standards appropriate for the majority of the industry.
The goal will be to minimire the impact to the public while the NRC designs or adopts systems to improve the efficiency of information retrieval in a cost-beneficial manner.
(2) Continue demonstrations of electronic communications with the public and licensees using Internet, E-mail, and Mosaic appli-cations. NRC will broaden the Mosaic users group as appropriate and as requested by the public.
(3) Place the licensing Authority File, which contains the technical specifications for all nuclear power plants, on an electronic bulletin board As with other electronic bulletin boards, this file will be ,
accesfilble to the NRC and the public in a user friendly application.
Contact David Wigginton, Office of Nuclear Rea~or Regulation, 301-415-1301 Charles E. Fitzgerald, Office of Information Resources Management, 301-415-7220 NUREG/BR-0199 18
Public Responsiven~ Asfillrance Plan Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Enrichment Facility Licensing and Certification The NRC's role in regard to enrichment facilities is either licensing commercial facilities (such as the Louisiana Energy Services (JES) enrichment facility) or certifying the gaseous diffusion plants at Paducah, Kentucky and Portsmouth, Ohio (which are owned by the U.S. Depart-ment of Energy and leased and operated by the United States Enrich-ment Corporation, a government-owned corporation).
- Background on Licensing of Commercial Facilities In January 1991, Louisiana Energy Services submitted an application to construct and operate a gas centrifuge enrichment plant near Homer, Louisiana. licensing under 10 CFR Part 70 *provides for public par-ticipation. For example, it incorporates by reference the requirements of Part 51 regarding environmental impacts. There are formal and informal interactions with the public and involved Federal, State, and local government agencies. In July 1991, the NRC held a public scoping meeting in Homer,. Louisiana, to obtain input on the content of the environmental impact statement The meeting was announced in the Federal Register and in local newspapers. A summary of the scoping meeting was made available to the participants. Many meetings between
- NRC staff and the applicant were held which were open to the public, and Citizens Against Nuclear 'frash (CANT), a group opposed to the facility, was notified of the meetings. The staff has had numerous interactions with State and Fede~ officials concerning the project. A local public document room was established to give the public access to documents related to the proces&.
When the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published,
.a Federal Register notice was is&ied providing for a 45-day public com-
. ment period. More than 500 individual letters were received in response to the notice. Many requested an extension of the public comment period, and a 15-day extension was granted. All extension letters were acknowledged, and all requesters were sent a copy of the Federal Register notice announcing the extension. Before issuing the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the staff attended a meeting held by CANT and met with some local officials. The FEIS was issued 19 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards in August 1994. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP) is conducting a formal hearing on this licensing action in two phases.
The first phase took place in July 1994 in Shreveport, Louisiana. Phase 1 was open to the public, and between 50 and 100 members of the public came, although they were not allowed to participate. Participation in the hearing is limited to the intervenors, the applicant, and the staff; the State is allowed limited participation. During the first phase of the hearing, the AfiLBP held a Saturday session in Homer, Louisiana, to hear *limited appearance statements from the public. The second phase will be held in March 1995 in Shreveport, Louisiana.
Background on Gaseous Diffusion Plant Certification The*Energy Policy Act of 1992 mandates that NR~ "certify" the safe operation of the gaseous diffusion plants run by the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC). These plants have been operating for about 40 years and were officially leased to USEC on July 1, 1993.
Public interest in the initial certification is anticipated. The Energy Policy Act required NRC to develop safety and safeguards standards for enrichment plants within two years. NRC is further required to establish a certification process under which the two gaseous diffusion plants will be certified annually by the NRC for compliance with the standards.
NRC must report to Congress annually on the status *of the plants. NRC developed 10 CFR Part 76 which establishes technical, legal, and ad-ministrative requirements for the NRC's regulation of the plants. The rule was published in the Federal Register on September 23, 1994. It provides for a public meeting on the certification application to be held if the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, determines that a meeting is in the public interest. The rule also provides for a public comment period on the application. The staff is committed to holding a public meeting on the initial certification. The meeting will be announced in the Federal Register and advertised in local newspapers. The rule also gives the public an opportunity to petition the Commission for review of the director's decision on the certification. To further ~ t the public, local public document rooms will be established in the area of each plant. The first certification application is expected from USEC by April 15, 1995.
The NRC has assigned resident inspectors to both sites. The resident inspectors and other regional officials meet at least annually with State NUREG/BR-0199 20
Public Responsiveness Asfilrrance Plan Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards and local officials. The initial meeting for the Paducah, Kentucky, site has been held and one will be scheduled for the Portsmouth, Ohio site.
Additional meetings will depend upon the interest expressed by the State and local officials.
Since the initial certification has not been completed, it is too early to know how public participation in the annual certifications might be improved.
Planned Improvements
- Enrichment facility licensing and certification is similar to major fuel cycle ~cility licensing, and the improvements planned here are expected to 'facilitate public participation in other major fuel cycle facility licensing actions.
Licensing of Enrichment Facilities (1) When staff review will take longer than 1 year and there is suffi-cient public interest, hold public meetings to obtain comments and disseminate information, as appropriate.
(2) Increase the time allowed for public comment on Draft Environ-mental Impact Statements to balance the interests of the applicant,
- the NRC, and the general public.
Annual Certification of DOE Enrichment Plants (3) Place copies of the application and the decision/certification documents in the local public document rooms as soon as they are received.
(4) Note the availability of the documents in local media so that the public will be made aware of them immediately.
(5) Evaluate the amount of public interest e:xpre~d to determine if public meetings after the initial certification are appropriate.
Contact Merri Hom, Office of Nuclear Material Safety & Safeguards 301-415-8126 21 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness Asrurance Plan Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Decommissioning of Sites and Facilities
Background
Over the last 40 years, operations at licensed nuclear facilities have caused radiological contamination at a number of sites. This contami-nation must be remediated in a timely and efficient manner to ensure protection of the public and the environment before the sites can be released and the license terminated The NRC terminates about 300 licenses each year, most of which are routine and do not involve sig-nifi.cant remediation. The NRC's Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SO:MP) list of about 50 sites that require special attention to resolve decommissioning policy and regulatory is.5ues, as well as to prompt timely decommissioning at these sites.
- The public has expre~d interest in the decommissioning of a number of licensed sites. The amount of effort devoted by the NRC to public informa~on and responsiveness activities varies from site to site, based on the amount of public concern and the complexity of the action required For example, if a local c;ommunity expres.5e8 concerns asso-ciated with licensing actions, the NRC considers holding, and has often hel4 a public meeting to explain NRC's role, the characteristics of the site, and the licensee's planned decommissioning approach and al-ternatives. At sites where concern has been expressed by the public and elected officials, the staff has invested a substantial effort in meeting periodically with officials and members of the public.
m
,On basis of its experience overseeing decommissioning activities at a number of sites, the NRC has identified goals for improving public involvement in the ongoing licensing of decommissioning actions. These include establishing and building trust between citizens, agencies and licensees; enhancing the openness of the process for public observation, information and involvement; answering questions from the public in a timely manner; and encouraging licensee openness and responsiveness to legitimate public concerns, including presentation of a decom-missioning program at the outset. Effective communication with the public before initiating decommissioning or the NRC's approval of the decommissioning plan could save many hours later in answering questions or responding to allegations.
Public Responsiveness Asrurance Plan Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards The NRC has also enhanced opportunities for public involvement in rulemaking activities related to decommissioning. After Commission approval of the rulemaldng plan in November 1992, NRC conducted an "Enhanced Participatory Rulemaking" on radiological criteria for decommis.sioning. The objective was to provide early and substantive opportunities for discus.sing issues with a wide variety of interested parties before developing a proposed rule. As part of this effort, NRC conducted seven rulemaking workshops around the country from January through May 1993, and eight scoping meetings in four cities in July 1993, to gather early public comments. In addition, in December 1994, NRC conducted a workshop on the potential use of Site-Specific Advisory Boar~ This provision of the proposed rule on radiological criteria for decommissioning (59 FR 43200; August 20, 1994) is intended to enhance meaningful and timely public participation in decommission.
Based on this and licensing experience, NRC believes it is important to engage interested parties early in the process.
Plt!,nned Improvements Based on tl;le Enhanced Participatory Rulemaking, licensing experiences, and two comprehensive reviews, NRC plans to make the following improvements to enhance opportunities for public involvement and information in the decommissioning program for nuclear materials facilities.
(1) When a site is placed on the SDMP list or a decommissioning plan is submitted for a site not on the SDMP list, the staff will notify the State liaison Officer, the State agency respoilSlble for radiological controls, and the county, city or town where the site is located, or affected Tubal governments, in addition to the current practice of notifying State environmental protection ag~ncies and the applica-ble U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regional office.
(2) Make all NRC meetings with contaminated site licensees and respoDS1ble parties open to the public for observation (consistent with the policy statement on staff meetings open to the public in 59 FR 48340; September 20, 1994). NRC will provide advance notice, to the extent feasible, of these meetings to State, 'llibal and local officials and the public. NRC will conduct a significant proportion of such meetings in the vicinity of the site.
23 , NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (3) Develop and distribute a brochure on the NRC's regulatory process for decommissioning, including a description of radiological criteria that are currently being used to evaluate the adequacy of decommissioning actions. This pamphlet will be distributed to
- interested officials and members of the public.
(4) Identify theNRC project manager as the principal NRC point of contact for each _decommissioning site. This individual will work closely with other NRC staff to ensure a coordinated response to public concerns and inquiries.
(5) Announce the availability of decommissioning plans and related documents, in the Federal Register and local media, as appropriate, -
and offer an opportunity for a hearing on proposed license amend-ments. NRC will generally @licit written comments on the draft docume~ts prior to taking licensing actions to approve site decom-missioning plans, except in cases where the contamination is extremely limited or schedules imposed by outside parties (other than licensees) do not allow sufficient time for such review prior to approval.
(6) Where NRC determines that an environmental nnpact statement (EIS) needs to be prepared, the staff will hold a public meeting on the intended scope of the EIS near the site as part of the scoping process, in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR Part 51.
NRC will solicit oral and written comments on what environmental impact and what decommissioning alternatives should be con-sidered as part of the EIS. The NRC will advertise the meeting, in the local media. The NRC will also distnbute copies of the DEIS to designated Federal, State, and local representatives and members of the public who attend the scoping meeting or otherwise express interest in the decommissioning action.
(7) Conduct additional opportunities for public information and in-volvement in the decommissioning process on a site-specific basis, considering the level of hazards involved and the public interest expressed.
Contact:
Michael Weber, Office of Nuclear Material Safety &
Safeguards,301-415-7298 NUREG/BR-0199 24
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Improvement of the Rulemaking Process
Background
The NRC is responsible for developing regulations (rulemakings) needed to execute its Atomic Energy Act responsibilities to regulate the domestic use of radioactive materials so as to protect the public health and safety. The rulemaking process is dictated by the .Administrative Procedure Act which, in most cases, calls for opportunity for public re-view and comment in the development of Federal regulations. Hence, Commission rulemakings typically provide for a period of public com-ment before proposed rules are made final.
Occasionally, the NRC has conducted workshops to elicit early sub-stantive input from the public into the rulemaking proces& In a recent rulemaking on radiological criteria for decommissioning, the Com-
- IllIBfilon held a series of workshops across the country and *established an electronic bulletin board to further enhance the degree of public participation in this particular rulemaking.
Planned Improvements As a consequence of its success in facilitating early and substantive public involvement in the decommissioning rulemaking, the Commis.5ion will set up an electronic bulletin board for all future rulemakings and will routinely hold workshops for particularly complex or controversial I
rulemakings. Specifically, as a rulemaking improvement plan, the Commission will (1) Expand the use of workshops as a means to elicit early, substantive public input on particularly complex or controversial rulemakings.
(2) Use electronic bulletin boards to facilitate public review of and comment upon all future proposed rulemakings. Through the electronic bulletin board, the proposed rule, all supporting documents, background information, and summaries of any public workshops that are held will be available for on-line viewing and downloading by the public.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (3) Explore more interactive concepts in the use of electronic media, such as REGNET, to further enhance public involvement in agency rulemakings.
Contact:
Sher Bahadur, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, 301-415-6237 Petitions for Rulemaking-10 CFR 2.802
Background
Section 2.802 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR -
2.802) allows any interested person to petition the Commi~on to isrue, amend or rescind any regulation. Historically, this rule has been used mainly by some sectors of the public to submit petitions for rulemaking that purport to increase the margins of safety. A few petitions have also been submitted to maintain existing margins of safety at.reduced cost.
The NRC has found that on the average the time required to grant petitions for_ rulemaking exceeds 30 months. Currently, a summary report of petitions for rulemaking, including the status of each petition, is being prepared by the NRC on a semiannual basis and is available in the NRC's Public Document Room.
The NRC staff currently expends resources developing responses to petitions for rulemaking that may or may not result in changes to NRC regulations. The reasons for the denial of petitions sometimes only become evident after NRC staff has expended considerable effort to develop regulatocy and backfit analyses.
The NRC is proposing to amend 10 CFR 2.802 pertaining to petitions for rulemaking so as to alleviate delays.
Planned Improvements (1) Identify a single NRC contact for each petition.
(2) Notify the petitioner of the status of the petition evecy 90 days.
(3) Improve openne~ of the petition for rulemaking process by establishing criteria for prioritizing petitions.
Public Responsiveness As&lrance Plan Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (4) Provide incentives to submit sufficient information in petitions through more expeditious resolution and disposition of petitions.
(5) Clearly identify the supporting information that must be submitted with the petition to facilitate more expeditious disposition.
(6) Provide guidance to the public for the preparation of petitions for rulemaking through Regulatory Guides.
Contact 1:Y. Chang, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, 301-415-6450 27 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsivenes.s Assurance Plan Office of State Programs Office of State Programs Program Reviews of Agreement States
Background
Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), as amended, enacted by the Congres.s in 1959, recognized the States' interest in atomic energy activities. Under Section 274, the NRC is permitted to relinquish to the States, on a State-by-State basis, certain of its authority to regulate the use of reactorproduced isotopes, source materials uranium and thorium, small quantities of special nuclear materials, uranium mill tailings, and the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. The States that have agree-ments with the NRC allowing them to regulate these activities are called Agreement States. At present, 29 Agreement States regulate appro:xi-mately 15,000 radioactive materials licensees.
Section 274 requires the NRC to review Agreement State radiation control programs periodically. Every two years, the NRC conducts a formal onsite review of an Agreement State radiation control program to determine its continued adequacy and compatibility. NRC personnel also make an informal visit to every agreement State every other year.
- Immediately after the onsite review is finished, NRC staff holds exit meetings with senior radiation control program managers to discuss preliminary NRC findings. A formal written report concerning the pro-gram review is sent to the Agreement State after it has been approved by NRC senior management. (In cases where the NRC proposes to withhold a finding of either adequacy or compatibility, program review reports are also reviewed and approved by the Commission). NRC requests that an Agreement State respond in writing to program review findings and recommendations and to identify any corrective measures that should be implemented. Since, in the past, some of the NRC's program reviews have not been sent to the Agreement States in a timely manner, a backlog exists. The NRC Office of State Programs is committed to reducing this backlog in FY 1995 and to implementing measures to is&le the program reviews in a more timely manner.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of State Programs Planned Improvements:
(1) Send the written program review report to the State within 90 days following the review.
(2) Prepare an internal Program Review Handbook detailing proce-dures for drafting, reviewing, and is&ring review reports.
(3) Emphasize timely communication between headquarters and regional staff to obtain feedback and streamline the report preparation and approval p r ~
(4) Identify an Office of State Programs contact to whom inquiries regarding specific program reviews can be directed.
Contact Richard L Bangart, Office of State Programs, 301-415-3340
't' Technical Assistance to Agr~ent States
Background
Section 274i of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), as amended, authorizes the Commission to give technical assistance to the States. The legislative analysis of the bill which amended the AEA by adding Section 274
- (Senate Report No. 870), made it clear that the intent of this authority was to "assist the States to prepare for, and carry out, independent State radiation protection programs." Thus, it is the policy of the NRC to provide technical asfilStance to Agreement States, as appropriate. Toch-nical assistance is of three types: (1) routine technical asfilStance, which is provided to Agreement States as a normal part of NRC's day-to-day contact with Agreement States, (2) specific technical assistance, which requires specific assignment of NRC staff or consultants for a specified period of time and for a specified job; and (3) programmatic technical assistance, which is the asmstance provided to an Agreement State that is experiencing problems of a programmatic nature. In giving technical assistance to Agreement States, the NRC concentrates its resources on those areas that an Agreement State may not be able to address through its own expertise or contractual support. A commitment from NRC to provide a State with technical assistance is made on a case-by-case basis and is dependent on the availability of NRC resources.
29 NUREG/BR-0199,
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of State Programs Agreement States request NRC's technical assistance through a variety of means. Usually, minor technical assistance is sought through tele-phone calls to either the Office of State Programs staff or to other appropriate NRC office or regional staff. Agreement States send written requests for more substantial technical assistance involving multiple organizations, significant expenditure of staff time, or the use of con-sultants. In other cases, the NRC can initiate technical assistance re-quests by offering such assistance to an Agreement State. The Director, Office of State Programs, coordinates the review of technical as.9stance requests with regional administrators and directors of affected program offices. The schedule for completing the assistance arrangement is mutually agreed to by all affected organizations, including the Agreement State. Throughout the process, the Agreement State offers e
feedback about the quality of the assistance.
Planned Improvements:
(1) Once a request for asmstance is received, contact the Agreement State to establish a completion date and identify the NRC staff member assigned to provide the assistance. Work to ensure that the originally negotiated completion date is met 80 percent of the time.
If task complexity, resource limitations, or competing priorities preclude completion by the originally scheduled date, negotiate a new completion date the Agreement State. Provide technical assistance to the Agreement States in accordance with the original
- or extended completion date 95 percent of the time. *
(2) Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the assistance by streamlining task priority setting.
Contact Richard L Bangart, Office of State Programs, 301-415-3340 Regulatory Review of Agreement State Proposed Regulations
Background
In addition to performing the formal reviews for adequacy and compati-bility, NRC asks Agreement States to give NRC an oppo~ty to com-ment on draft proposed regulations. Usually, the regulations are re-viewed by the Office of State Programs at the time the State accepts NUREG/BR-0199 30
Public Responsiven~ Assurance Plan Office of State Programs comments from the public. While the regulation is in draft form, the Office of State Programs and other appropriate NRC offices (generally the Offices of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Nuclear Regu-latory Research, and the General Counsel) submit technical, legal, and editorial comments. Also in conjunction with NRC reviews of Agree-ment State regulatory programs, NRC staff reviews the status of State activities to adopt new regulations to determine if they are compatible with NRC regulations.
The time required for completion of review of draft State regulations is determined largely by the Agreement State's own administrative rule-making process. The Office of State Programs endeavors to meet the State's schedule. The Office of State Programs normally~ the draft comments with the State staff by telephone to resolve concerns and ensure understanding of the regulations and the comments. Then the Office of State Programs provides written comments to the State.
When time constraints will delay a normal response past the State schedule, the Office of State Programs sends comments to the Agree-ment State by facsimile.
On occasion, the Office of State Programs may have to defer the review of an Agreement State's draft regulation due to higher priority work or special projects.
- Planned Improvements:
(1) Expand the current goal of providing timely written comments to the Agreement State during the adoption of the regulation by providing verbal notification to the State on a draft regulation received and asmgned for review, or when NRC has to defer a review.
(2) Streamline the review of draft regulations and the process of pro-viding comments so that comments will normally be provided to the State within 60 days after the draft regulation is received. The Agreement States will be requested to submit copies of draft regulations at least 60 days before the end of the public comment period fo,r the rulemak:ing.
Public Responsiveness Asmrrance Plan Office of State Programs (3) Place copies of the draft regulations and the written comments resulting from the review in the PDR.
Contact:
Richard L Bangart, Office of State Programs, 301-415-3340 Agreement State 'Iraining
Background
Section 274i of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), as amended, authorizes the Commission to provide training to the States. The legislative analysis of the bill which amended the AEA by adding section 274 made it clear that the intent of this authority was to "assist the States to prepare for, and cany out, independent State radiation protectio:Q programs."
Therefore, NRC offers training courses to Agreement State personnel, and in some instances, to nonAgreement State personnel, to increase their technical and regulatory knowledge in those areas n e ~ for competent work in a State radiation control program.
Th asfilSt in providing consistent high-quality training, the Agreement State technical training program has been consolidated within the NRC's Tochnical 'fraining Division in the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data. This consolidation will also help provide greater uniformity in materials training programs for NRC and Agreement State staff. NRC has coordinated the content, nature, and attendance at these courses with Agreement State personnel and the Conference of Radiation Control program directors. 'fraining activities are developed and scheduled through a 1 to 2 year period A schedule of planned courses is sent to the Agreement States annually, and the current goal is to send specific course notices and schedule to the State personnel 60 days before the course starts. Those wishing to attend are asked to apply as soon as p~ble. Currently, the NRC has a 30-day advance notification of acceptance goal, but this goal is not always met. The quality of the course is monitored by a subjective evaluation of questionnaires and evaluation forms completed by course participants.
Planned Improvement:
(1) Conduct monthly training planning meetings to ensure that in all cases training availability notices to Agreement States are received NUREG/BR-0199 32
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Office of State Programs no later than 60 days before a course begins, and that confirmation notices of acceptance into a training course are sent to Agreement States no later than 30 days before the course begins.
Contact:
Richard L Bangart, Office of State Programs, 301-415-3340 33 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness As.surance Plan Regions REGIONS Materials Licensing
Background
Some regional offices have had a significant backlog of materials licens-ing actions. A backlog is defined according to timely i.s.5uance criteria established in 1988 by the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS). Specifically, a licensing action is considered to be in the backlog of such actions for new licenses and amendments to existing licenses if it is still unfinished more than 90 days from the date it was received; for renewals, an action is considered to be backlogged at 180 days.
Region I has proposed and will implement a pilot program to reduce the backlog of materials licensing actions and to maintain consistency in the use of acknowledgment post cards for the receipt of nuclear materials licensing actions.
A combination of factors contnbuted to the backlog in Region I. First, requests for license amendments were much heavier than expected as a result of the decommissioning rule, and later the 100% fee recovery rule. At about the same time, the regional licensing budget for proce&Y ing renewals was cut in order to place additional emphasis on medical
- program inspections. Finally, the region experienced abnormally heavy attrition within its staff of experienced license reviewers. Tu.ken together, these factors contnbuted to the licensing backlog problem which persisted through the early 1990s.
As a result of the large backlog existing in FY 94, Region I reassigned staff to licensing actions with an emphasis on reducing the backlog.
Additionally, NMSS has established a tracking system and timeliness goals for processing regional technical assistance requests and has significantly improved timeliness of these products. Because of this, the backlog of Region I licensing actions was reduced from 263 on Sep-tember 1, 1993, to 83 on September 30, 1994. The goal for FY 95 is to completely eliminate the backlog from Region I materials licensing actions. This will allow all actions to be processed in a timely manner, responding better to the needs of our customers.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Regions In addition, Region I has used the Nuclear Materials Post Card, NRC Fo:i;m 532 (RI), to inform licensees that the region received a licensing action (i.e. new, amep.dment, termination, or renewal). Upon receipt of an action, a unique mail control number is asmgned. The receipt date and mail control number are recorded on the post card and then mailed to the licensee. The post card also lists telephone numbers of the ap-propriate NRC contacts for information about technical issues, status of licensing actions, and fees.
Th improve its responsiveness to the public by reducing the backlog of licensing actions for materials licensees during FY 95, and to maintain consistency in the use of acknowledgement post cards for the receipt of nuclear materials licensing actions, Region I will implement several improvements.
Planned Improvements (1) Maintain management focus on the backloggeo actions to ensure that resources continue to be provided to these actions until the backlog has been e1iminated (2) As.5ign incoming licensing actions to a reviewer within five working days of receipt from the licensee/applicant and indicate the reviewer asmgnment in the License 'Ihlcking System. ..
(3) Hold periodic meetings between reviewers and their management to discuss the status of pending actions.- *
(4) Reduce reviewer processing time by giving the staff better guidance on standards for license format and deficiency questions.
(5) Establish a tracking system to ensure the post card acknowledging receipt of the licensing action is mailed to the licensee within five working days of receipt. Cr0s.5-reference this tracking action with the mail control number in the log book.
(6) Establish a weekly review of the log book to ensure that a post card was mailed for each licensing action received
Contact:
Charles W. Hehl, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards, Region I, 610-337-5281.
Public Responsiveness As&lrance Plan Administrative Activities ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES License Fee Inquiries
Background
The NRC is required by legislation to recover 100 percent of its budget each fiscal year through the assesfilllent of fees. This requires issuing more than 10,000 bills to licensees. There have been significant con-troversies regarding NRC fees, especially those ~or NRC inspections and annual fees. As a result, the NRC staff receives hundreds of letters and telephone calls after each monthly.or quarterly billing cycle. These interactions with the public involve general questions about the purpose of the bills, challenges on the appropriateness of the fees, exemption requests, and questions about license authorizations and fees. Because of the large volume of mail and telephone calls after each billing cycle, the NRC has not always been able to respond to inquiries as quickly as it would like. The goal is t_o answer most correspondence within 45 days after receipt and to respond to 80 percent of routine telephone calls within one day. A sample of correspondence reveals that we have sig-nificantly improved our response time in the past eight months.
Percent of Correspondence Answered Within MonthNr. 30 days 45 days 60 days March 94 39 72 82 (non-peak month)
October 94 72 85 92 (peak month)
Planned Improvements Responding to fee inquiries in a more timely manner is being ap-proached from two perspectives. First, we would like to reduce the need for incoming inquiries. To this end, we plan to:
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Administrative Activities (1) Improve the timeliness of bills so that licensing and inspection bills are is.~ued within 30 days after the end of the billing cycle in order to reduce incoming questions about the purpose of the bills.
(2) Improve the format of the invoices to make them more under-standable so as to eliminate some of the questions that we have received in the past.
(3) Develop a simple pamphlet, containing typical questions and answers that could be included with bills.
The second set of improvements are intended to address the public interaction workload which exceeds the currently available staff during the peak periods that follow ~ c e of bills. We plan to:
(1) Provide interim responses acknowledging receipt of the licensee's letters which involve more complex guestions.
(2) Utilize contractors in performing research and in drafting correspondence during peak periods.
(3) Use more standard letters to respond to frequently asked questions.
Contact:
Diane B. Dandois, Office of Controller, 301-415-7544.
Commercial Payment Inquiries
Background
Prior to Fiscal Year 1993, the commercial payment process was, for the most part, performed manually. In addition to delaying payment, this caused delays in responding to vendor inquiries. Other factors, such as late receiving reports and invoice approval further contributed to payment delays.
The NRC has improved the timeliness of payments to commercial vendors and contractors as shown:
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Administrative Activities Percent of Percent of Payments Payments Madew/o Dollar FISCal Yr. Made On Time Penalties Due Amount 1993 52 92 $18,699 1994 82 94 14,699 At the beginning of Fiscal Year 1993, the NRC implemented a new financial accounting system that includes an automated accounts payable subsystem. The accounts payable subsystem schedules payments to comply with the Prompt Payment Act requirements and automated measurement of payment performance to allow close monitoring by management. The subsystem also contains an online inquiry capability to allow for more timely and more informative responses to vendor inquiries. Additionally, improvements were made in the procedures and logistics to assure timely receiving reports and invoice approvals.
Other efforts have been made to improve agency responsiveness in the commercial payments area. This includes the addition of a customer assistance desk in the commercial payments area and the addition of contractor staff to help process payments. The customer assistance desk allows the commercial payments staff to respond very quickly to vendor inquiries and resolve related problems. A central telephone number was established for this purpose and is included on all check payments and outgoing correspondence.
Planned Improvement (1) Increase the percentage of on-time payments in Fiscal Year 1995 to 84 percent.
Contact:
Anthony C. Rosm, Office of the Controller, 301-415-7341 Contracting Process
Background
NRC complies with the competitive contracting procedures prescribed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation and agency implementing NUREG/BR-0199 38
Public Responsiveness As&lrance Plan Administrative Activities regulations known as the NRC Acquisition Regulation. This contracting process requires substantial contact with the public.
Individuals and firms interested in doing business with the NRC interact with agency contracting staff in a variety of ways. For example, the con-tracting staff frequently receives inquiries from the public regarding NRC contracting opportunities. This usually leads to the individual or firm being placed on the NRC bidders mai1ing list. Once a contract need is identified, NRC begins the process by publicizing a brief synopsis of the requirement in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD). This gives interested firms an opportunity to obtain a copy of NRC's Request for Proposals (RFP) and to compete for NRC work. Potential sources are also identified through the NRC bidders mailing list. Once an individual or organization elects to submit a proposal to NRC, interaction with NRC may involve a preproposal conference, questions relating to pro-posal preparation and sub:mis.gon, and negotiations. Firms that are.
unsuccessful in this process may request a formal debriefing. Those* that are successful in receiving an award will continue to interact with the NRC through participation in a contract startup meeting, regularly scheduled progress review meetings, negotiations associated with re-quired contract changes, and the invoice payment and closeout processes.
For the most part, the public perceives the contracting process as too long and tedious. Although it is designed to ensure equity and fairness in contractor selections, the process often serves as a source of frustra-tion for the general public, not only because there is only one winning proposal but because it frequently takes 6 months to a year or more for the process to reach that point Although the NRC is aware of this per-ception and makes evexy effort to be responsive to the need5 of com-peting firms at each stage of the process, there are few timeliness standards currently in place to clarify expectations and measure NRC performance in this area.
NRC has embarked on a number of initiatives to make the procurement process more efficient and effective, beginning with being designated as a Procurement Reinvention Laboratory under the National Performance Review. Initiatives under the reinvention lab include simplifying the RFP process, implementing the NRC BankCard program, empowering con-tracting personnel through increased delegations of authority, and 39 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Administrative Activities performing a business process reengineering study of the procurement process. These initiatives should help NRC make the contracting process less cumbersome and more in line with the way the public acquires goods and services.
Other utjtiatives are under way to improve the timeliness and quality of NRC staff interactions with the public on contractual matters in general.
These improvements and associated timeliness standards (in working days) are described below.
Planned Improvements In responding to the public under this improved process, the contracting I staff will:
(1) Acknowledge requests from individuals and firms wishing to be added to the NRC bidders maiJing list and mail requested appli-cation packages to requestors within 2 days.
(2) Establish a central point for receipt and tracking of all correspond-ence received by the contracting office so that actions can be assigned and monitored effectively to ensure responses are timely and adequately address the needs of the requestor.
(3) Ensure notices placed in CBD clearly describe the NRC contracting opportunity, the RFP i.sfille date, and a point of contact for obtain-ing a copy of RFP.
(4) Issue the RFP within 1 day of issue date stated in CBD notice unless there is a compelling reason not to do so.
(5) Provide written response to questions from potential offerors re-garding RFP within 10 days of receipt. (H an interim response is n e ~ , the response will give the date on which a final response will be provided.)
(6) Notify competing firms whether they are in/out of the competitive range within 5 days of determination by contracting officer.
(7) Notify winning/losing firms of award decision within 3 days of award.
Public Responsiveness Asmrrance Plan Administrative Activities (8) Provide debriefing after award within 10 days of receipt of request.
(9) Hold kick-off meeting with winning contractor within 5 days of award.
(10) Streamline and automate invoice proceSfilllg procedures to ensure contractors receive timely payments.
(11) Request final audit of contract costs within 75 days of the date that the contract is asmgned for closeout.
Contact Timothy F. Hagan, Office of Administration, 301-415-7305 NRC Headquarters Security Force
Background
The NRC protects the agency's personnel, information systems, and property at the headquarters' White Flint North complex by engaging the services of a private security firm. This security force is currently contracted for by the General Services Administration, Federal Pro-tective Service. Security officers are stationed at various entry points throughout the complex, they conduct roving patrols of the agency's facilities, and perform other security related activities.
The security force has daily contact with employees, contractors, visitors and the general public by checking people who enter and exit the White Flint North complex and by responding to requests for asfilstance or information. Local Area Network capabilities have also been installed for the security officers at fixed locations throughout the White Flint complex to enhance responsiven~ and interaction between the security force and visitors.
During an average month, more than 4,000 individuals visit the NRC for meetings and interaction with NRC staff. This activity, coupled with facility-related contractors, delivery personnel, messengers, and others, comprises an extremely active publicly oriented environment. Every attempt is made to balance protection with service. Public responsive-ness has been measured by feedback. All feedback (both positive and negative) is discussed with the security force project manager and 41 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness Asrurance Plan Administrative Activities corrective action is taken as appropriate. Records maintained on security-related events and tracking of various incidents involving employees, contractor, and the public help form the basis for adjust-ments to security procedures. We expect these measures to result in improved responsiveness.
In order to improve the agency's ability to make significant and imme-diate changes to security officer coverage, NRC is actively pursuing the redelegation of contractual authority from GSA to NRC. Redelegation of this responsibility will provide NRC direct oversight and control over the security force and allow the necessary steps to be taken to improve respoilSlvenes.s.
Plannedlmprovements (1) ~ how well security officers interact with the public and the staff by conducting an initial survey encompasmng security officers, visitors, security advisors, and selected staff to establish a baseline of the current level of service provided by the security force. Con-duct a follow-up survey in November 1995 of customers (staff and visitors) to determine if improvements have been perceived.
(2) Conduct a feasibility study of the use of a video-based visitor access system to expedite entry into the White Flint complex.
(3) Improve security officer public relations and interpersonal skills t through video training and personal briefings.
Contact:
David A Dittmeier, Office of Administration, 301-415-7406.
Employment Applications
Background
It is the policy of the NRC to reply promptly and courteously to all employment applications. The Office of Personnel (OP) serves as the central point of contact for all employment inquiries from within and outside the agency. OP has one system available to capture the timeliness and quality of responses to technical applicants from outside the agency who are interested in being considered for general NRC NUREG/BR-0199 42
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Administrative Activities employment. This system, known as the Applicant Review System (ARS}, maintains a pool of applicants for current and future technical position vacancies, provides a variety of reports that allows for asses&-
ments of the NRC recruitment program, produces a variety of user designed and manipulated reports, and generates responses to applicants applying for general technical employment.
This system works well. However, there are certain other categories of applications that are not handled using a formalized system to acknowledge receipt and disposition of applications. These categories include:
(1) applications in response to specific vacancy announcements (2) applications for special student programs (3) secretarial applications (4) unsolicited administrative applications (5) applications for Senior Executive Service and Senior Level positions.
For these categories, OP staff cannot readily access the status or measure the level of responsiveness without a relatively time-consuming I staff exercise.
The goal of providing all applicants prompt acknowledgement of the receipt and disposition of their employment applications is generally being met. However, there is currently no vehicle to immediately gauge the level of success without a relatively time-consuming process for staff members.
Consistent with current efforts to improve public responsiveness, OP has reviewed the processes associated with all categories of applications.
Our goal is to construct a centralized, automated system that covers all categories of applications. The expanded system will further enhance the quality of the responses to applicants and measure the timeliness of the responses. The system will also provide a greater degree of account-ability to the public and increase staff awareness of the importance of responsiveness to the public.
Public Responsiveness As&rrance Plan Administrative .Activities Planned Improvements:
In responding to the public under this improved proces.5, the Office of Personnel will:
(1) Send an acknowledgement letter to all applicants within 7-10 working days of receipt of application.
(2) Send a letter informing all applicants of the final outcome of their applications within 10 working days of final disposition.
(3) Answer questions from applicants quickly throughout the process.
(4) Provide consistency in the process for responding to all applicants among the four regions and headquarters.
Contact; Jan Clemens, Office of Personnel, 301-415-7530 Quality and Timeliness of Correspondence
Background
The NRC considers the quality and timeliness of agency correspondence as key components of its public responsiveness initiative. Agency correspondence responds to ismies raised by individual citizens, public interest groups, Members of Congress, trade and professional associa-tions, the media, and a variety of other sources. The quality of NRC correspondence directly reflects NRC's responsiveness to the concerns of the requester and the staff's recognition that different audiences require different approaches. The timely manner in which we respond affects whether the public sees us as courteous, accesmble, and understanding of its needs.
The staff reviewed 6 months of correspondence prepared for review and approval of the Chairman and Commissioners to as.5ess the timeliness factor of correspondence. The results show that while the average time to respond was about 15 working days, 25 percent required 20 or more working days for a reply. As part of this review, the Secretariats of five other Federal agencies were contacted to ascertain their procedures and experience in controlling, tracking, and responding to correspondence.
The results of the informal telephone survey indicates that NRC is doing NUREG/BR-0199 44
Public Responsiveness .Asmrrance Plan Administrative Activities
\
significantly better than a number of other agencies and is on par with the best. Neverthel~ the NRC is looking at ways to improve the quality and timeliness of its responses to the public.
Th this end, quality and timeliness improvement plans have been developed.
Planned Improvements (1) Answer all correspondence within 15 working days or if a complete response cannot be developed within that time, prepare an interim reply. This allows approximately 10 working days for the staff to I develop the response and one week for management/Commission review, approval, and dispatch.
(2) Include in the response the name and telephone number of the responsible NRC person who can be contacted for additional information or in the case of an interim response, information regarding the status of the reply.
(3) Update internal procedures to ensure proper tracking and timeliness.
(4) Develop a "Quality of Correspondence Workshop",fqr NRC employees, stres.9ng how to write fqr a specific audience and purpose, how to respond in a logical mann~r, and how to conform to general correspondence style rules and the rules of editing and grammar.
(5) Publish a "Quick Desk Guide to Quality Correspondence" for use by the staff.
(6) Publsh a column, on a continuing basis, in internal agency publications to highlight the importance of clear, well-written responses to the public.
Contact Quality: Walter Oliu, Office of Administration, 301-415-7175 Timeliness: Andy Bates, Office of the Secretary, 301-415-1693 45 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness Asfillrance Plan Administrative Activities Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Program
Background
The NRC FOIA program operates under the requirements established by statutory law, 5 U.S.C. 552, The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and Department of Justice policy guidance. The agency is required to provide the public access to non-exempt NRC records within 10 to 20 work days of the time records are requested.
The FOIA staff interacts with the public by providing access to records maintained by the NRC. All FOIA requests received by the agency are I controlled and coordinated by the FOIA staff. Requests are sent to each NRC office that appears to have responsibility for any of the records that would be included in responding to the request.
- The FOIA staff ~teracts directly with public interest groups, licensees, law offices, bidding contractors, etc., whenever it is neces.5ary to clarify is.sues concerning a request.
Once all issues have been resolved regarding proposed disclosure or nondisclosure, the FOIA staff advises the requester of the releasability of the requested documents. The releasable documents are sent to the requester or are placed in the Public Document Room where the requester may review them there or request copies from the PDR copying contractor.
NRC plans to implement the following initiatives to further enhance the agency's respoDS1oiµty to provide public-access to NRC records:
Planned Improvements (1) Reduce the average time to respond to FOIA requests by 20 percent.
(2) Conduct a survey of FOIA users to determine the level of satisfaction with the current NRC FOIA program.
(3) Hold an FOIA users conference to identify areas for improvement in the current program.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Administrative Activities (4) Conduct regular FOIA training to increase staff cognizance of FOIA policy and to improve quality and timeliness of initial disclosure decisions.
Contact:
Russell A Powell, Office of Administration, 301-415-7169 Local Public Document Room (LPDR) Program
Background
The NRC places a high priority on providing public access to its infor-mation. Through the local public document room (LPDR) program, started by the Atomic Energy Commission in the late 1960s and con-tinued and expanded by the NRC since its inception in 1975, citizens living or working near nuclear power reactors and certain other nuclear facilities have access to the records used by the NRC in licensing and regulating the local facility.
LPDR collections are maintained in academic, public, and state libraries having evening and weekend hours. NRC's LPDR program staff has daily contact with the public and with local hbrarians, and assists them in locating records in the collections. More than seven telephone calls are received and responded to each day on the toll-free LPDR hotline.
By converting the sitespecific paper collections at power reactor and high-level waste LPDRs to NUDOCS microfiche several years ago, the public now has local access to more than 1.5 million records released by the NRC since 1981. Among these are the records on all NRC licensed facilities as well as NRC staff and contractor publications, rulemaking documents, and generic issues. Online access to the NUDOCS data base of publicly available records is currently provided to 41 power reactor and the 2 high level waste LPDRs. Toll-free searches can be conducted approximately 13 hours1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br /> each business day from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Eastern time. Records identified in searches can be viewed and copied from the NUDOCS microfiche at each LPDR. Paper record.5 are still sent to LPDRs that have small collections, such as LPDRs for coI1tamioated sites.
The staff visits LPDRs at least once every 4 years and more frequently as needed in response to library staff changes, increased public interest in the collection, or NRC's need to provide NUDOCS computer 47 NUREG/BR-0199
Public Responsiveness Asmlrance Plan
.Administrative Activities training to librarians and the public. The LPDR staff contacts interested members of the public in the area to inform them of upcoming visits and to invite them to the training sessions. The visits are often pub-licized by the librarians in their newsletters and in local papers, on bulletin boards, and in radio announcements.
A variety of reference tools is placed at each LPDR to help patrons locate records in the collections. These include user's guides and weekly and cumulative accession list printouts identifying the records on the local facility that are available at the library. In addition, weekly and monthly printouts are sent to LPDR patrons interested in certain reactors or issues. Upon request, customized printouts are provided, to LPDR patrons and interested members of the public.
The LPDR program staff also reviews NRC press releases and the Federal Register on a daily basis and informs LPpR librarians and mem-bers of the public who have expressed an interest in certain power reactors or issues when items they have* been looking for are .Published.
All Federal Register notices that refer to power reactors or other facil-ities for which an LPDR exists identify the name and address of the LPDR ,hbrary so the public can go there to find information on the matter discussed in the notice.
The NRC will continue to utilize the LPDR program to respond to the information needs of local citizens living or working near the facilities it regulates. Several improvements are being planned to make the LPDR program more responsive to the public.
Recent Improvements (1) Established LPDRs for the two gaseous diffusion plants in Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio. Ar:. the materials become avail-able, the LPDRs will be provided with collection records, accesfilon lists, instructional materials, reference tools, and any necessary microfiche equipment. Onsite training will be provided as needed.
(2) Started providing LPDRs with facsimile copies of Pre1irninacy Notifications of Occurrences (PNOs) as they are issued. LPDR program staff receives PNOs directly from all regions and imme-diately transmits them to the LPDR for the subject facility.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Administrative Activities (3) Placed postage-paid postcards addressed to the NRC LPDR pro-gram staff at all LPDR libraries. By using the postcards, LPDR librarians and patrons will have another way to conveniently com-municate their comments, problems, and inquiries about the LPDR program to the NRC. In order to monitor agency responsiveness to the local information needs of the public and to plan appropriate improvements in the LPDR program, the NRC will review feed-back from the postcards, the toll-free I.PDR hotline and reports submitted by LPDR librarians.
Planned Improvements (1) Visit at least 22 LPDRs in FY95 to ensure that the collections are complete and up-to-date and that librarians are trained in how to locate records for patrons. Computer training will be provided at those LPDRs that have online access to the NUDOCS database.
The public will be invited to attend the training sessions through publicity provided by the librarians as well as through announcements posted in the libraries.
(2) Connect more LPDRs to the NUDOCS data base. LPDR program staff will work with candidate LPDRs to connect them to the NUDOCS data base an~ provide appropriate training throughout the coming year.
Contact:
Jona Souder, Office of Administration, 301-415-7169.
Public Meeting Notice System
Background
The NRC's long-standing open meeting policy was recently revised to further the goal of providing meaningful opportunities for the public to be informed of NRC activities without unduly affecting open and candid discussions between licensees and the NRC staff or interfering with the NRC staff's ability to exercise its regulatory and safety responsibilities without undue administrative burden. On November 1, 1994, centralized agency services became available to the public for obtaining schedules for the staff meetings that are open to public attendance. The meeting policy is a matter of NRC discretion and may be departed from as NRC convenience and necessity may dictate.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Administrative Activities The NRC's local public document room (LPDR) program staff will receive information *on each meeting open to the public under the revised guidance provided in Management Directive/Handbook 3.5, "Public Attendance at Certain Meetings Involving the NRC Staff."
Meeting information is entered into a database that generates reports of public meetings for posting in the agency's Public Document Room (PDR). A toll-free telephone recording announces upcoming public meetings and a toll-free electronic Bulletin Board System (BBS) contains searchable information on each meeting. The telephone re-cording accommodates multiple concurrent users. The BBS and the telephone recording are operational 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day. The BBS, the telephone recording, and the reports posted in the PDR contain the name and phone number of the NRC meeting contact should a member of the public need additional information on the upcoming meeting.
Several feedback mechanisms are already in place to monitor the effectiveness and usefulness of the public meeting notice system to the public.
(1) People using the toll-free BBS and the toll-free telephone record-ing can leave messages should they need assistance accessing the public meeting database or care to leave comments. Messages will be responded to by the system operator, the system manager, or the LPDR program staff, as appropriate, within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
(2) The name and telephone number of the NRC bulletin board system manager and system operator are also available online should users have questions and want to call them directly.
(3) The toll-free BBS and telephone recording as well as the reports of upcoming meetings available in the PDR include the name ~d phone number of the NRC contact for each meeting, should the public require further information on a particular meeting or have questions.
Planned Improvements (1) Encourage local public document rooms with computer capabilities to provide public access to the toll-free BBS at the LPDR. In addition, provide LPDR libraries weekly printouts of upcoming NUREG/BR-0199 50
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Administrative .Activities public meetings. The phone number for both the toll-free BBS and the telephone recording will be posted in LPDR libraries. LPDR hbrarians and their patrons can report any problems they encounter in the public meeting notice system by calling the toll-free LPDR hotline.
(2) Review and evaluate public comments received during the first six months of operation. Action to initiate changes or modifications needed as a result of these comments will be taken within 5 days.
Contact:
Jona Souder, Office of Administration, 301-415-7169 Office of the Secretary NRC Headquarters Public Document Room
Background
The Headquarters Public Document Room, located at 2120 L Street, Nw, DC, is the central repository of NRC's publicly released document collection. Beginning with a small set of ABC's civilian reactor docket files, the PDR collection has grown to 2.0 million documents and con-tinues to expand at a rate in excess of 300 new items each day. Added together, the paper collection, *microfiche, and reference materials, on-site and in off-site, on-call storage, total 10,000 'linear feet. Documents arrive, primarily as paper, microfiche, audiovisuals, and fully searchable electronic text on diskette or downloaded.
The PDR is staffed with professional reference hbrarians, all of whom have received technical training in reactor systems at the Chattanooga technical training facility. They interact directly with the members of the public who visit, phone, fax, send letters, or e-mail over Internet. In 1994, over 13,000 requests for PDR services were placed, with recorded usage of 46,000 files. In 1994, more than 3.8 million paper copies, over 16,000 microfiche, and nearly 400 diskettes were reproduced for members of the public.
The public's primary search/retrieval system is the PDR's computerized, online Bibliographic Retrieval System (BRS). At the end of CY 1994*
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Administrative Activities there were 423 on-site and remote password holders for this system.
With the availability of professional reference staff to aid in computer searches, the PDR is able to assure equal access for those who don't have their own terminals. The BRS was designed specifically for conducting rapid, accurate searches of the database for the types of queries generated by FDR's varied user population (individual members of the public, Congressional staff, media repr~ntatives, staffs of other agencies, foreign embassies, law firms, States, consulting firms, public interest groups, and the like). Many users take advantage of the FDR's automatic document ordering and delivery program for 39 distinct types of documents and reports as they arrive in the FDR.
Planned Improvements (1) The BRS schedule for CY 1995 includes upgrades to search and retrieval functions, such as a "Selective Dissemination of Infor-mation" feature to improve the user's awarene~ of new documents of interest, the addition of more types of documents in electronic format, and revision of the Users' Guide.
(2) To aid users in finding documents, comprehensive bibliographic compilations of, respectively, Generic and Administrative Letters and a guide to frequently sought information resources in NRC and other agencies are in progr~
(3) In February, 1995, the FDR Bulletin Board went onto FedWorld and includes announcements of Commission and Advisory Committee meetings.
(4) 800 number connections to BRS and to the FDR reference service are planned (5) Expanding media to include documents on CDROM is under development.
(6) SECY will continue to work with staff to seek ways to shorten the time for newly released documents to reach the PDR
Contact:
Elizabeth J. Yeates, Office of the Secretary, 202-634-3380 NUREG/BR-0199 52
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Administrative Activities Office of the Secretary's White Flint Activities
Background
SECY's daily interface with members of the public in its White Flint operations occurs in four primary areas:
- receiving public comments on agency rulemakings;
- informing the public and responding to questions about Com-m.iSfilon meeting schedules;
- responding to questions about Commission decision-making papers (SECY papers); and
- handling incoming and outgoing public correspondence.
Through the years, SECY has developed and enhanced the mechanisms for service in these areas by initiating:
- a postcard response system to acknowledge receipt of each rule-making comment;
- a telephone recording system and the scrolling of Commission meeting information on the Lobby 1V;
- an advance copy procedure for expediting the public release of SECY papers, Staff Requirements Memoranda, and Commis.sion Votes; and
- improved procedures for expediting approval of executive corre-spondence and placement in the Public Document Room.
Planned Improvements (1) Development of a SECY "Home Page" for inclusion in the NRC "Home Page" on the World Wide Web via Internet, which will feature information on open Commission meetings, NRC history, the Public Document Room, and the submission of filings and comments on NRC rulemakings.
(2) Electronic production of acknowledgement cards to speed up mail-ings to rulemaking commenters.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Administrative Activities (3) Electronic distribution of the Commission's meeting schedule to interested individuals via Internet.
(4) Exploring electronic submittal of correspondence and Federal Register Notices on Commission rulemakings to speed up document processing for placement in the PDR.
Contact:
Sandy Joosten, Office of the Secretary, 301-415-1962 Office of Public Affairs Informing the Public
Background
One of the primary objectives of NRC's Public Affairs Program is to make available to the public full and complete information on NRC activities to asfilSt the public in making informed judgements regarding NRC activities. The primary means of keeping the public informed about the regulatory activities and programs of the NRC is primarily through the news media.
The Office of Public Affairs (OPA) informs the media by:
- Issuing news releases, speeches and fact sheets;
- Distnbuting reports, decisions and other documents reflecting NRC actipns;
- Arranging for NRC officials to give press conferences and talk with editorial boards of major newspapers around the country,
- Having NRC officials respond to media questions after Commission meetings, staff meetings with licensees, plant visits, special inspec-tions and other significant meetings; and
- Tulking to the media in person or by telephone.
Approximately 500 press releases are issued annually to the news media and an estimated 12,000 news media inquiries are handled annually by OPA staff in headquarters and the regions. All press releases are placed NUREG/BR-0199 54
Public Responsiven~ Assurance Plan Administrative Activities in NRC's document retrieval system, NUDOCS, to which many news organizations have access.
Information is provided directly to the public in a number of ways. All press releases are available in NRC's Public Document Room in Washington, D.C. and in Local Public Document Rooms near nuclear facilities. Staff responds to daily inquiries from the public over the telephone and in writing. 'Iypically responses to written inquiries (about 600 each year) are made within two days and often include such pamphlets as those about the NRC, nuclear waste, licensing of nuclear power plants, NRC's research program, and the public petition process.
A video about the NRC is available upon request to audiences including schools, community organizations, consumer groups and any others, including public television stations, interested in learning about regula-tion of nuclear activities. Speakers are provided on request to talk to interested groups, including area schools. For these talks, NRC em-ployees often use a standard slide presentation or the NR<:; video.
Planned Improvements (1) Make available pr~ releases for the past 30 days at FedWorld through the Internet (2) Provide full text of press releases on an electronic bulletin board available to the public. Explore transmittal of pr~ releases to news organizations through Internet.
(3) Announce to the public available listings of NRC public meetings, toll-free telephone numbers, electronic bulletin boards, etc. when they become available in NRC.
(4) Develop pamphlets for the general public covering basic facts on and NRC's role in nuclear waste, radiation, decommissioning of nuclear facilities, and current uses of radioisotopes. Complete a pamphlet on the process for resolving allegations concerning NRC regulated activities. Display these pamphlets and other appropriate material in the Exlu'bit Center space in the 1\vo White Flint North building at NRC headquarters.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Administrative Activities (5) Produce a new movie about the NRC that appeals to a broad audience and better reflects our philosophy a,nd practice of openn~ and responsiveness to the public.
(6) Develop guidelines for the staff to be more responsive to media inquires.
(7) Develop simple exhibits for the Thro White Flint North building at NRC headquarters to inform the public about what the NRC does and some basic nuclear concepts.
(8) Work with other offices to update NUREG/BR-0010, Citizen's Guide to U.S. NRC Information to a.8filll"e user-friendlineS&.
Develop supplemental guidance for acces.sing electronic infor-mation at NRC.
(9) Update pamphlets and fact sheets on the* licensing process~
low-level waste, and transportation of spent fuel.
(10) Seek out opportunities throughout the agency to make information easily available to the public through press releases, radionv announcements, pamphlets, and speaking engagements.
Contact Beth Hayden, Office of Public Affairs, 301-415-8200 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Advisory Co~mittee on Nuclear Waste ACRS/ACNW Activities
Background
The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) and the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) provide an important link between the public and the NRC. They review significant portions of the agency's activities and encourage other government agencies, industry representatives, states, Indian Nations, and other interested parties to participate in their deliberations. In a real sense, the NUREG/BR-0199 56
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Administrative Activities Committees act as a SOU1;1ding board on various technical issues for all interested or impacted parties.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) states that advisory com-mittees are constituted to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the Government's decision-making processes. It requires that, with few exceptions, each advisory committee meeting be open to the public, that agencies publish adequate advance notice of planned meetings in the Federal, Register, and that meeting locations and times be reasonably accessible and convenient. We receive several requests annually from the public for the ACRS or ACNW to review technical issues, and depending on the subject, we either forward them to the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) for disposition or the cogni7'.allt Committee reviews the issue. We carefully track EDO responses to these requests.
Requests from the public to participate in ACRS/ACNW meetings are granted in almost all cases. A~S/ACNW meeting presentation sched-u1es, minutes, letter reports, and transcripts are always provided to NRC's Public Document Room.
Planned Improvements:
(1) Respond timely to all public requests for ACRS or ACNW review
- of technical issues.
(2) Request a declassification review of all classified Committee rec-ords and make the resultant declassified records publicly available.
(3) Respond timely and affirmatively to all public requests to partici-pate in ACRS or ACNW meetings.
(4) Ensure ACRS and ACNW meeting information is provided to the Public Document Room pursuant to the Federal Advisory Com-mittee Act.
(5) Provide more efficient and expeditious responses to public inquir-ies and quicker transmission of documents to the Public Document Room through use of the new text management system of auto-mated storage and retrieval of incoming and outgoing documents, including key reference documents.
Public Responsiveness Assurance Plan Administrative Activities (6) Develop the ACRS/ACNW MOSAIC Home Page (using Internet and LAN networking): the external page will allow world-wide public access to current ACRS/ACNW information including meeting schedules and agendas; the internal page will involve a common interface to NRC databases and provide the staff access to other non-NRC databases, including those of licensees, public interest groups and Congress.
(7) Initiate integrated videoconferencing that combines video with data sharing. When implemented, industry, individual citizens and public interest groups will not have to be physically present to participate in advisory committee meetings.
Contact:
John Larkins, ACRS/ACNw, 301-415-7360 Office of the General Counsel Response to Public Inquiries
Background
The Office of the General Counsel has direct interaction with the public in regard to inquiries from the public concerning the following areas:
- Tolephone inquiries concerning the application of NRC Regulations to specific circumstances, or on the status of various regulatory activities.
- Inquiries related to administrative and judicial proceedings on licensing, enforcement, and other is&Ies.
- Inquiries related to the investigation and evaluation of claims under the Federal Tort Claims Acts.
- The Office of the General Counsel does not have any formal pro-cedures or guidance on the handling of telephone inquiries from the public, either in terms of timeliness or quality.
Planned Improvements (1) A set of formal procedures will be developed to provide guidance to OGC staff in responding to telephone inquiries from the public.
Public Responsiveness Asfillrance Plan Administrative Activities These procedures will assure that inquiries will be handled in a timely, courteous, and responsive manner; they will assure that all inquiries are directed to the OGC or technical staff most likely to be able to address the matter; and that the responsive staff will endeavor to provide a clear and complete response to each tele-phone inquiry.
(2) A new subsection will be added to the Office of the General Counsel Operating Manual to incorporate the procedures developed regarding telephone inquiries from the public. This subsection will be distnbuted to all OGC Employees with a memorandum from the General Counsel that will emphasize the importance of adhering to these procedures.
Contact:
Jeffrey L Bartlett, Office of the General Counsel, 301-415-1514 59 NUREG/BR-0199
120555145518 US ~JRC - SECY 1 lA01co11A1181 BRANCH CHIEF DOCKETING 1WFN - I6G15 R SERVICE BR WASHINGTON DC ?0555