 |
Search Options | |||
| Index | Site Map | FAQ | Facility Info | Reading Rm | New | Help | Glossary | Contact Us |  |
|||
Home > Electronic Reading Room > Document Collections > Commission Documents > Commission Meetings, Slides, Transcripts, Meeting SRMs, and Full Written Explanation for Closed Meetings > 1997
>
01/13/1997
1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
***
BRIEFING ON NRC STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT
***
PUBLIC MEETING
***
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
One White Flint North
11555 Rockville Pike
Rockville, Maryland
Monday, January 13, 1997
The Commission met in open session, pursuant to
notice, at 10:08 a.m., the Honorable SHIRLEY A. JACKSON,
Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, Chairman of the Commission
KENNETH C. ROGERS, Member of the Commission
GRETA J. DICUS, Member of the Commission
NILS J. DIAZ, Member of the Commission
EDWARD McGAFFIGAN, JR., Member of the Commission
. 2
STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
JOHN C. HOYLE, Secretary
EDWARD JORDAN, Strategic Assessment and
Rebaselining Committee
JOHN CRAIG, Strategic Assessment and Rebaselining
Committee
JACQUELINE SILBER, Strategic Assessment and
Rebaselining Committee
GEORGE PANGBURN, Section Leader Fuel Cycle
Licensing Branch, NMSS
FRANK MIRAGLIA, Acting Director, NRR
THEMIS SPEIS, Deputy Director, RES
STUART RUBIN, Chief Diagnostic Evaluation and
Incident Investigation Branch, AEOD
LAWRENCE CHANDLER, Assistant General Counsel For
Hearings and Enforcement, OGC
JAMES SHEA, Director, Division of Bilateral
Cooperation and Assistance, IP
JESSE FUNCHES, Deputy Controller, CFO
. 3
P R O C E E D I N G S
[10:08 a.m.]
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen.
Today the Commission will be briefed by the
Strategic Assessment and Rebaselining Steering Committee on
the results of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission interaction
with stakeholders.
The Commission has received the Stakeholder
Interaction Report prepared by the Steering Committee. We
requested this briefing in order to discuss the interaction
process and to review the views provided through the
meetings and public comments.
The environment, as you know, within which the
Commission operates is changing on many levels. The NRC has
seen indications that changes will occur in its
responsibilities and its budget, in the expectations of our
stakeholders, and in market forces.
Against the backdrop of these changes in our
regulatory and fiscal environment, one of my first actions
as Chairman was to initiate this strategic assessment and
rebaselining. It is a Commission level activity. The
process has provided a structure for determining where the
NRC is, where the NRC needs to be in order to respond to
change, and how the NRC will set its direction for the
. 4
future.
The Steering Committee -- and I would ask you, Mr.
Jordan, to introduce the members at the table -- the
Steering Committee, which will be briefing us today was
drawn from most of the organizations within the agency to
lead this effort. This is an ongoing process and we are
here today to hear about the culmination of the second
phase.
This phase focused on the Commission establishing
preliminary views on the direction of the NRC and
interacting with our stakeholders to gain their input and
ideas concerning these preliminary views.
The Steering Committee issued its Stakeholder
Interaction Report on December 23rd, 1996. We look forward
to hearing from the Steering Committee on the results of the
interaction.
Do any of my fellow Commissioners have any
comments at this time?
If not, then Mr. Jordan, please proceed.
MR. JORDAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman and
Commissioners. The purpose of this briefing, as you stated,
is to report on the progress to date in obtaining and
assessing stakeholders' interactions and public comment on
the Direction Setting Issues.
And I would also, at this point, identify a couple
. 5
of personnel changes that occurred in the Strategic
Assessment Committee. Jacque Silber and I were assigned in
early January as cochairs of the committee replacing Jim
Mello and Jim Johnson.
And now I'd like to introduce the other
participants. John Craig has managed the support staff in
this entire effort and has done an outstanding job.
I would then go through the individuals that are
going to be providing comments and assessments of the
Direction Setting Issues.
George Pangburn, on my left, is section leader,
Fuel Cycle and Licensing Branch. He'll be discussing DSIs
2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 and will go through those in numerical
sequence, so there will be some shuffling of people at the
table.
Frank Miraglia is acting director of NRR. He'll
be discussing DSI 10, 11, and 24.
Themis Speis, deputy director, Research, will be
discussing DSI 12 and 22.
Stuart Rubin, chief of the Diagnostic Evaluation
and Incident Investigation Branch, AEOD, will be discussing
DSI 13 and 23.
Larry Chandler, Assistant General Counsel for
hearings and enforcement, OGC, will be discussing DSI 14.
Jim Shea, director, Division of Bilateral
. 6
Cooperation and Assistance, International Programs, will be
discussing DSI 20.
And Jesse Funches, deputy controller, deputy CFO,
will be discussing DSI 21.
These people, plus others of the Strategic
Assessment Committee and staff, were intimately involved in
preparing DSIs, in meeting with the stakeholders, and in
assessing comments, and so there is a broader involvement
than the people we've already recognized.
I would also take the opportunity to recognize
Chip Cameron's role in facilitating interactions with
stakeholders. This was a very open process and Chip
facilitated not only the stakeholders but the staff in
having those interactions.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And I would like to take this
time to publicly commend him. I've heard nothing but good
reports about his activities and how he's moved this along.
MR. JORDAN: At this point then, I'll turn to John
Craig and ask him to provide a discussion of the process.
MR. CRAIG: Good morning.
I think the first topic I'd like to highlight as
we get the back-up slides for stakeholder interactions, the
first one up, is that the term "stakeholder" was an
interesting one. It seems intuitively obvious, I think, but
it turns out it's not.
. 7
[Slide.]
MR. CRAIG: We used the term in a matter of days
as if we were familiar with it and we referred to internal
stakeholders as people with NRC badges and external
stakeholders as people without NRC badges, the public,
industry and others.
And one of the public interest groups said they
didn't want to participate in the stakeholders' meeting
because they thought that connoted an endorsement. They
didn't want to get that close. So there were some differing
opinions, I guess, in terms of what stakeholders meant.
The stakeholder interaction process kicked off in
mid-September 1996. We worked with the public strategies
group to help us lay out a process to interact with internal
and external stakeholders.
For internal stakeholders, the thought was that
we'd utilize the normal lines of communication, and for
external stakeholders, we would make information available,
issue invitations to let them know what information they had
available, let them know about the meetings and that we were
requesting comments. The press release that went out and
the documents that were distributed in mid September did
that.
The documents that we issued to the public
included a framework document which was a parallel, I think,
. 8
of the strategic plan. It talked about DSIs and overarching
issues and it grouped the DSIs in several groupings.
We also had something we referred to as a process
paper, and it told all stakeholders, internal and external
stakeholders, how to get copies of the issue papers, how to
provide comments.
We issued agency-wide announcements and we had an
initial mailing in September that was basically the mailing
that we used as part of NPR, and it had about 80 broad
groups in it, and the mailings, not only these but the
subsequent ones, hit public interest groups, citizen groups,
state agencies, industry groups. So it's a very broad reach
of notification.
We also made presentations in September at the
annual Agreement State Regulators Conference to explain the
stakeholder process. And indeed we explained the strategic
assessment and rebaselining initiative, the purpose, and
tried to make clear the relationship between their comments
on the issue papers and the importance of the comments in
the Commission's deliberations and final decisions on the
DSIs since they would be reflected in the strategic plan.
In early October, we also conducted meetings with
managers here in the White Flint complex and had the same
essential presentation. And they then followed up with
their staffs, with internal meetings and discussions, to
. 9
emphasize the availability of the issue papers and to
request comments.
Go to the next slide, please.
[Slide.]
MR. CRAIG: Also, in early October, we split the
Steering Committee up into teams and made trips to four
regional offices to go over the purpose of the strategic
assessment initiative, as well as each one of the DSIs and
to discuss them with regional staffs.
We briefed the agency partnerships, the ACRS. We
had three mailings. The total of the mailings were about
1650, including the initial three phases.
Before each one of the stakeholder conferences,
about a week in advance, we issued press releases in the
geographic areas around Washington, Chicago, and Colorado
Springs, so once again, to let the stakeholders in those
areas know and remind them that the meetings were there and
to solicit their attendance.
We had three stakeholder meetings, as I said. The
first one was in Washington. The second one in Colorado
Springs, the third in Chicago. During the process, we had
requests for an extension of public comment period. As you
know, it was extended and it ended December the 2nd.
The Stakeholder Interaction Report includes
comments that were dated, I believe, December the 12th. It
. 10
actually includes comments that we received approximately
December the 19th. We have two additional comments that
have been forwarded to the Commission -- one from a private
citizen, one from EPA -- and George is going to talk about
the comments we received from EPA.
The copies of the Stakeholder Interaction Report
are being made available to the public this week. They're
going to go up on the Internet, Fed World. They're going to
be available to NRC employees through the auto system.
They're also going to be available in the PDR. The issue
papers themselves, transcripts from the public meetings, as
well as copies of the written comments are also going to be
available through the same mechanisms.
MR. JORDAN: We'll cycle through all the DSIs in
numerical order and we would offer you the opportunity as we
go to ask questions and make comments on each one, and then
we'll have an opportunity for comments when we're all done.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But you're going to march along
pretty fast?
MR. JORDAN: We're going to march along pretty
fast. And so we're limited to five minutes or less per
item. I'm sure some will get a little more and some a
little less.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Excuse me. I wonder if at
some point you could give us an indication of how many
. 11
individual commenters there were on each of the DSIs. In
other words, I'm sure the numbers vary quite a bit depending
on the DSI, just to get some feeling about --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Will the people who are
discussing them, can they just mention that?
MR. JORDAN: We'll ask them to mention it, and if
not, we'll provide that subsequently.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Sure.
MR. JORDAN: And so --
MR. CRAIG: I'll just note, in the Stakeholder
Interaction Report itself, at the end of each DSI, there's a
listing of the commenters. There's a feel there, and I'll
add, because people have asked me how many commenters were
there, some organizations commented in writing and verbally
at each one of the meetings and then sent in comments. So
the number is a rough number. Any number you hear will be a
rough number, just due to the duplication.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And were there many comments
that came off of the Internet? I think you had put --
MR. CRAIG: There were a small number. Most of
the ones were received at the stakeholder conference or
mailed directly to the Secretary. A small number came in
off the Internet.
MR. JORDAN: George, would you begin with your DSI
item number 2.
. 12
MR. PANGBURN: First slide, please.
[Slide.]
MR. PANGBURN: DSI 2 deals with the issue of
should NRC seek to expand its authority and responsibility
to include DOE facilities.
Next slide, please.
[Slide.]
MR. PANGBURN: The Commission's preliminary views
on this DSI contained three basic points: that NRC would
not take a position on accepting broad responsibility for
regulation of DOE facilities and would neither encourage nor
oppose legislation giving broader authority; that given
adequate resources and a reasonable time period, that NRC
could provide adequate regulatory oversight of DOE if asked;
and that if NRC were to be given oversight responsibility,
the Commission would prefer that it be done in an
incremental fashion and that some type of prioritization
methodology be used to determine the types of facilities
that, if subject to oversight, would provide the greatest
potential benefit to health and safety.
Next slide, please.
[Slide.]
MR. PANGBURN: In terms of comments that we
received on this particular DSI, there were 37 written
comments and 21 commenters spoke at the stakeholder meetings
. 13
around the country.
Most of the commenters felt that NRC should take a
position regarding regulation of the Department of Energy
and did not support the Commission's preliminary view on
this particular issue.
Several commenters strongly encouraged the
Commission to aggressively pursue external regulation of DOE
under Option 1B, which would divide regulatory
responsibility for DOE among the federal and state agencies
in the same way it now occurs for commercial facilities.
With respect to the initial bullet on this page,
the breadth of that comment was very strong. We received it
from CRCPD, the Conference of Radiation Control Program
Directors, the Organization of Agreement States, the United
States Enrichment Corporation, as well as a number of
individual states, and --
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Could I ask a clarifying
question?
When you say commercial facilities, do you mean
commercial reactor facilities or what --
MR. PANGBURN: Commercial facilities, reactor and
non-reactor.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Most of the non-reactor
are fairly unique facilities. Would the state -- thinking
of New Mexico, would the state really be up to trying to
. 14
regulate the facilities at Sandia and Los Alamos, the non-
reactor facilities, as we would an Agreement State?
MR. PANGBURN: Certainly some of the states
offered that view. And I think what we're looking at here
is that we have the same general breakout of
responsibilities that currently exist, namely, that NRC
would regulate radiation safety and that EPA would regulate
general environmental. To the extent that states are
Agreement States, would regulate that particular aspect of
it.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Would we have to go
through, if we followed this option, renegotiating with the
states what the states with significant DOE facilities --
Colorado, New Mexico, Washington, et cetera, you know --
what they controlled and what we controlled?
MR. PANGBURN: I believe that would be the case.
It would probably have to be done on a state-by-state basis.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think it would depend, would
it not, Commissioner, on, one, what the overarching
legislation had to say, and secondly, within that context,
what historical precedent had to say, and third, what
capability had to say.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Right.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And probably then be, as you
pointed out, within all of those things to negotiate it on a
. 15
state by -- on a facility-specific basis.
MR. PANGBURN: As John mentioned, we received
comments late from EPA. Those comments were sent to us
electronically. We don't have a formal hard copy signed
out, but EPA indicated in their comments that they supported
NRC regulation of safety and EPA regulation of environmental
hazards, which, as I read it, is an encouragement of Option
1B, namely, the same existing, as opposed to the breakout
that was provided in the Advisory Committee's report, which
would have split up responsibility between NRC and OSHA, for
example, under the facility safety and occupational safety.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And I think both we and EPA, as
I recall, have operated with MOUs with OSHA as appropriate
involving worker safety.
MR. PANGBURN: The next slide, please.
[Slide.]
MR. PANGBURN: This is DSI number 4. The issue
is, what should the NRC's strategy regarding states becoming
and remaining Agreement States?
The next slide, please.
[Slide.]
MR. PANGBURN: The preliminary views of the
Commission on DSI 4 were focused on Option 3, which was to
continue the current program, including adopting current
initiatives. In addition, to encourage more states to
. 16
become and remain Agreement States, primarily through non-
monetary incentives; to explore providing seed money and/or
financial grants to encourage states to seek status; to
provide training to Agreement States without charge on a
space-available basis. Funding for travel and technical
assistance, however, would be borne by the Agreement States.
The next slide.
[Slide.]
MR. PANGBURN: Significant comments on DSI 4. We
received 48 written comments and 19 oral comments at the
stakeholder meetings. There was general support for the
Commission's preliminary view, that is, Option 3. However,
the Agreement States and some other commenters felt very
strongly that NRC should reinstate funding of Agreement
State training, travel, and technical assistance.
Although some licensees opposed reinstatement of
funding, this opposition was limited. Commenters considered
that a significant benefit of NRC-sponsored training is
enhanced consistency and compatibility and suggested that
NRC reinstate funding to support this end.
If I may, EPA's views on this, as you recall,
there were five options in the paper, the first of which was
to turn the program over to EPA. EPA noted that that was
their preferred option, assuming that they receive the
resources to do the job.
. 17
Option 2, to strongly encourage states to become
Agreement States, EPA had no view on.
Option 3, the Commission's preferred view, EPA
felt was their second choice.
EPA had no views on Option 4, which is to treat
Agreement States as coregulators.
And finally, on Option 5, which is to devolve AEA
material regulation to the states and withdraw the federal
preemption, EPA had major concerns about this option given
that their rescission of subpart "i" was based on NRC's
program of protection of public health and safety.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me ask, were there any
comments on innovative options for providing training, say,
using information, technology, and was there any discussion
relative to -- as far as the travel part based on a tiering
approach where some feel there is some differential ability
of states to pay for training, travel, and technical
assistance where some states, in fact, collect in excess of
their cost, and others, either because of legislation or
structurally, have less ability? Was there any discussion
about some kind of tiering that reflects that differential
ability?
MR. PANGBURN: I don't recall anything specific to
the question that you posed. Certainly the states offered
the notion that they might be able to reimburse NRC in kind
. 18
by providing services, namely, to do inspections of NRC
facilities located within their borders as a way of making
up for resources.
I might ask, Cardelia, can you speak to the
Chairman's question?
MS. MAUPIN: Concerning that question, some states
like New Mexico stated that most of their funding went into
one general fund, so they were not able to get funding
directly for training for their staff because of the
competition there. So the smaller states really have a
problem in terms of getting those monies.
In addition, some state people have to take their
own annual leave to come to NRC training courses.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: When I spoke of tiering,
though, that approach is meant to address the issue that
there is a differential ability of the regulators in certain
states to pay, including to what extent they have control
over the funds, as well as what the working conditions are
in terms of their coming to courses.
But there was no specific targeted discussion?
MS. MAUPIN: No.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
MR. JORDAN: I was very interested in the area, as
you might imagine, from my role in AEOD and training, and I
did not see a clear recommendation that would, in fact,
. 19
parse those out in any organized way. It is a very
difficult situation.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
MR. PANGBURN: Hearing no comments, I'll move to
the next DSI, which is DSI 5, what should be the role and
scope of the NRC's low-level radioactive waste program.
The Commission's preliminary views on this DSI
supported Option 2, which was to assume a strong regulatory
role in the national low-level waste program that would
encompass all the activities that were performed before
recent reductions in the low-level waste program.
Next slide, please.
[Slide.]
MR. PANGBURN: We received 49 written comments and
19 oral comments on this DSI. I would note that there was
not a clear consensus regarding the preliminary views, that
low-level waste generators, including NEI, CORAR, and some
individual licensees and some Agreement and non-Agreement
States favored the Commission's preliminary view, as did the
Advisory Committee on nuclear waste.
However, many Agreement State commenters opposed
the Commission's preliminary views that the current low-
level waste program be expanded. Agreement State commenters
preferred an option that was somewhere between Option 3 of
continuing the current program and Option 4, to recognize
. 20
progress and reduce the program.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And when you say continue the
current program, that current program does reflect the
recent reduction?
MR. PANGBURN: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So when they say between that
one and Option 4, recognize progress and reduce program,
they mean reduce it further beyond the reductions that have
already occurred?
MR. PANGBURN: That's accurate, yes.
COMMISSIONER DICUS: What was the position of the
host states?
MR. PANGBURN: The host states --
COMMISSIONER DICUS: Did they have a comment
position?
MR. PANGBURN: My recollection, as far as this
first view, namely, to support the Commission view, was that
New Jersey and California supported that, but that other
states that have ongoing programs supported the majority of
the Agreement State views captured under the second bullet.
EPA's views on this were that they opposed the
first -- the Commission's first option, namely, assuring a
leadership role. They felt that it was inconsistent with
NRC's role as an independent regulator. They had no
comments on Options 2 through 4.
. 21
Option 5, which was to transfer the entire program
to EPA, was, once again, their favored view, assuming they
received adequate resources. And Option 6, assured storage,
was not something that EPA supported, but rather that they
preferred disposal.
I'll move to DSI 6, then. This DSI deals with the
question of, in recognition of current uncertainties, how
should NRC approach the present high-level waste situation?
[Slide.]
MR. PANGBURN: The next slide contains the
Commission's preliminary views, which were that NRC should
maintain the existing program. But the Commission noted
that it would like to explore taking a more active role in
resolving issues in the high-level waste program consistent
with NRC's mission.
If I could turn to the next slide.
[Slide.]
MR. PANGBURN: The comments in this particular
DSI, we received 41 written comments and 15 comments from
oral presenters at the stakeholder meetings. Support for
the preliminary view as stated was limited, with most
commenters calling for some modification of the preliminary
view, that is, possible -- a combination of parts of other
option or options.
Overall, the commenters were divided in support of
. 22
their option. For example, the Organization of Agreement
States didn't have a consensus view, but the states appear
to be split between Options 2, 3, and 5.
Significantly, the Department of Energy, the State
of Nevada, Clark County, some Agreement States, and the
Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force supported the Commission's
preliminary view.
With respect to EPA's view, they had no comments
on the preliminary view, but had several comments on Options
1 and 2, no comments on Options 4 and 5. Those comments
were in the nature of clarifications, not in expressed
support one way or another.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
MR. PANGBURN: DSI 7 addresses what should be the
future role and scope of NRC's materials program, and in
particular, NRC's regulation of the medical use of nuclear
material?
[Slide.]
MR. PANGBURN: The next slide shows the
Commission's preliminary views which included a combination
of Option 2, continue the current program, ongoing program,
with improvements, and decrease oversight of low-risk
activities with continued emphasis on high-risk activities.
Specifically in implementing Option 3, NRC would
utilize the risk-informed, performance-based approach to
. 23
determine which activities in the materials area, and
specifically medical area, are low-risk activities.
Next slide, please.
[Slide.]
MR. PANGBURN: Most commenters supported the
Commission's preliminary views, and in particular, several
licensee and professional organizations changed their
positions from an earlier endorsement of the National
Academy of Sciences' recommendation, which was to devolve
the medical program to the states. The breadth of this view
on support of the Commission's preliminary view was
substantial. It was -- included Agreement States,
professional societies, and individual licensees.
Commenters also strongly supported, and as we
noted to you in the transmittal of this document, strongly
supported a single federal agency being responsible for
regulation of all radiation sources, including NARM.
There are several points here. First, the breadth
of this view, again, the states, OAS, CRCPD, American
College of Nuclear Physicians, Society for Nuclear Medicine,
NEI, Mallinckrodt and others, supported this.
Now, there were different views on what the nature
of that federal role should be. In some cases, it was a
more traditional role that focuses on the program that we
currently have of regulation at the federal level and at the
. 24
state level. In some cases, it was limited to simply
standard setting and allowing the states to implement
programs as they saw fit.
It was very clear that the federal agency that
should undertake this should be NRC, and it was equally
clear that it should not be EPA. That was a strong view in
all the public meetings that we were in, as well as in
written comments, and that should we proceed in this regard,
that we should take into account the fact that States'
knowledge and expertise could lessen the resource
requirements and possibly make this option more palatable to
the Commission.
EPA's views on this. They had no comment on the
first option, which was to take on additional regulatory
responsibility on NARM, X-ray and accelerator materials.
They supported Option 2, which was to continue the current
program with improvements since that program is the basis
for rescission, again, subpart "i".
They agreed that Option 3, which was part of the
Commission's preliminary view and involved decreasing
oversight of low-risk activities, was reasonable, but care
needs to be taken. That point was also made by a number of
states and individual licensees that, in moving towards
removing controls, it had to be done carefully and in close
coordination with the states.
. 25
Options 4 and 5, however, discontinuing the
medical program, except for oversight of devices and
discontinuing the entire materials program were major
concerns to EPA, once again, because of the rescission of
subpart "i" and EPA felt that if that option was selected
and EPA was not the regulator of materials licensees, that
some other vehicle might be needed to assure public health
and safety as a result of emissions from materials
licensees.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Could you give us the
numbers of comments on that?
MR. PANGBURN: 42 written comments on this one and
16 oral comments at the stakeholder meetings.
DSI 9 deals with what should be NRC's strategy to
take advantage of new and different approaches to optimize
site remediation at the site decommissioning management plan
or SDMP and other problem sites.
On the next page, we have the Commission's
preliminary views. This particular preliminary view used
part of four options, namely, to change the decommissioning
review process, focus on those cases in which progress can
be made, and transfer stalled sites to EPA, to take an
aggressive position to develop regulatory frameworks for
lower cost decommissioning waste disposal, and to develop a
strong litigation strategy.
. 26
In addition, the Commission indicated Option 2
should be tested on a pilot scale for a few selected
materials licensees. Program participants should be
volunteers.
With respect to Option 6, the staff should also
examine the level of risk associated with each site and
focus on better progress in making determinations on
disposition of sites.
Determinations on whether to send to EPA's
Superfund program a stalled site, high-risk site or a low-
risk site should be made on a case-by-case basis.
And finally, that the implementation process for
Option 6 should not preclude the Commission from reviewing
the low-risk stalled site if conditions warrant, nor should
the process automatically send the site to the EPA's
Superfund program.
Next slide, please.
[Slide.]
MR. PANGBURN: We received 35 written comments on
this and 15 oral comments in stakeholder meetings. There
was broad support for the options identified in the
Commission's preliminary view and for taking serious steps
to reduce the burden and intrusiveness of regulations. Most
commenters called for close coordination with them in any
systematic review of and revisions to the regulations.
. 27
With respect to EPA, they had no comments on
Options 2, 7, 8, and 9, which encompassed most of the
Commission's preliminary view.
The current program, Option 1, they felt was
acceptable. They strongly opposed Option 3, which had to do
with using alternative scenarios and criteria for
decommissioning.
Option 5 was acceptable as long as resources were
provided, and Option 6, which was part of the Commission's
preliminary view involving transfer of stalled sites to EPA
they felt was a piecemeal approach and that, if NRC could
not assure cleanup of problem sites, they should give the
entire program to EPA.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Are you done?
MR. PANGBURN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Any comments on these options
that -- these DSIs? The figures on the number of comments?
MR. PANGBURN: For DSI 9?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: 9.
35 written and 15 oral?
MR. PANGBURN: Yes, 35 and 15.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Thank you.
MR. JORDAN: Next is Frank Miraglia with DSIs 10
and 11.
MR. MIRAGLIA: Moving on to DSI 10, as stated, is:
. 28
Given the current environment, what should the Commission's
policy be on future reactors?
[Slide.]
MR. MIRAGLIA: The next slide indicates the
Commission's preliminary views. The Commission recognized
the economic decisions by license applications will be
determined by the level of support, that we should continue
to give priority for reviewing standard and advanced reactor
designs, early site approvals, and licensing for new reactor
applicants.
In addition, the preliminary guidance from the
Commission indicated that the staff should develop
implementation guidance that would address the maintenance
of the utility requirements documents that had been
developed through first-of-a-kind engineering, address an
orderly closeout of the work performed, for example, a
simplified boil and water reactor and the MHTGR, and then
evaluate the design certification process for lessons
learned.
[Slide.]
MR. MIRAGLIA: The next slide indicates the number
of comments. There were 19 written comments and 13 oral
comments at the three stakeholder meetings. Several
commenters supported the elements of Option 2 and the
Commission's preliminary views with some modification.
. 29
The comments with respect to being more specific
as to the types of issues that should be addressed and the
focus that should be given to testing the next two phases of
part 52, namely, the siting and the COL phase, there was a
level of interest expressed primarily by the industry in
that regard.
There were some comments that endorsed Option 3.
And Option 3, if the Commission would recall, is to refocus,
given that there is no applications on the horizons, to
reallocate, and so there were a number of comments in that
regard.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What was the breadth of the
support for these different views?
MR. MIRAGLIA: I would say from the three meetings
and the comments, that the industry supports continued focus
and application of resources to these new designs, to the
point of, at one point, ranging from a comment that the
economic -- or the viability of the nuclear option, one
needs to demonstrate the part 52 process in its entirety, so
there is a group within the utilities and the nuclear
industry that has that as a view.
Clear recognition, as was recognized in the
previous reports to the Commission on this particular issue,
that this has implications for offshore sales and the
economic variability of the nuclear structure within the
. 30
U.S. by maintaining that kind of technology. So it would
range from there, and the public view would be that -- would
be on the other extreme. But I would say there was support
for some continued focus.
The question of applications and who would support
applications in this area was discussed and indicated that
funding in that would probably be minimal, but that there
should be some continued focus.
Given the Commission's position, and I responded
to some of those concerns in saying, if applications were
put before us, given this preliminary view, that they would
be assigned priority commensurate with the applications
before us and other ongoing activities.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Is there anything much said
on the utilities requirements document? That's something we
focused on a bit.
MR. MIRAGLIA: There was one comment that I
recall, Commissioner Rogers, that indicated that it would
have to be done and looked at as to what the future need
would be and that type of thing. We just recognized that it
was there. It may be worth doing, but someone would have to
forward that effort.
Moving on to DSI 11, which is: Given the changes
in the external/internal environment, what are the
implications for the current strategies for the operating
. 31
reactor oversight program?
There were three options in that DSI. Option 1 is
essentially continuing the comprehensive program and
examining -- systematic examination for improvements and
lessons learned.
Option 2 was to further encourage industry to
develop generic guidelines that we can endorse, provide
increased opportunities for public involvement, use
technology to improve efficiencies of our processes, and to
examine some effectiveness in how we staff multiple-unit
sites, and to improve the understanding and effectiveness of
our performance program, assessment program.
Option 3 was to utilize the work re-engineering
processes to further identify improvements within the
program, come back to the Commission for approval for those
areas of review, and we should look at best practices from
regulatory agencies, foreign and domestic, nuclear and non-
nuclear.
In terms of comments received, and again, in terms
of numbers, there were 26 written comments, 13 oral at the
meetings.
One commentor, at least for this paper, directed
right at the issue, shared that there's a public perception
of trying to reduce the risk. That has a negative
perception from the point of view of the public and if it's
. 32
done setting regulations, and it all looks towards reducing
risk that has a negative connotation.
That theme or that question came up, I guess,
looking at risk-informed that has to be done in a balanced
way. I think that's really the essence of that comment.
There was a lot of support for Option 3 --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That reducing risk has a
negative --
MR. MIRAGLIA: No. That increasing cooperation
with the industry in that process could have the perception
of only looking at it in one direction.
But another outcome of the process is to increase
some of the burden in the regulatory process with respect to
how we interact with industry in that kind of process, and
that comes up in some of the other DSIs and the role of
industry and the like. We stated that we have to do it in a
balanced, public, open kind of way.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So you're saying that this
comment then related specifically to the Commission's move
toward risk-informed, or you're saying it permeated things
more broadly than that?
MR. MIRAGLIA: It was with respect to not with
risk-informed, but as to working in a cooperative way with
industry to reduce regulatory burdens from a risk
perspective. That's -- it was the industry involvement that
. 33
created that kind of concern.
It was commenters that supported Option 3 to
varying degrees, indicating that that was resource
intensive; however, for certain areas, that that might be a
very productive thing to do and to look at business process
re-engineering.
There was a suggestion that we look at the role of
resident and effectiveness of the resident inspector program
within the context of that program.
In addition, there was comments regarding
effectiveness of our enforcement policy that should have
been discussed within the context of that program.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Could I ask, the DSI we
just discussed and the next three are among the more
resource intensive of the DSIs. Was there any sense among
the commenters of limits or where, if we were going to need
to -- there are also -- many of the commenters presumably
are bill payers. Were they comfortable with spending
additional resources -- and maybe this is a question for the
next three papers as well -- to pursue these preliminary
views?
MR. MIRAGLIA: I think there were concerns
throughout the conference on many of the DSIs about the
cost. I think the perception that -- I'll give you my
perception and an overview assessment of the comments.
. 34
The industry and the feepayers, be they reactors
or materials, feel that this risk-informed approach, where
it would lead to less burden and commensurate with risk, has
a benefit.
And I think a simple way of expressing it is, it's
worth that increased cost to develop that because the
paybacks over the longer term may be beneficial. I think
that would be a broad overview.
Perhaps Themis can speak to that to some degree
when he talks about the risk-informed. But I think that
would be a simplistic or simplified overview of how they
looked at that. It's something that needs to be done. It
has up-front costs and -- but the benefit would be coming in
the future with regulations that are more risk-informed.
MR. SPEIS: The next DSI deals with risk-informed,
performance-based regulation. The DSI states: What
criteria should NRC use in expanding the scope in applying a
risk-informed, performance-based approach to rulemaking,
licensing, inspection, and enforcement?
The next DSI summarizes the Commission's
preliminary views. Higher risk activities should be the
primary focus of agency efforts and resources, which can be
accomplished by building up the PRA concepts to the extent
they're applicable.
Staff should continue the current efforts, which
. 35
is Option 1, on the pilot programs and continue to evaluate
the performance data from operational experience as it
becomes available.
These activities as they're scheduled are
presently captured in the PRA implementation plan.
Staff -- in addition to Option 1, the Commission's
views were that the staff should proceed in the direction of
enhancing the PRA implementation plan. This is kind of
moving cautiously towards implementing elements of Option 3.
And on the next viewgraph, staff should perform a
thorough review of the basis for nuclear materials
regulations and processes to identify and prioritize those
areas that may be amenable to a risk-informed, performance-
based approach. This assessment should lead to a framework
similar to that that we have developed for commercial
reactors.
There was also another point which is not listed
in the viewgraph, that the staff should evaluate and clarify
any technical and/or administrative issues associated with
performance-based approaches during regulation such as
inspection activities and enforcement.
And the next viewgraph summarizes the significant
comments -- the more significant comments. There were 49
written comments and 23 oral comments, and of course there's
some overlap between them, as John mentioned earlier.
. 36
The majority of the comments were implementation
type of comments. I don't see that any comments would
affect the Commission's preliminary views.
Almost all commenters supported the Commission's
view that, in general, the NRC should focus on higher risk
activities and, consequently, most commenters supported a
transition towards more risk-informed, performance-based
regulatory approaches.
But although most commenters supported the concept
of risk-informed, performance-based regulation, there was
not, in general, agreement on the approach. And we tried to
summarize all the comments into four categories. These
categories are the following.
I want to make sure that we recognize and
understand the distinction between risk-informed and
performance-based. For example, some commenters used this
distinction to urge caution in moving towards performance-
based aspects of risk-informed, performance-based
regulation. Others urged us to pursue more aggressively the
risk-informed part, for example, in our inspection
activities.
The next category of comments I listed,
demonstrating a commitment to change the regulatory
environment and to establish a new strategic direction.
There are many issues that the Commission will have to
. 37
decide, for example, one of them being if PRA is to be
useful, the NRC and the industry must decide or reach an
agreement on what areas they are able to be applied on.
The other one, I put them under fostering public
confidence and ensuring public understanding of the process.
For example, some suggested that a transition to a risk-
informed, performance-based regulation could be seen by the
public as a relaxation of our current regulations or
requirements, and possibly this would decrease the public's
perception of NRC's credibility.
And finally, the other category, they urged the
Commission to establish an objective standard for protection
of public health and safety, for example, set an objective
standard for what is adequate health and safety. That's a
good one for the lawyers.
Also, they want us, especially the industry, to
start using the safety goals.
So basically, these are some of the most important
components.
MR. JORDAN: Comments? Okay, Stu.
MR. RUBIN: Good morning. My name is Stu Rubin.
The first DSI I discuss is DSI 13, the role of industry.
[Slide.]
MR. RUBIN: As shown on the next slide, the DSI
asks the question: In performing its regulatory
. 38
responsibilities, what consideration should the NRC give to
industry activities?
Next slide, please.
[Slide.]
MR. RUBIN: The issue paper included five
different options or strategies for interacting with
industry as shown in the slide. The Commission in its
preliminary views had a preference for two of those options
and indicated some limited interest in a third.
Regarding the preferred options, the Commission
stated that the staff should move forward as rapidly as
possible within our budget to evaluate on a case-by-case
basis current and any future proposed initiatives that would
further the NRC's reliance on industry's activities as an
alternative to our own regulatory actions. And to
accomplish this, the Commission indicated that the staff
should also develop guidance on how we would go about
evaluating such proposals.
As shown in the second item, the Commission also
gave its preliminary endorsement of the fourth option, which
involved increasing NRC interaction with industry groups and
professional societies in order to develop new national
consensus codes and standards and guidance documents as a
means of strengthening the quality and the rigor of NRC's
regulatory framework, and to support more efficient and
. 39
effective consistent compliance with that framework.
The Commission also indicated that any
implementation of Option 4, the staff should focus its
initial efforts on working with industry to develop
standards and guidance for the application of PRA methods
and to develop such standards for the medical use area as
well.
Finally, the Commission had a preliminary view
that, although it was not a preferred option at this time,
the designated industry representative folks might have some
potential application to large, broad-scope materials
licensees in cases where NRC's on-site inspections were
conducted relatively infrequently.
Turn to the next slide.
[Slide.]
MR. RUBIN: In all, there were 31 written
stakeholder comments and 18 oral comments on DSI 13. With
regard to those significant comments first, there was very
broad consensus among -- within the nuclear power industry
that the NRC should in fact move forward expeditiously with
the current program to evaluate initiatives proposing
increased NRC reliance on industry activities.
Power reactor commenters indicated that the agency
actions within the current framework was more appropriate
than to go with the more aggressive pursuit of a broad-
. 40
based expansion of industry's role, a more proactive
framework that was defined in the second option.
There was also a broad desire within the nuclear
materials community for NRC placing increased reliance on
material licensing, self-oversight activities, and self-
assessment was specifically identified as an area that they
thought additional reliance should be placed there.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me make sure I understood
something. In the power reactor comments, did you say that
those commenters essentially preferred the status quo?
MR. RUBIN: An aggressive, expeditious pursuit of
the current program or approach, that's correct. Other
commenters, such as the ASME, Public Service, also endorsed
the Commission's preliminary view favoring Option 1, saying
it was responsive to the current environment challenge.
Even so, as shown in the second bullet, there was
a note of caution expressed by some of the commenters,
including Public Citizen, that if NRC were, in fact, to
place additional reliance on industry self-oversight, it was
our view it would lead to some loss of public confidence in
the agency as an effective and objective regulator.
And finally, as shown in the last item on this
slide, there was also very broad stakeholder support for the
Commission's preliminary view that the NRC go ahead and
increase its interaction with industry groups and
. 41
professional societies in order to develop new codes and
standards and guidance documents for more rigorous and
consistent licensing compliance with our framework.
I should also mention, although it's not on the
slide, there were a number of stakeholders in the materials
program especially who favored NRC increasing its support
for accreditation and certification as a means for both
improving materials licensing, safety performance, and
providing a positive basis for NRC reducing its regulatory
oversight activities and the radiation safety officer
position was cited as an example where certification
programs were viewed as one that would improve the
performance among licensees in that area.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What were the numbers again?
MR. RUBIN: We did have 31 written comments and 18
oral comments.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's what I thought, okay.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Is there any other
information, any agency, any role model we can look at in
determining how strong can interaction be with industry
without interfering with the agency's mandate and its
relationship with industry, how many people are doing it in
the government and what stage are they?
You know, what is the --
MR. RUBIN: Well, within the context of this
. 42
particular DSI, I don't recall that there were any comments
made. But within the context of DSI 23, enhancing
regulatory excellence, there were some commenters that
suggested that there be a comparative analysis between NRC's
approach to regulation and -- in excellence and other
agencies, such as FAA and EPA, that sort of thing.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: In other words, are we leading
the pack or is somebody running at the same pace as we are
regarding industry involvement?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: FAA in fact has specific
industry involvement already and the various forms it takes.
I think it's a good suggestion for us to understand where
other agencies are and what the judgment is about the
effectiveness of those approaches -- of those uses and how
that has affected the -- both the judgment as to impact on
the mission, the effectiveness in carrying it out, as well
as any resource questions and public perception.
There's a lot to learn, I think, and so I'm saying
that the FAA at least already has things that have been part
of how they do things all the time, but I think it's a fair
question relative to other agencies also.
MR. JORDAN: Okay, next is DSI 14. Larry.
MR. CHANDLER: DSI 14 poses the issue of: What
approach should NRC take to optimize its communications with
the public?
. 43
In its preliminary views, the Commission suggested
principally Option 2, which would call for placing a
priority on early identification of public concerns and
methods for public interaction.
The Commission suggested that the term "public" be
interpreted in its broadest possible sense. It would
include, then, not simply members of the public as we
traditionally use it, but members of industry, other
affected organizations, as well as the public, that both
bilateral formal and informal communications be covered,
that the use and reliance, advancement of technology should
be carefully examined before it's used to assure that there
is appropriate planning and coordination for public
involvement with the centralized focus, some integration
before the fact, but recognizing that implementation should
still be the function of the various program offices.
The Commission also suggested that the staff give
consideration to Option 1A, which requires further
consideration on maximizing the effectiveness and economy of
the methods of communication that are being used to assure
that we have a consistent methodology and coordinated
planning of these activities, that we give due consideration
and examination of the highest cost activities that we
perform, and that we perform assessments of the improvements
that we take into consideration before they, in fact, are
. 44
implemented.
In terms of the significant comments that were
received, and there were some 34 written comments,
approximately 16 -- excuse me, 34 written and about 16 oral
comments provided, most commenters preferred a combination
of options. Option 2, even as augmented with Option 1A, was
not enough.
The Commission's preliminary views were actually
supported only by three of the commenters, that being
Illinois, Texas, and Oregon.
A number of commenters provided suggestions to
improve the current process: better public meetings, the
language that's being used, the formality of the structure
that often is employed at these meetings, transcripts. The
use of the term "stakeholders" John Craig alluded to at the
outside has an effect of turning people off in some events.
Early involvement, anticipating better, as the
Commission had suggested, the need to involve the public,
again, the public in the broadest sense, in these
activities.
There were also suggestions for independent
reviews of the 2.206 petitions. A number of commenters
addressed both the formality of the hearing process and some
of the formalities still existing in the 2.206 process,
although some of the concerns I think raised have already
. 45
been dealt with in some recent suggestions by the Commission
for improvements in the 2.206 review process, this comment
referring to the suggestion that people not previously
associated with the issue be involved in reviewing the
comment, the issues raised in the 2.206 petition.
A number of commenters stated that the NRC should
first decide what it hopes to achieve in its public
communications. Is it interested in informing the public,
involving the public, soliciting the views and thoughts of
the public, then choosing the best option for achieving that
goal?
Commenters suggest the NRC should establish
specific goals to assess the effectiveness of its programs
and look to the experiences of both private sector, state,
and other organizations for guidance.
It's been suggested, for example, that the folks
in Colorado, the state as well as Public Service of
Colorado, have had very successful programs in connection
with Fort St. Vrain. And EPA also has had good success in
some of its activities related to Superfund sites that
should be considered in our process.
Responding to Commissioner McGaffigan's question
earlier regarding the resource implications, I don't really
think that any of the commenters specifically focused on the
resource implications. In fact, some of the numbers I think
. 46
that you've gotten are thinking about -- were really
developed after the fact in these cases.
Interestingly enough, a large number of the
commenters here favored more emphasis on Option 3, which
would have a more proactive involvement, more of an
educational and up-front involvement than is suggested by
the other options.
And clearly, that option, I think, would have the
greatest resource implications, that probably beyond --
likely beyond those which the staff has already been
considering.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Just before you leave this
independent review of 2.206, I just wanted to understand
that. That's still within NRC, though; we're not suggesting
anybody else?
MR. CHANDLER: No. There were a couple of
thoughts raised on the 2.206 process. First of all, the
thought that you have other staff people than were involved
in the original issue review the 2.206 petition that's
submitted; and two, even consider the use of someone like
CRG or ACRS to look at some of the issues that are raised.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: How strong was the support for
Option 3 expanding?
MR. CHANDLER: It's hard to say how strong it was.
There were a lot of diverse and diffused comments suggesting
. 47
greater NRC involvement in the educational process would
have a benefit in terms of assuring some greater
credibility, perhaps, that it would take some of the burden
off the industry in the sense of showing a more independent
assessment of what the issues are than the industry can
credibly put forward in some instances.
I would say it was a relatively strong comment,
but again, very diffused.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Any other comments?
MR. JORDAN: I just would comment that the process
that the committee has just gone through is relevant to
this, that we've, I think, been more proactive in obtaining
public comment and sort of fits in with the tone of this.
DSI 20. Jim.
MR. SHEA: Yes. DSI 20 considered the question of
NRC's appropriate role with regard to international
activities.
[Slide.]
MR. SHEA: The next slide shows the Commission's
preliminary views on DSI 20 in which the Commission selected
Option 4 in which NRC would conduct international activities
of importance and benefit to its domestic mission or U.S.
national interests, both of those, rather than just focusing
on its domestic mission.
And the remainder of the slide indicates the --
. 48
what that would involve, more specifically, that we would
participate in international policy and priority
formulation, perform our current role in export-import
licensing and related matters, in particular, international
safeguard issues, perform our current and prospective role
in implementing treaties, participate in international
exchange activities that would benefit our domestic program
for U.S. national interests -- these would be mutual benefit
exchanges -- and continue to provide, as we do now, a wide
but carefully selected range of international safety and
safeguards assistance.
I might note that research was not included,
international research. There's a separate paper on that.
That does not include DSI 20.
[Slide.]
MR. SHEA: The next slide continues with the
Commission's preliminary views. At the same time as Option
4, the Commission stated that the NRC will examine the
budget and priority of individual activities in the
international area and develop a plan to prioritize those
activities, and this would include research, drawing on work
in DSI 22, so the Commission could look at possible
reductions or expansions in programs in a systematic way
with an eye on the budget.
And the Commission also noted that since we are
. 49
licensee-fee based, we would have to look closely at how
these activities related to our mission as we do that study.
The comments that came in numbered 37 written and
nine oral submissions, mostly domestic, although some came
from abroad. We found that most of the commenters supported
the Commission's preliminary view on Option 4, both the
Commission's choice of the option and also the Commission's
emphasis on prioritizing NRC's international activities.
There were specific comments on that.
This support included industry, particularly NEI,
with their view that this would help avoid foreign
accidents, but at the same time, they noted that they felt
others beyond the nuclear industry should pay for activities
that do not directly benefit licensees.
Several commenters noted that there were safety
benefits that resulted from NRC's international activities
and encouraged a continuing NRC leadership role in this
area.
There were several that suggested that we should
improve coordination of safety assistance with public and
private groups to improve the effectiveness and efficiency.
This would be more, I think, in the implementation phase
that this would be carried out.
While most supported Option 4, the OAS and most
state regulators supported Option 3. They noted that -- and
. 50
this Option 3, by the way, would be NRC conducting
activities of benefit just to our domestic mission.
They noted that this would free up money that's
now spent for international activities that could be used
instead for purposes such as Agreement State training. That
was the main reason they cited for supporting Option 3,
although we did have one comment asking why NRC should give
assistance to countries that are not buying U.S. reactors,
for example.
There were some that supported Option 5, which is
to expand our international activities, such as the State
Department and ABB and some of the state regulators. And
that was, I guess, about the sum of the comments, if there
are any questions you might have.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: This phrase, "commenters
suggested that increased coordination of safety assistance,"
were any comments from any of the other agencies regarding
increased coordination of activities that were in the
international arena?
MR. SHEA: From the other government agencies?
No, I didn't see any of that. The State Department did say
that there should be a systematic review of safety
assistance, as was proposed in the DSI 20 paper, because it
was timely and there had been some successes, but also some
problems in implementing assistance.
. 51
The comments that we received in this area were
mainly from the private sector saying we should look at WANO
and coordinating more closely with DOE, for example.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Some of those comments refer
to increased coordination with other agencies?
MR. SHEA: Yes, that's right, particularly DOE.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Particularly DOE?
MR. SHEA: Yes, and that was noted in DSI 20 as
well.
MR. JORDAN: Any other comments?
Jesse.
MR. FUNCHES: DSI 21 involved implementation of
the requirement to recover 100 percent of the NRC's budget
by assessed fees. There were two questions associated with
the DSI. The first one is the broader issue of: To what
extent should fees be considered in making a decision about
what activities the NRC should perform in support of its
mission?
Four options were evaluated and they ranged from
no consideration fees to considering fees for all NRC
activity.
A second part of the DSI had to do with
alternative ways to fund NRC's activities. The question
that was posed was, what funding mechanism should NRC pursue
to fund activities not required to be funded through
. 52
appropriations?
Next chart, please.
The Commission's preliminary view was to adopt
Option 2 with respect to the broader issue of considering
fees and decision. The preliminary view was that
programmatic decisions in response to NRC mandates would not
be driven by fees but would be based on their contribution
to public health and safety.
The Commission also noted that in addressing new
activities, they would request that fees be addressed as
part of their decision to add new activities to NRC.
With respect to the funding mechanism, the
preliminary view was to support alternative 2, which would
continue to fund approximately 100 percent of the
appropriated budget through fees. Reimbursable agreements
would be used to fund those activities that we're not
mandated to perform.
As a subpart of that, the Commission's preliminary
view would also support working with OMB to look at
alternative ways to remove the FTE's constraint associated
with reimbursable work.
There were 33 written comments on the DSI. Of
those 33, approximately 50 percent were from our Agreement
States or an organization associated with Agreement States.
There were eight commenters at the three
. 53
stakeholder meetings. There was general support for both
Option 2 and the funding mechanism, that is, the Commission
preliminary views; however, several of the industry
commenters supported funding mechanism number 1.
Under that alternative, we would include from the
fee base costs that serve the collective interests of the
public, and that would be approximately 10 percent of the
NRC's budget.
They also encouraged the use of a reimbursable
agreement to avoid costs that do not benefit licensees.
Several state commenters also supported assessing
fees to federal agencies for specific services. This would
be funding mechanism number 3. This was -- this was similar
to what they do for state agencies that they regulate.
Some commenters were concerned about the future of
fees. Specifically, they were concerned about potential
factors that could increase fees in the future.
One particular area they were concerned about was
the possibility of early reactor shutdown and
decommissioning and more states becoming Agreement States.
The concern there is that if you reduce the number of fee-
paying licensees, those costs that the NRC incur that are
not a function of the licensee, therefore, would have to be
spread to a smaller base.
Another concern that was expressed as it relates
. 54
to future fees was the impact of fees as you enter into
restructuring of the industry. Their concern there was that
fees would become a higher percentage of the profit margin
or the -- that they might receive.
There were two commenters that supported funding
mechanism number 4. That basically says, go to Congress and
request that no fees be assessed.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Any comments or questions? Can
I ask you to ask folks to talk faster?
MR. JORDAN: Yes.
MR. SPEIS: The next DSI addresses the future role
and scope of NRC's research program. The next viewgraph
shows the Commission's preliminary views. The Commission
initially supported a combination of options that were seven
to start with.
First they said that we should have a research
program. We should include both -- elements of both
confirmatory and exploratory research -- that's Option 4 --
and they should be balanced in such a way that both current
as well as potentially emerging issues are being addressed,
and the Office of Research, in consultation with the other
program offices, should develop criteria for determining
what the core research program should be which will be able
to respond to both programmatic needs as well as anticipate
future needs, and the Office of Research should work with
. 55
the other offices to develop criteria and provide it to the
Commission for their approval prior to the development of
these core research programs.
Continuing with the preliminary views, the next
viewgraph, the staff should continue to support the
educational grant program, Option 6, but this program should
be reevaluated at least every two years.
And also, the staff should continue to support
active participation in international safety programs which
should be prioritized and appropriately integrated with
NRC's research efforts and also considered in the
establishment and maintenance of the core research
capability.
And, also, the Commission wants us to address a
number of specific questions which were raised in the DSI
paper.
Getting to the significant comments, there were 29
written comments and nine oral ones, half a dozen NRC staff
persons that provided -- also provided comments to this DSI.
In both the written comments and those provided at
the stakeholders' meeting, there was general agreement that
the NRC should continue to support the research program
which involves both confirmatory and exploratory research.
One commenter suggested a more aggressive research
program is appropriate but without explicitly specifying
. 56
whether the program should be more exploratory or
confirmatory. That commenter was the ACRS, by the way.
Several industry commenters suggested that
cooperative research with industry is an option that should
also be considered. The paper itself addresses cooperative
research with international, but there is no explicit
mention of cooperative research internally in the United
States with our industries.
A number of commenters also raised concerns about
the lack of openness of the NRC's research program, and here
they referred mostly to the process, being active
participants from the initial phases from the definition all
the way to carrying the program itself, instead of giving
the results at the end.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Any comments or questions?
Thank you.
MR. RUBIN: Okay. The next DSI is DSI 23,
enhancing regulatory excellence.
[Slide.]
MR. RUBIN: Shown on this first slide is DSI as it
was originally cast, is very narrowly defined, and asked the
question: How can the NRC achieve regulatory excellence by
improving its regulatory standards, rules, and requirements?
The paper itself is much broader in scoping
regulatory excellence to apply to all of the NRC's
. 57
regulatory programs, not just to the rules and regulations
phase.
The paper provided two strategies for achieving
regulatory excellence. The first was, continue the current
program, which is often reactive. The second was to take a
substantially more proactive approach to regulatory
improvement.
Next slide, please.
[Slide.]
MR. RUBIN: The Commission in its preliminary view
favored the more proactive approach to improvement embodied
in the second option.
And as shown in the first item, the Commission
indicated that the proactive improvement campaign should be
designed to improve our own internal effectiveness and we
should set for ourselves a goal of excellence in the
performance of both our staff and our internal processes.
Moving down to the second item, the Commission
also indicated that the focus of the more proactive
improvement approach should not be limited to just the
agency's regulatory functions and programs, but should also
be broadly applied across all the agency's activities,
including its management and support functions and
activities.
Next page, please.
. 58
Total of 32 written stakeholder comments were
received and 21 oral comments from the public meeting on DSI
23.
First, there was extremely broad support for the
Commission's preliminary view that the NRC embark on a more
proactive approach to improving regulatory effectiveness.
Support for this strategy came from the stakeholders in both
the power reactors area as well as materials program area
and was generally favored by the agency's own internal staff
who had comments on this issue.
But within the broad consensus favoring the
proactive option, there was considerable diversity of the
ideas as to the appropriate focus and emphasis and the
priorities for improvement, as well as the appropriate
process and the pace that the agencies should employ in
pursuing excellence.
For example, many stakeholders equated enhancing
regulatory excellence with the NRC replacing its
prescriptive framework of regulations, standards and
guidance with a more risk-informed and performance-based
regulatory approach, or with NRC modifying or eliminating
requirements with marginal safety.
However, even so, Public Citizen did remark that
they believed that the recent changes that were made in
connection with the marginal safety program amounted to what
. 59
they call in the industry deregulation, rather than pursuit
of regulatory excellence.
Also, NEI and OAS indicated that enhancing
regulatory excellence for them meant, for example, that NRC
would strive to proportion its resource expenditures to the
risk significant or safety issues involved.
Nonetheless, despite the diversity of the comments
and the views on priorities as noted in the next to the last
bullet, the stakeholders broadly, generally agreed that --
with the Commission's view that this proactive approach
should be broadly applied to all the agency's functions, not
just to regulatory programs, emphasizing the issue paper.
A number of commentors also urged that external
stakeholders be brought in to participate in the agency's
internal review processes that would be initiated as part of
this more proactive approach.
And finally, as was mentioned just briefly before,
a power reactor industry group, NEI, indicated that the NRC
ought to consider having another federal agency, such as EPA
and FAA, conduct a peer review evaluation of NRC's processes
as an alternative additional means of enhancing regulatory
excellence.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you.
Any comments or questions?
MR. JORDAN: The last one.
. 60
MR. MIRAGLIA: DSI 24: What should the NRC
strategy be for regulating decommissioning activities at
power reactors?
Preliminary views of the Commission was to
continue the current direction, approach, and to explore
some innovative approaches.
The Commission, in its preliminary view, gave some
examples of approaches that should be considered. And
consistent with the Commission guidance, we sought comment
on those approaches, transfer of the power plants to
Agreement States after fuel had been put into dry storage
and putting the resident inspectors in all phases of
decommissioning, or only in specific phases or not at all,
and having a performance-oriented approach for radiological
assessment of the site that's to be released.
The options were to continue the program at its
current pace or to be more aggressive. Significant
comments, there were 28 written comments, 19 oral comments
at the three meetings.
Strong support for being more aggressive,
particularly in context with developing the site release
radiological criteria. That seemed to be the center. They
recognized that the current approach had a series of
rulemakings, but those rulemakings couldn't proceed until
there was a good understanding of what the goals for
. 61
decommissioning were going to be. So there was strong
support for being aggressive in that area.
There was one group of commenters that supported
Option 3 and -- which was the one to slow down because a
concern was expressed that perhaps there couldn't be a good
agreement between NRC and the EPA with respect to the site
radiological and they would prefer us to have that role.
So, again, I would look at that as a -- in terms of Option
2.
They raised questions. Also, commenters were --
indicated that the impacts of deregulation on
decommissioning funding, recognizing that there is an
activity there, but again, there's a linkage to keep the
process moving at a fast pace.
With respect to the three approaches that were
discussed, there was little support, particularly from the
Agreement States, for taking the authority for the sites
after they had been decommissioned.
With respect to the resident, the preferred option
of the three approaches there is that the current practice
of having inspection available during major phases of
decommissioning seemed to be the preferred approach with
respect to that issue, and certainly, having a performance-
based radiological assessment of the site was preferred, but
again recognizing one needed to have specific criteria to
. 62
shoot for, and that's how you do the site decommissioning
rule, and that summarizes the comments on DSI 24.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Very good. Any --
MR. JORDAN: I have a closing remark to make at
this point, and I think it's important that we not only
recognize the staff work, but the responses that we got from
stakeholders, internal and external. Stakeholder
involvement was, I thought, excellent.
The committee entered that process with some
feeling of risk or impending problems, but it worked out
very well and the stakeholders were very, very thoughtful
and constructive, and the committee finds that it was a
positive experience and perhaps a model we would utilize
again in a future exchange.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you.
Following on that, you have presented and provided
and shared with us a significant amount of information and
insight gained as a result of your interactions with the
stakeholders, and stakeholders is not being used in a
pejorative sense here.
I know that this approach of sharing the
Commission's views on policy with our stakeholders,
including our own employees, licensees, as well as members
of the public before the Commission reaches a final policy
decision is new.
. 63
Can you tell me, beyond the specific input, some
of what you've shared with us today? What do you think
we've learned from this process that will be useful going
forward?
MR. JORDAN: Well, I think the facilitation of
comments -- the preliminary -- the sequence of preliminary
decision, that is, there's some direction and thought been
given based on staff proposal, and the staff proposals were
not, except for the one I was involved in, biased towards a
particular outcome, a particular option, but they were
options presented with a discussion and not a recommendation
for selecting an option.
The Commission selected from among the options and
then offered that for comment. I think that's a very good
model, and the public and our own staff viewed it as a
positive approach.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Did it present any particular
difficulties for you?
MR. JORDAN: The only anxiety is at the front end.
There was a great deal of -- there was an investment of time
and there is a -- then a calendar effect that no one
believes that they've had sufficient time to comment, ever.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, that's true anyway.
MR. JORDAN: That's correct. And so there was a
-- in fact, in this case, we did provide a two-week
. 64
extension for those that did have further comments and still
we got substantive comments after that time frame. So that
affects the calendar that one can do things.
But in terms of the benefits, I think the benefits
outweighed the effect on the calendar and the risks.
MR. MIRAGLIA: I just would like to share an
observation. I think the rest of the committee would also
agree with the observation that it was unique in that it was
decisions in many areas -- usually when we have public
outreaches, it's focused on one area. We had a whole range
of activities.
And one observation that hit me is that this is a
unique experience in that many of our licensees, from small
materials to large reactors, were interacting at the same
time, and the full breadth and scope of the agency's
responsibilities and role were at least exposed to all.
I'm not sure they were understood by all, but the
complete range of activities, and that was unique in terms
of having everyone see what's on the agency's plate and what
roles it plays and the various things, and that was a very
unique aspect of this particular set of meetings.
I just thought I'd share that.
MR. JORDAN: That's an excellent point. And in
fact the stakeholders commented in several of the meetings
that they enjoyed the opportunity to interact among
. 65
different types of licensees and with the public and with
industry groups.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So you're saying we facilitated
that process?
MR. JORDAN: We facilitated that interaction, and
we had a potential for failing to do that because, had we
compartmentalized these in such a way that you didn't have
the mix of materials and reactors and states and utilities
and industry, we would have failed to have that crossing of
interests. And so that was fortuitous, but it worked out
right.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I'd like to get comments from
the other two.
Ms. Silber.
MS. SILBER: Well, to follow on --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Three.
MS. SILBER: -- with what was made, we did observe
through the meetings that we found it very interesting that
we were drawing from a wide group of individuals and we
found that individuals particularly, I think we anticipated
the licensees, the large groups that deal with us, to have
an interest in these meetings.
But we were quite surprised by some of the
individuals who, at their own expense, and in some cases
taking leave from their jobs and traveling some significant
. 66
distances, attended the meetings and also gave us some very
valuable input that gave us a different perspective on a
number of the issues.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Mr. Craig.
MR. CRAIG: Well, I just had one other
perspective. It goes back to a point raised by Commissioner
Diaz I believe earlier, and it is from the discussion of the
stakeholders from the different individual perspectives.
I think they learned a great deal, not just about
us, but about each other. I think as a result of that, the
comments and the discussions and issues were much more
beneficial to the staff and it was's very positive
interaction to all the stakeholder meetings.
As Mr. Jordan noted, there was some apprehension
before the first one, but after the first one, there was
enthusiasm. It was a very positive experience for us and
the stakeholders.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Mr. Chandler.
MR. CHANDLER: I would agree. It was a very
positive exchange from both perspectives. One of the points
that was pointed out that I think we need to bear in mind,
it came up in the context of the DSI I spoke to on public
communication, that was the way in which we present these
issues, the language we use.
In fact, someone commented that the issue papers
. 67
require 20 years of formal education to fully appreciate --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Is that all?
MR. CHANDLER: There was a good lesson in that. I
think we need to be mindful of not only the technology we
use to communicate with people, but the language we use as
well.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Absolutely. Any follow-on
comments or questions?
Commissioner Rogers.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, I noticed that NEI's
comments, they set up a format to make their comments in and
the first point of the format was what, if any, important
considerations have been omitted? And I think they had some
very interesting things they thought ought to be thought
about here.
I'm just wondering if you had any other groups
commenting that they thought there ought to be things in
there that we've left out and just how we might, in some way
or another, in cleaning these things up sweep those into the
process.
MR. JORDAN: That there were, and that was one of
the formal questions that we posed in the Federal Register
notice, that people should identify omissions. And so that
was -- that was in fact a useful way to identify.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Dicus.
. 68
COMMISSIONER DICUS: No.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Diaz.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Yes, I have one concern, maybe
a suggestion.
This thing is getting closer and closer to being
put together and maybe seeing the trees inside of the
forest. I've got a concern how we are going to assign
resources to carry out the, quote, mandate or programs of
the strategic plan. Specifically, I'm concerned how we're
going to develop our human resources to be able to tackle
the different issues and be prepared to assume different
roles of higher responsibility.
MR. JORDAN: Yes, and I won't try to answer that.
I accept it as a concern that we all must have.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, I think it is obviously
the long-range concern, and it has to do with long-range
implementation as well as any renormalizations of our
regulatory program.
That is something that I think Mr. Callan and the
whole team of new managers know that they have to address
head-on in terms of looking, overall, at core competencies
and what we need to do, both in terms of responding to
specific Commission direction coming out of this, but more
broadly, positioning ourselves for any new responsibility.
That's a big part of what the management team's job really
. 69
is.
Commissioner McGaffigan.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: The question I asked
earlier was really a concern. I think that perhaps we would
have been better off if everybody knew how much all these
options were going to cost when they were talking about
them, and I am concerned just -- it's a resource issue,
whether we're going to be able to either go in for
significant additional resources or find other parts of our
budget that we can cut back to pursue options, but there's a
process for doing that.
The stakeholder comments might have been more on
point to the process -- we're going to have to go through
the next several months -- if they had -- if they had
realized that some of these things weren't free.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think everybody knows they're
not and I guess I'd say yes and no. I would say when you're
considering a plethora of options, there are always
different ways the process can be handled, but a way to
begin to give some focus that allows the staff to put some
flesh on the bones in terms of what the resource
implications are is to have the preliminary views.
In the end, we're going to have to determine what
that prioritization is, given the understanding we have of
our various stakeholders' concerns. But in terms of, you
. 70
know, making the hard-core marriage between the resources
and the choices is really our job to do.
Well, the Commission would like to thank the
members and staff of the Strategic Assessment and
Rebaselining Steering Committee for a very informative and
full briefing on this Stakeholder Interaction Report and
related issues, and so I commend you for seeking a wide
stakeholder input and participation.
You provided the Commission and I believe the
public with a well-organized effort. The effort of
information will be of great assistance to the Commission as
we consider and make final decisions on the Direction
Setting Issues.
The Commission in this meeting would like to thank
the many organizations, licensees, NRC employees,
individuals, and all who participated in the public meetings
and/or who provided written comments. The Commission in
fact values very much this input and will consider it in
developing our final decisions on the direction of the NRC,
and so unless there are any further comments for my full
Commissioners, we stand adjourned.
We do have an affirmation for the Commissioners.
[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the briefing was
adjourned.]
|
Privacy Policy |
Site Disclaimer |