F United States Government Department of Energy …and the Draft Highlights from the July 21-23,...

DOE F

United States Government Department of Energy

memorandumDATE: NOV 1987

REPLY TOATTNOF: RW-223

SUBJECT: Reference Package Materials for the December 1-3, 1987, OGRInstitutional/Socioeconomic Coordination Group Meeting

TO: Distribution

Attached is the reference package for the December 1-3 meeting ofthe OGR Institutional/Socioeconomic Coordination Group (ISCG) tobe held in Las Vegas, Nevada. The reference package is arrangedin five sections:

Behind the Table of Contents is the Agenda for this meeting.

TAB A contains: the List of Participants, the Action Items,and the Draft Highlights from the July 21-23, 1987, Seattlemeeting.

TAB B contains materials related to the Plenary Session'sagenda items. These materials are: the Current MasterCalendar; Responses to the July 1987 Seattle ISCG Items #1 and#3; the Intergovernmental Resource Center (IRC) Status Reportand Synopsis of Draft IRC Briefing Book; an Outline of theAction Item Tracking System (AITS); the Revised OGR InternalC&C Guidelines; the Revised Agenda and Commitments from theDallas, Texas, October 1, 1987, DOE Meeting with States andIndian Tribes; and the October 1, 1987, letter from SecretaryHerrington on the Second Repository.

TAB C contains material related to the Outreach andParticipation Committee's agenda item. This material is theNovember 6, 1987, Memorandum from S. Kale to the ProjectManagers on the Schedule for the Participation Plans.

TAB D contains material related to the Socioeconomicscommittee's agenda items. These materials are: theNovember 3, 1987, Memorandum from B. Gale to the ProjectOffices on the Schedule for Final Revisions to the SMMPs; theAgenda and Minutes from the September 1987 Denver Comprehen-sive Socioeconomic Plan Workshop; and the Economic Impacts ofPerceived Risk: Outline of HQ Activities and Glossary ofTerms.

8603240044 871110PDR WASTE PDRWm-11

-2-

The meeting will be held at the Caesars Palace Hotel,3570 Las Vegas Boulevard South. The hotel telephone number is(702) 731-7110. If you still need to make a reservation, you cancontact the hotel on (800) 634-6661. If you have any questionsregarding the meeting, please notify Carol Peabody orJulia Wesley on FTS 896-1116 or (202) 586-1116.

I look forward to seeing you in Las

Barry G. Gale, ChiefEconomic and IntergovernmentalAnalysis Branch

Office of Civilian RadioactiveWaste Management

Attachment

Institutional/Socioeconomic Coordination Group (ISCG) Distribution List:

J. Adams, DOE-BWIP

J. Allen, Battelle/ONWIJ. Anttonen, DOE-BWIPS. Armstrong, Battelle/ONWIH. Aronson, Yakima Indian NationD. Asetoyer, NCAIJ. Baker, DOE-CH/RTTDL. Barrett, DOEfHQ/OSTSA. Barros, Nez Perce Indian TribeM. Baughman, State of NevadaD. Bayer, State of NevadaB. Bearchum, CTUIRL. Bender, State of NevadaM. Bender, DOE-CH/OESR. Bennett, OR-DOEA. Benson, DOE-HQ/OGRD. Betchel, State of NevadaS. Bind, State of WashingtonC. Binzer, SAICM. Blazek, State of OregonH. Bohlinger, State of LouisianaJ. Bradbury, SAICS. Bradhurst, State of NevadaK. Branch, Battelle/HARCL. Bray, State of WashingtonJ. Bresee, DOE-HQ/OGRG. Bronson, CTUIRM. Brown, Westinghouse Hanford Co.W. Burke, CTUIRE. Burton, Burton Associates, Inc.M. Byrne, DOE-HQ/OGRL. Calkins, CTUIRC. Carlson, DOE-DallasJ. Cavanagh, DOE-HQ/MAG. Chehak, NCAIM. Christensen, State of UtahD. Christy, State of MississippiR. Christy, SAICC. Cluett, Battelle/HARCJ. Cotains-Rick, DOE-BWIPD. Connor, NCSLF. Cook, NRCB. Darrough, DOE-SRPOJ. Davenport, State of NevadaS. Denny, DOE-HQ/OSTSS. DeSautel, DOE-BWIPL. Desell, DOE-HQ/OSTSR. DeVille, State of LouisianaL. Dick, CTUIRW. Dixon, DOE-WMPOB. Easterling, DOE-HQ/OPO

J. Finney, State of NevadaR. Forsythe, State of Mississippi

A. Foster, DOE-HQ/OGCB. Foster, NCSLS. Frank, DOE-HQ/EHB. Freudenburg, SSRAE. Friedli, Battelle/HARCJ. Friloux, State of LouisianaS. Frishman, State of NevadaB. Gale, DOE-HQ/OGRD. Gassman, DOE-NV/OCCR. Gay, CTUIRC. Gertz, DOE-WMPOJ. Gervers, LatirK. Goodmiller, DOE-HQ/GAOK. Gover, Nez Perce Indian TribeS. Gray, Battelle/ONWIJ. Green, Jr., State of MississippiT. Greider, SAICP. Gross, DOE-Oak RidgeR. Halfmoon, Nez Perce Indian TribeK. Hall, CTUIRD. Hancock, Southwest ResearchJ. Harris, State of Nevada

V. Harrison, Nez Perce Indian TribeR. Hemphill, ANLK. Henderson, DOE-HQ/OGRM. Henry, Nez Perce Indian TribeD. Herborn, Westinghouse Hanford Co.D. Hester, CTUIRR. Hines, Battelle/ONWIS. Hogan, Battelle/OWTDR. Holden, NCAIJ. Holm, DOE-CH/RTTDJ. Holmes, State of LouisianaR. Holt, Red Eagle ConsultantD. Hoyle, AIF, Inc.T. Husseman, State of WashingtonT. Isaacs, DOE-HQ/OGRJ. Jarrett, State of TexasR. Jim, Yakima Indian NationC. Johnson, State of NevadaR. Kaiser, DOE-WMPOS. Kale, DOE-HQ/OGRC. Kay, DOE-HQF. Khattat, BIAR. Kimble, SAICG. King, DOE-HQ/OPOJ. Kinnee, State of NevadaK. Klein, DOE-HQ/OSTSB. Klett, CH 2M HILLJ. Knight, DOE-HQ/OGRS. Kraft, EEIM. Kunich, DOE-WMPOM. Kurgan, DOE-HQ/OSTS

11/4/87

Institutional/Socioeconomic Coordination Group (ISCG) Distribution List: (continued)

H. Latham, Battelle/ONWIJ. Leahy, DOE-HQ/OGRR. Lesko, Touche Ross

D. Lettig, Yakima Indian NationD. Lewis, Yakima Indian NationE. Liebow, Battelle/HARCD. Lorenzen, EWA, IncG. Loudder, Battelle/ONWIR. Loux, Jr., State of NevadaE. Lundgaard, DOE-WMPOJ. Mabray, DOE-SRPOC. Masson, Camp, Dresser, and McKeeL. McClain, DOE-SRPOC. McDavid, WESTONA. McDonough, DOE-HQ/OGRK. McGinnis, Westinghouse Hanford CoB. McKinnbn, SAICJ. Mecca, DOE-BWIPD. Meier, WESTONJ. Merrill, DOE-BPAC. Mertz,Mountain WestW. Metz, ANLR. Moffett, Nez Perce Indian TribeC. Morrison, DOE-CH/OCMR. Mussler, DOE-HQ/OGCJ. Neff, DOE-SRPOR. Neff, State of TennesseeR. Neilson, State of NevadaP. Niedzielski-E, State of TexasB. Oliver, State of UtahT. Page, Battelle/PNLR. Palm, State of NevadaG. Parker, DOE-HQ/OGRJ. Parker, State of WashingtonE. Patawa, CTUIRE. Patten, ModeratorC. Peabody, DOE-HQ/OGRH. Penney, Nez Perce Indian TribeA. Peters, Yakima Tribal CouncilG. Pitchford, DOE-CH/OCMM. Powell, DOE-BWIPM. Power, State of WashingtonP. Prestholt, NRCW. Probst, DOE-HQ/OGRD. Quaempts, CTUIRL. Rathbun, Western WA UniversityJ. Reed, State of TexasB. Reilly, SAICJ. Reuben, Nez Perce Indian TribeC. Roe, State of WashingtonW. Rogers, CERTS. Rousso, DOE-HQ/ORMD. Ruge, DOE-HQ/OGC

C. Runyon, NCSLJ. Saltzman, DOE-HQ/OPOM. Sampson, Yakima Indian NationW. Scharber, State of TennesseeR. Schassburger, DOE-CH/RTTDJ. Shaheen, DOE-HQ/OPOR. Sharma, DOE -HQ/OPOL. Shaw, WESTONJ. Sieg, NASJ. Siegel, AIF, Inc.D. Silver, State of WashingtonD. Silverman, Newman & Holtzinger.A. Slickpoo, Nez Perce Indian TribeB. Smith, State of TennesseeD. Smith, State of TexasG. Snider, SAICF. Spivy, DOE-HQ/ORMR. Stein, DOE-HQ/OGRL. Steinmann, State of WashingtonD. Stevens, David W. Stevens, Inc.D. Stewart-Smith, OR-DOEJ. Strolin, State of NevadaH. Swainston, State of NevadaT. Sykes, State of WashingtonM. Talbot, DOE-BWIPE. Tana, NRCD. Taylor, State of WashingtonT. Taylor, DOE-SRPOR. Toft, SRA TechnologiesV. Trebules, DOE-HQ/OPOS. Tucker, State of WashingtonD. Valentine, DOE-HQ/OGRR. Virgilio, NRCS. Volek, SAICE. Walker, ConsultantG. Walker, Battelle/OWTDR. Weiner, Western WA UniversityJ. Wesley, DOE-HQ/OGRC. West, DOE-NV/OEAD. White, Nez Perce Indian TribeS. Whitfield, DOE-BWIPM. Whitman, S.M. Stoller Corp.M. Wilder, State of WashingtonR. Winter, ANLJ. Wisniewski, DOE-HQ/CPJ. Wittman, Yakima Indian NationA. Wolfe, ORNLB. Yallop, Yakima Indian NationJ. Zimmerman, DOE-HQ/ORM

11/4/87

U.S. Department of EnergyOffice of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management

OGRInstitutional/SocioeconomicCoordination Group Meeting

Reference Package

Las Vegas, NevadaDecember 1-3,1987

OGR Institutional/Socioeconomic Coordination Group Meeting

Reference Package

Table of Contents

Agenda

Draft Highlights from the July 1987 Seattle TAB AISCG Meeting

Plenary Session Materials TAB B(Reference Material for Financial AssistanceCommittee is located in TAB B)

Outreach and Participation Committee TAB CMaterials

Socioeconomics Committee Materials TAB D

AGENDA

OGR Institutional/Socioeconomic Coordination Group

Las Vegas, Nevada

December 1-3, 1987

OGR INSTITUTIONAL/SOCIOECONOMIC COORDINATION GROUPLas Vegas, Nevada

AGENDA

Tuesday, December 1, 1987

8:45 AM Separate Executive Sessions are scheduled for States and IndianTribes and for DOE and its support contractors.

Wednesday, December 2, 1987

PLENARY SESSION

TIME ITEM PURPOSE REFERENCE

8:15 AM o Welcome andIntroductions

o Review of SeattleISCG Draft Minutes

o Confirm dates andlocations for ISCGmeetings duringnext 12 months

o Review of Las VegasAgenda

o Review of SeattleISCG PlenarySession ActionItems

Agreement

Agreement

Agreement

Status report

Draft Minutes fromSeattle ISCG

Current MasterCalendar

Las Vegasagenda

Seattle ISCGAction Items

8:45 OCRWM policy andlegislation update

Provide informationand discuss

9:15 IntergovernmentalResource Center

Provide status reportand overview ofbriefing book

IRC status reportand synopsis ofdraft IRC briefingbook

9:30 B R E A K

9:45 Master Calendar

Action Item TrackingSystem

Review Current MasterCalendar

10:00 Review Outline of ActionItem TrackingSystem

17KA Final 11/10/87

Wednesday, December 2, 1987

PLENARY SESSION (continued)


10:15 C&C Status Report

o Negotiations Status report

o C&C Guidelines Agreement on finalversion of C&CGuidelines

Revised OGRInternal C&CGuidelines

o C&C Forum Discuss

10:30 DOE Meetingwith States andIndian Tribes,Dallas, Texas,October 1, 1987

Status report Agenda andcommitmentsfrom meeting

10:45 Release of LandAcquisition Planfor Texas

Status report

11:15

11:30

Second RepositoryActivities

MRS Update

Provide updateon program

Status report

October 1, 1987letter from J.S.Herrington onsecond repository

11:45 Review PlenarySession ActionItems

Agreement

12:00 L U N C H

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE

1:30

1:45

Review of SeattleFinancial AssistanceAction Items

Discussion of grantperiods as theyrelate to OCRWMbudget and awardof full-year grants

Status report

Discussion ofDallas commitment#10 and #11

Seattle ISCGAction Items

Commitments fromOctober 1, 1987meeting withStates and IndianTribes

17KA Final 11/10/87

Wednesday December 2. 1987

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE (continued)


2:15 Review of grant processand discussion of howbest to develop proce-dures for funding someactivities on a multi-year basis

Discussion ofDallas Commitment#13

Commitments fromOctober 1, 1987meeting withStates and IndianTribes

2:45 Report onNovember 18, 1987meeting in Las Vegason PETT

Report ondiscussions withDOE HQ, POs, andStates and IndianTribes on thePETT program

3:00 B R E A K

3:15

4:00

5:00

Payments-Equal-To-Taxes

State and IndianTribal Reports

Review of FinancialAssistance ActionItems

Status reportupdate

Summary presentationsby States and affectedIndian Tribes describ-ing their activitiesfunded under NWPA

Agreement

5:15 A D J O U R N

Thursday, December 3, 1987

OUTREACH AND PARTICIPATION COMMITTEE

(NOTE: There were no Outreach action items taken at the Seattle ISCG)

8:30 AM Information Services Status report onpublic informationactivities

9:00 Plans for workshopson consultationdraft SCPs andM&M Plans

POs provide informa-tion and discussplans for workshops

-Handout ofPO plans

17KA 3 Final 11/10/87


OUTREACH AND PARTICIPATION COMMITTEE (continued)


9:45 Facility-SpecificOutreach andParticipation Plans

POs provide statusreports on informaldiscussions withStates, IndianTribes and localgovernments and onschedules for plans

--Memo from HQto PMs

10:30 B R E A K

10:45 State and Indian TribalPresentations on newpublic informationproducts, plans andactivities

Review OutreachAction Items

Status reportupdating outreachproducts andactivities sinceSeattle ISCG

Agreement11:30

11:45 L U N C H

SOCIOECONOMICS COMMITTEE

1:15 Review of SeattleISCG SocioeconomicAction Items

Status report Seattle ISCGAction Items

1:30 SocioeconomicMonitoring andMitigation Plans

Status B. Gale memoto POs onSMMP schedule

1:45 Denver SocioeconomicWorkshop

Comprehensive Socio-economic Plan

Summarize workshopproceedings

Present conceptualframework

Workshop agendaand minutes

Handout ofconceptual frame-work outline

2:00

2:45 B R E A K

17KA Final 11/10/87


SOCIOECONOMICS COMMITTEE (continued)


3:00 Economic impactsof perceived risk

Review of proposedrisk assessmentactivities

--Outline of HQactivities

--Handout of POactivities

--Glossary ofterms forperceived risk

4:00 Review Socio-economic ActionItems

Agreement

4:15 A J O U R N

Final 11/10/87

DRAFT HIGHLIGHTS FROM JULY 21-23, 1987 ISCG MEETINGSEATTLE, WASHINGTON

List of Participants from Seattle ISCG Meeting

Action Items from Seattle ISCG Meeting

Draft Highlights of Seattle ISCG Meeting

OGR INSTITUTIONAL/SOCIOECONOMIC COORDINATION GROUP MEETINGJuly 21-23, 1987

Seattle, WA

Participants

DOE-HQ: Allen Benson, Jim Bresee, M.J. Byrne, Melinda Horgan, BarryGale, Ginger King, Ann McDonough, Wilma Probst, Raj Sharma, JohnTseng, Vic Trebules, Julia Wesley, Mike Wisniewski, Jim Zimmerman

Argonne: Bill Metz, Kenneth Rose, Richard Winter

Touche Ross: Robert Lesko

Weston: Catherine McDavid, Earl McLaren, Diane Meier, Steve Smith, LisaStevenson, Richard Travis, Christine Van Lenten

DOE-RL/BWIP: Jerri Adams, Joanne Comins-Rick, Shawn DeSautel, Max Powell

WHC/BWIP: Madeleine Brown, Dan Herborn, Karen McGinnis, Tai Trent

Battelle-HARC: Chris Cluett, Ed Liebow, Eric Friedli

DOE-CH/RTTD: Jeff Baker, Carol Morrison, Rich Schassburger

DOE-WMPO: Wendy Dixon, Eric Lundgaard

DOE-SRPO: Beth Darrough, Jo Mabray, Linda McClain

Battelle-ONWI: Susanne Hogan, Suzanne Gray, Helen Latham, GeorgeLoudder

DOE-BPA: John Merrill

DOE-Oak Ridge: Peter Gross

SAIC: Judith Bradbury (Tennessee), Barbara McKinnon (Las Vegas)

Louisiana: Renwick Deville

Mississippi: Don Christy, Ron Forsythe

Nevada: Jack Finney

Clark County Planning: Robert Palm

Attorney General's Office: Jim Davenport, Harry Swainston

Allen/Bradhurst: Steve Bradhurst

I Consultant Inc. Mike Baughman

John Gervers

DRAFT 6KA 10/28/87

Oregon: Mary Lou Blazek

Tennessee: Ruth Neff

Texas: James Jarrett, Phillip Niedzelski-Eichner, Jim Reed

Utah: Bim Oliver

Washington: Jerry Parker, Max Power, Charles Roe, Dan Silver, LindaSteinmann, Don Taylor

CTUIR: Ben Bearchum, Ginny Bronson, Bill Burke, Larry Calkins, Louie Dick,Rick Gay, David Quaempts

Nez Perce Indian Tribe: Vince Harrison, Henry Penney, Reine Moffett, DelWhite

Yakima Indian Nation: Denise Lettig, Deura Lewis

CERT: Wyatt Rogers

Others: Ronald Holt (Red Eagle Consultant), Diane Lorenzen (EWA, Inc.),Cecilia Masson (Camp, Dresser, & McKee), C.K. Mertz (Mountain West),Lori Rathbun (Western Washington University), David Stevens (DWSCo.), Richard Toft (SRA Technologies), Edward Walker (Consultant),Ruth Weiner (Western Washington University), Mary Whitman (S.M.Stoller Corp.), Amy Wolfe (ORNL)

DRAFT 6KA 10/28/87

Action Items

OGR Institutional/Socioeconomic Coordination GroupJuly 22-23, 1987

Seattle, Washington

ITEM ASSIGNED TO DUE*

PLENARY SESSION

1. O ce DOE has completed itsp eliminary assessment of

impact on the programof the First Circuit Courtop nion and/or EPA's subse-quent action, DOE willcommunicate that assessmentto the ISCG membership, andarrange for follow-up dis-cuision as appropriate.Affected parties suggest th sissue as an agenda item forthe October DOE-States/IndianTribes meeting.

OGC

2. DOE will respond in writingto Item #1(c) in Dan Silver sletter of January 9, 1987relating to the exchange ofinformation between WIPP andOCRWM.

3. In January 1987 DOE receiveda written communication fromthe CTUIR naming three pre-corditions for the resumptionof C&C negotiations; DOE willrespond in writing to the oralstatement by Bill Burke of theCTUIR indicating that thosepreconditions have been met.

4. Vic Trebules will providecopies of his remarks per-

to proposed Congres-sional legislation to theISCG membership.

W. Probst

B. Gale

V. Trebules 8/10/87

5. DOE will provide copies ofthe slides and overheads usedat the ISCG to the ISCGmembers.

Seattle ISCGpresenters

Due date is by the next ISCG meeting, unless otherwise indicated.

19C 9/2/87

ITEM

SOCIOECONOMICS

ASSIGNED TO DUE*

6. Continuation of AlbuquerqueAction Item #12 - DOE willprovide the States and IndianTribes with the actualboundaries of the proposedsites, when available.

A. McDonough

reassigned to Allen Benson

7. DOE will add "social impacts"and "cultural impacts" to theglossary considered underperceived risk.

A. McDonough

reassigned to Carol Peabody

8. DOE will bring to the attentionof senior management the con-tinuing concern of affectedparties about the currentdefinition of site and otherissues with respect to PETT,and explore the possibility ofresolving those issues priorto the rulemaking process.

9. DOE will examine the issue ofthe timing of PETT payments,particularly whether DOE willprovide a payment for an acti-vity which is anticipated tooccur after a payment is made,but within the payment year.

10. DOE will convey to seniormanagement the desire ofaffected parties to abandonthe rulemaking process withrespect to PETT.

11. DOE will investigate whethelanguage has been drafted toprovide impact assistance duringsite characterization by meansof a budget line item. If suchlanguage does not exist, affectedparties recommend that suchlanguage be drafted by theDepartment and be submitted toCongress.

B. Gale


A. McDonoughreassigned to Allen Benson

B. Galereassigned to Allen Benson

A. McDonoughreassigned to Raj Sharma

19C 9/2/8 7

ITEM ASSIGNED TO DUE*

12. DOE will determine thestatus of language proposedby Deaf Smith County andsubmitted to DOE and to theCongressman from Deaf SmithCounty to provide impactassistance during sitecharacterization via a budgetline item.

13. DOE will provide as soon aspracticable the schedule f rmaking estimated PETT paym nts.

14. The tentative dates for thecomprehensive socioeconomicplan workshop are September22-23 in Kansas City.

A. McDonough

Raj Sharma

A. McDonough


A. McDonough

reassigned Raj Sharma

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

15. DOE will alert Jerry Saltzman(and the Salt Lake City group)of the concern that Principle#3 of the "Principles andPolicies for OCRWM FinancialAssistance Rulemaking" beclarified to restrict itsinterpretation to the finan-cial management public trustresponsibilities of affectedparties under NWPA, and toalso consider whetherPrinciple #3 is needed at all,or is covered under Principle#2.

B. Gale

16. States and Indian Tribes willsend written comments toAllen Benson on the draft"Special Grant Condition onData and Reports."

States andIndian Tribes

8/24/87

19C 9/2/8 7

DRAFT HIGHLIGHTSInstitutional/Socioeconomic Coordination Group Meeting

July 22-23, 1987, Seattle, Washington

PLENARY SESSION

Welcome, Introduction, and Review of Previous ISCG Meeting

After welcoming attendees to the meeting, Barry Gale, DOE-HQ, turned themeeting over to the facilitator. The facilitator asked attendees to introducethemselves, then asked for comments on the Highlights from the March 1987 ISCGmeeting held in Albuquerque. When no comments were offered on the AlbuquerqueHighlights, the facilitator reviewed the status of action items from themeeting in Albuquerque. The following are the general Plenary Session actionitems from the March 1987 ISCG meeting in Albuquerque:

ITEM

1. ISCG participants willreview the roster inthe reference packageand contact CarolPeabody with anycorrections.

ASSIGNED TO

ISCG members

STATUS

Completed

2. DOE will prepare asummary version ofISCG minutes, inaddition to minutesof the current length.The utility of thesummary version willbe evaluated at thenext ISCG meeting.

3. The next ISCG meetingwill be held in Seattle,WA, July 14-16, 1987.

The MRS litigation section ofrevised in response to clarifyingafter the meeting in Seattle.

HQ By prior agreement,DOE prepared ashorter version ofISCG Highlights

BWIP Completed

the Albuquerque Highlights was subsequentlycomments from DOE's MRS office provided

OCRWM Policy Update

Vic Trebules, DOE HQ, presented an update on pending legislation. He statedthat DOE's general position is that geologic disposal coupled with an MRSfacility is the best approach to a problem that continues to grow; that theNWPA basically provides adequate direction and authority to develop thesolution; that a moratorium is not in the national interest; and that DOEbelieves that while improvements could be made to the Act, they should notsacrifice progress made to date. Later in the meeting, it was agreed that DOEwould dist ibute a summary of Trebules' legislative report to the ISCGroster. (See July 1987 ACTION ITEM # 4).

11/05/87

In the course of the following discussion, an Indian Tribal representativeasked what impact the First Circuit Court of Appeals decision on EPA'sradiation protection standard (40 CFR 191) would have on OCRWM's program. Arepresentative of DOE's General Counsel said that her office had not had achance to review the decision but did not expect any impact. (See July 1987ACTION ITEM # 1).

Intergovernmental Resource Certer (IRC)

Wilma Probst, DOE-HQ, reported on the status of the IRC (see ReferencePackage) and on the response to Action Items concerning the IRC from the ISCGmeeting in Albuquerque. The following are the actions items from the March1987 ISCG meeting in Albuquerque that refer to the IRC:

ITEM ASSIGNED TO STATUS

7a. DOE will examine thepotential relationshipbetween the Intergovern-mental Resource Center

W. Probst 7a-7e completed.See status in July1987 ISCG meetingReference Package.

(IRC) and theLicensing SupportSystem (LSS).

b. DOE will consider theappropriateness ofincluding non-governmentalorganizations in theIRC.

c. OGR will discuss withOSTS the relationshipbetween the IRC andthe inclusion ofinformation pertainingto corridor States.

d. DOE will examine therelationship, if any,between the IRC andthe issue trackingsystem.

e. DOE will considerincluding in the IRCinformation onappropriate federallaws and regulationsfrom agencies otherthan DOE.

W. Probst

W. ProbstS. Denny

W. Probst

W. Probst

DRAFT 11/05/8 7

ITEM

f. Affected parties willprovide comments onthe IRC to W. Probst.

ASSIGNED TO

Affected parties

STATUS

Continuing

In response to questions, Probst said DOE had excluded non-governmentalgroups from the IRC because of resource limitations only, not because thesegroups are considered to be unimportant. A local government representativesaid non-governmental groups may have a larger influence at the local levelthan government itself does. Probst said DOE still sought the input of localgovernment. Participants then discussed whether the IRC would duplicate theefforts of Project Offices to collect documents from States and IndianTribes. DOE agreed that there is some potential for overlap between HQ andPOs, and suggested that POs and HQ need to "compare lists" of their holdingsto avoid duplication and unnecessary work. Probst asked attendees to providecomments on the proposed document list in the reference package. A Staterepresentative asked (1) whether the IRC will permit States and Indian Tribesto assume that DOE personnel are cognizant of relevant State or Tribal laws,regulations, and policies, and (2) whether the IRC will be useful to personsoutside DOE. Probst replied that the system is intended to keep DOEHeadquarters staff, including technical personnel, and its contractors up todate on relevant State and Indian Tribal laws and policies. She added thatDOE did not envision that the system would be useful to persons outside theDepartment. A State representative complimented DOE's efforts to establishthe IRC and noted that States and Indian Tribes assume DOE staff have anappropriate "frame of reference" in meetings between affected parties and theDepartment.

DOE Technical Coordinating Groups and Master Calendar

The following are the action items from the March 1987 ISCG meetingreviewed at the Seattle meeting referring to coordinating groups and themaster calendar:


4. An agenda item for theApril TransportationCoordinating Group(TCG) meeting willdeal with the impacts,it any, on the programof the national movetoward deregulation.

5. DOE will provide copieso the charters ofexisting coordinatingg oups to affectedparties.

S. Denny

B. Gale

Completed

As some Chartersare still in theprocess of beingresolved, DOE sentout summaries ofthe existingCharters.

1040R DRAFT 11/05/87

M.J. Byrne, DOE-HQ, distributed an updated (July 10, 1987) version of themaster calendar and invited States and Indian Tribes to add other meetings oftheir choice to the calendar. She noted that DOE plans to distribute everymonth an updated calendar that will include a form States and Indian Tribescan use to add events to the calendar. In response to questions on how widelythe calendar will be distributed, Byrne asked who would like to receive it. APO representative suggested it be distributed to persons who are likely toparticipate in the listed meetings. A State representative asked whether thecalendar will be distributed to the public, and noted that recent publicmeetings, such as DOE Meeting(s) with States and Indian Tribes, had not beenwell attended. DOE indicated the OCRWM Bulletin notifies the public of openmeetings during the next 90 days, and that coordinating group meetings, whichare the main focus of the master calendar, are not open to the public. AState representative complimented the calendar for being useful in helpingStates to plan their travel budgets. In response to other questions, DOEexplained that the action item tracking system developed in conjunction withthe master calendar is mainly a management tool that will be used to help OGRmanagers track the status of coordinating group action items. Attendees thenconfirmed dates and locations for ISCG meetings for the next year:

Las Vegas, NV December 1-3, 1987Amarillo, TX March 15-17, 1988Portland, OR July 12-14, 1988

Status of Consultation and Cooperation (C&C)

Wilma Probst, DOE-HQ, reported on the status of C&C between. DOE andaffected parties and reviewed the March 1987 ISCG meeting action items.


6a. DOE will provide copies W. Probst Completedof the latest C&C DraftGuidelines to the ISCGmembership.

b. ISCG members should ISCG members Continuingprovide comments andsuggested revisions onthe Guidelines toW. Probst.

1040R DRAFT 11/05/87


10. The revision of the W. Probst CompletedC&C Guidelines willinclude specificreferences to Indiantribes, where thosereferences arecurrently notincluded, and willalso specificallyindicate thatnegotiations mayinclude thoseelements in 117(c)where the IndianTribes are notspecificallymentioned.

The Congressionally mandated reports on the status of C&C negotiationswere transmitted to Congress on May 26, 1987 with State and Indian Tribalcomments attached. The C&C certification report is in DOE concurrence andshould be transmitted to Congress shortly. In response to a question from aState representative, Probst said DOE will send the report to States andIndian Tribes at the same time it is sent to Congress, but that they would nothave a chance to review the report before it is submitted to Congress.

In response to a commitment from the DOE meeting with States and IndianTribes in Las Vegas in May 1987, DOE is also considering what kind of forummight be suitable for developing procedures and operating principles to guideconsultation and cooperation in the future. As a first step Probst suggestedthat all parties review materials on C&C developed during the last few yearsand develop proposals for discussion at a future workshop. She asked forsuggestions on the best way to format the workshop but none were offered. AState representative reminded the group of a meeting on C&C held in 1979 atOrcas Island, Washington, sponsored by the State Planning Council. Aconsultant to the States who had attended the meeting said he would helpassemble relevant Documentation in preparation for the C&C workshop.

C&C Negotiations

Barry Gale, DOE--HQ, reporte that DOE had reached agreement with the NezPerce Indian Tribe on procedure for negotiating a written C&C agreement andthat a meeting is scheduled for the first week in August at which DOE hopesthe procedural agreement can be signed. He said the Nez Perce had proposed aseries of interim agreements, starting with an agreement that will addressfinancial assistance. Following a series of interim agreements, the Nez Percewould then propose to negotiate a larger agreement consisting of an overallstatement of principles and and addendum that would address the 11 itemslisted in Section 117(c). Gale added that this approach is consistent withGAO's recommendation that DOE se k a series of interim C&C agreements instead

1040R DRAFT 11/05/87

of one all-encompassing agreement. A representative of the Nez Perce said theTribe also thought the negotiations were productive, and that the TribalCouncil had ratified the procedural agreement on July 9, 1987. She added thatthe Tribe looks forward to negotiations on grant procedures in hopes ofresolving outstanding issues before January 1, 1988.

After reiterating DOE's desire to pursue C&C negotiations with otherStates and Indian Tribes, Gale asked the other State and Indian Tribalrepresentatives whether they had any interest in beginning (or continuing)negotiations. A representative from Washington said some State legislatorshad met with Ben Rusche and that there was some interest in incrementalagreements, especially with respect to payments-equal-to-taxes. Arepresentative of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation(CTUIR) said the CTUIR would renew negotiations after DOE has formallyacknowledged that certain issues of special interest to the CTUIR have beenresolved, including the Tribes' grant award, eligibility of the CTUIR forfunds to prepare an impact assistance report, and the definition of C&C. DOEagreed to provide such an acknowledgment. (See July 1987 ACTION ITEM #3).Texas, Nevada, and the Yakima Indian Nation had nothing to report. Arepresentative of Tennessee said the State is thinking about the contents of aC&C agreement pending authorization of the MRS.

DOE Meeting with States and Indian Tribes in Las Vegas, May 28, 1987

Barry Gale highlighted the status of selected action items from the DOEMeeting with States and Indian Tribes in Las Vegas and noted that the nextsuch meeting will be held in Dallas, Texas, on October 1, 1987. In responseto a question from a State representative, Gale said DOE is still reviewingwhether to extend the comment period on the SCPs. Another Staterepresentative complained that the States and Indian Tribes were deniedadmittance to a meeting of the BWIP hydrology task force to which they wereinvited, and moreover, that the last two days of the meeting were cancelled.Gale replied that Steve Kale, DOE-HQ, was very concerned about the incidentand wants to talk to the principle State representatives about it.

WIPP Questions

In response to action item #8 from the March 1987 ISCG meeting inAlbuquerque, Barry Gale reported that Art Follet, DOE Defense Programs, isavailable to answer questions on WIPP at (301) 353-3137.


DOE will address the W. Probst Completedissues raised n theletters from DanSilver and Bil Burkerelating to WIPP.The reference packagefor the next ISCGmeeting will includecopies of thoseletters and DOE'swritten responses,if available.

1)40R DRAFT 11/05/8 7

A State representative said DOE had committed to answering States' andIndian Tribes' questions and referred specifically to item 1c in a letter fromthe State to DOE on topics of interest to the State concerning WIPP. (Seeletter from Dan Silver in reference package). Another State representativewondered why DOE appeared to be reluctant to provide written answers to theState's questions about WIPP, and added that DOE transportation staff had beenmore responsive. A DOE representative said there had been personnel changesin the WIPP office, and that the WIPP program office preferred to have asingle point of contact with repository States and Indian Tribes. He repeatedthat Art Follet is available to answer questions about WIPP. In addition DOEagreed to respond in writing to Silver's question about the exchange ofinformation between WIPP and OCRWM. (See July 1987 ACTION ITEM #2).

MRS Update

Peter Gross, DOE-OR, summarized the status of the MRS program. DOEsubmitted the MRS proposal to Congress on March 31, 1987. Several hearings onthe proposal have been held since then, and on June 16, 1987, DOE submittedproposed language for legislation to implement the MRS proposal, at therequest of Senator John Breaux. DOE is now awaiting Congressional action onthe proposal. In the meantime, DOE is responding to certain issues raised inGAO's review of the MRS proposal.

Attendees then reviewed the action items from the plenary session.


The moderator reviewed the status of socioeconomics action items from theprevious ISCG meeting. Item #12 was continued. (See July 1987 ACTION ITEM#6).

Comprehensive Socioeconomic Plan

Ann McDonough, DOE-HQ, reviewed the status of the proposed comprehensiveSocioeconomic plan from action items from the March 1987 ISCG meeting.


9. Affected parties will Affected parties Completedcontact theirappropriate PO inwriting to recommenda preferred optionfor developing asocioeconomics plan,either one of DOE'sfour options, or analternative.

McDonough explained that States and Indian Tribes had asked the Departmentin previous meetings to provide an overview of all socioeconomic activities upto the EIS. At the March 1987 SCG meeting, DOE presented four options fordeveloping the plan, which enta led varying degrees of State and Tribalparticipation. It was decided n Albuquerque that DOE would hold a workshopwith States and Indian Tribes to begin developing the plan.

1040R DRAFT 11/05/8 7

McDonough presented a draft agenda for the proposed workshop (see referencepackage) and asked for comments from attendees. No comments were offered.She said DOE would send an invitation to the workshop, including a referencepackage, to all parties when the workshop is scheduled.

Socioeconomic Monitoring and Mitigation Plans (SMMPs)

McDonough then reviewed plans for releasing revised SMMPs. She saidRevision 1 of the SMMPs, including an analysis of comments on the draftPlan(s), will be provided to States and Indian Tribes on October 19, 1987.

A State representative asked whether the comment analysis addresses thefull range of State and Indian Tribal comments or only those that directlyaddress the SMMP. McDonough replied that the scope of the SMMPs has notchanged, and that the Plans will be changed if comments are valid. AnotherDOE official added that SMMPs are only one part of a larger socioeconomicprogram that will be addressed in the comprehensive socioeconomic plan. AState representative asked if comments that are out of scope of the SMMPs willbe addressed in the workshop for the comprehensive plan. A DOE representativesaid that the comments would form part of the basis for the workshop. AnotherState representative asked if the SCPs would always be segregated from theSMMPs, or whether they would be merged at some point. McDonough said theplans would not be merged, but that the purpose of Chapter 3 of the SMMPs isto describe a monitoring program for site characterization. The Staterepresentative then asked if SMMPs are not accountable to Congress in the sameway SCPs are. McDonough said SCPs are specifically required by the NWPA, butthat the SMMPs, while not required by the NWPA, are DOE's mechanism fordocumenting its meeting the requirements of Section 113(a) of the NWPA.

In response to a question from another State official, a DOErepresentative said the Department is currently monitoring meteorologicalconditions and background radiation at Yucca Mountain, but not socioeconomicConditions. She added that DOE has field tested some socioeconomic models.

DOE then announced expected dates for releasing SCPs:

Yucca Mountain site September 1987Hanford site October 1987Deaf Smith County site March 1988.

Risk Assessment

McDonough gave a presentation on definitions DOE has developed for variousrisk assessment terms including "risk," "risk assessment," and "perceivedrisk." In response to a request from State representatives, DOE agreed toprovide to the ISCG membership copies of all slides used at the meeting,including those used in McDonough's presentation. (See July 1987 ACTION ITEM

A State representative suggested that DOE also include social, cultural,find psychological impacts, as well as economic impacts in its definition ofPerceived risk. DOE agreed to consider the addition of cultural and socialimpacts. (See July 1987 ACTION ITEM #7). Another State representative asked

1040R DRAFT 1 1/05/87

whether perceived risk would be addressed in the EIS, to which DOE repliedthat it depends on the scoping process. The State representative asked whyperceived risk will be addressed as part of the NEPA compliance process, butnot in the SMMPs. A DOE representative said the Department is only trying todefine terms to help facilitate dialogue about risk assessment, and that itdoes not want to prejudge the results of EIS scoping. He later added that DOEneeds to develop the capability to analyze risk assessment issues and that DOEwas first starting the process. Another State representative said DOE shouldconsult with States and Indian Tribes on risk assessment issues underprovisions of Section 116 as well as 117. He further suggested that DOEprovide funds to States and Indian Tribes under Section 116 (impact assessmentreports) for them to assess perceived risk. DOE replied that States andIndian Tribes will be able to request funds for such studies under 116, butthat for now, DOE has to develop its own capability to evaluate riskassessments performed by States and Indian Tribes. This effort does not limitin any way the risk assessment activities States and Indian Tribes may pursue.

Payments-Equal-To-Taxes (PETT)

Ann McDonough highlighted recent revisions to DOE's PETT guidelines,including definitions for "eligible jurisdiction," "site," and "unit ofgeneral local government," in response to a previous action item.


11. Continuation of Las A. McDonough ContinuingVegas Action Item- DOE will considerthe followingdefinition of "site"for purposes of PETT:"Any real or personalproperty owned oractivities conductedby the Federal govern-ment within a Statewhere a site is beingcharacterized, that arededicated to the sitecharacterizationprogram and would notbe within the Statewere the site notbeing characterized."

Several State representatives disagreed with how some terms were definedand asked whether they could negotiate on the issue before the PETTrulemaking. A DOE representative said the meeting of DOE, States, and IndianTribes in Salt Lake City in May was intended to address the States' andTribes' concerns about financial assistance, including definitions. He addedthat DOE would use the definitions presented unless States and Indian Tribesdesired another meeting like the one held in Salt Lake City. Another DOErepresentative said that the definitions would not make a significant

1040R DRAFT 1 1/05 /8 7

difference in the amount of PETT payments, to which a State representativeresponded that States felt they would make a difference, and that the realissue is the relation between activities conducted at the site and thedefinition of site. Another State representative later pointed out that DOEmaintains offices in Las Vegas where some site characterization activitieswill be conducted, and said that it is the State's decision whether thesewould be subject to PETT. A DOE representative noted that the situation ismore confusing at Hanford since DOE also makes payments-in-lieu-of-taxes fordefense-related activities, and suggested that the decision at the meeting inSalt Lake City was to move forward with the rulemaking. DOE then reportedthat the schedule for the rulemaking calls for the Department to issue aNotice of Intent to issue a proposed rule in the Fall, and that it would takeabout one year to produce the final rule. DOE further agreed to report theStates' and Indian Tribes' concerns about PETT and the rulemaking to seniormanagement. (See July 1987 ACTION ITEM #8).

A State representative asked why DOE would not discuss issues such as thedefinition of site before the rulemaking, adding that the only other recourseStates have is litigation. States and Indian Tribes then asked severalspecific questions about when DOE will make PETT payments. DOE replied thatProject Offices would negotiate payment schedules with the State, although itwould be difficult to make advance payments. The Department also agreed toexamine the timing of PETT payments as an action item. (See July 1987 ACTIONITEM #9).

A local government representative said his view is that the taxingjurisdictions should assess the amount of tax DOE owes, but that it appearsDOE is writing "all the rules." DOE representatives explained that theDepartment has to wear "two hats," one as a Federal agency that cannot betaxed, and the other as an industrial operation, which is directed in the NWPAto pay taxes, and that this dual role complicates the PETT program. Statesobjected to this characterization and alleged that DOE is using this"sovereign mentality" to engage in regulatory activities. Noting that DOE hasmade payments-in-lieu-of-taxes to Washington for several years, a DOErepresentative said problems with PETT could be resolved relatively easily.After further discussion, DOE agreed to convey to senior management States'objections to including PETT in the financial assistance rulemaking.(See July 1987 ACTION ITEM #10).

Impact Assistance During Site Characterization

The following is an action item from the March 1987 ISCG meeting inAlbuquerque.


12. Continuation of Las A. McDonough ContinuingVegas Action Item #12- DOE will providethe States and IndianTribes with the actualboundaries of theproposed sites, whenavailable.

10 11/05/8 7

In response to questions, DOE representatives said the Department hasindicated to Congress in the Mission Plan Amendment that impact assistance maybe required during characterization, even though the NWPA does not provide forthis kind of assistance. They added that DOE has not included a line itembudget request for impact assistance during characterization. A localgovernment representative said impacts are already occurring in Texas, andasked if DOE had proposed any language to Congress to authorize suchassistance. DOE agreed to investigate whether any language has been drafted,and noted that States recommend that the Department draft such language forCongress, if it has not already done so. (See July 1987 ACTION ITEM #11). Inthe same vein, DOE agreed to determine the status of language to authorizeimpact assistance during characterization drafted by Deaf Smith County. (SeeJuly 1987 ACTION ITEM #12). DOE then agreed to provide a schedule for makingestimated PETT payments. (See July 1987 ACTION ITEM #13).

Finally, in reviewing action items at the end of the socioeconomicssession, the ISCG tentatively agreed to hold the workshop for thecomprehensive socioeconomic plan in Kansas City on September 22-24, 1987.(See July 1987 ACTION ITEM #14).

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE

Financial Assistance Rulemaking

After the facilitator reviewed the status of financial assistance actionitems from the March 1987 ISCG meeting in Albuquerque, Allen Benson, DOE-HQ,provided an update on DOE's plans for a financial assistance rulemaking.


13a. States and Indian Affected parties PendingTribes will preparea list of issuesrelating to finan-cial assistanceand PETT rulemakingthat they would liketo discuss with DOE,and submit this listto J. Saltzman at HQ.

11/05/87

ITEM

b. At HQ, J. Saltzmanwill discuss thislist and thepossibility of holdinga special meeting withaffected parties,intended to narrowissues and if possiblereach resolution onspecific financialassistance issuesrelated to the pro-posed financialassistance/PETT rule-making. A decisionon holding such ameeting will be madewithin 2-3 weeks ofreceiving inputfrom the States andIndian Tribes.

ASSIGNED TO

J. Saltzman

STATUS

Completed

DOE expects to have a draftSeptember or early October, and"early winter." After affectedon the draft rule, DOE hopes tofall of 1988.

rule available for internal review in lateto issue a notice of proposed rulemaking inparties and other interested persons commentissue a final revised rule in the summer or

In response to questions concerning the relation between financialassistance principles developed at a meeting in Salt Lake City in May and therulemaking, DOE representatives said the Department is trying to implement theprinciples "in spirit" prior to the rulemaking. States objected to DOE's"micromanagement" of their grants. One State objected to the statement inprinciple #3 that DOE and affected parties have "equivalent" responsibilitiesin the financial assistance program and added that affected parties have apublic trust to manage grants responsibly, but not to develop a repository.DOE replied that the principle referred only to fiduciary responsibilities andthat the language was provided by an Indian Tribal representative. DOE thenagreed to convey the States' and Tribes' concern that principle #3 developedin Salt Lake City be confined to their fiduciary responsibilities only, andtheir suggestion that the principle may not be needed since it duplicatesprinciple #2. (See July 1987 ACTION ITEM #15).

Grant Activities

After distributing copies of reports on OGR's financial management systemand grants application tracking system, Allen Benson introduced a proposal todevelop a financial assistance database. States and Indian Tribes (and anyoneelse with a modem) would have a cess to the database, which would providecurrent information on the stat is of grant requests and other information onfinancial assistance. In response to questions, Benson said the databasewould also provide information an grant modifications.

1040R DRAFT 11/05/8 7

Licensing Support System (LSS)

The March 1987 ISCG meeting action item was reviewed.


14. DOE will address the A. Benson Pendingissue of confidenti-ality of State andIndian Tribal informa-tion with respect tosubmitting and/orrestricting the useof such informationin the LSS.

Benson distributed a handout on "Special Grant Condition on Data andReports." It explained that the LSS will be designed to protect confidentialor culturally sensitive information. In response to questions, he said Statesand Indian Tribes will determine what information they generate will be in theLSS (if the information is to be used in licensing). A State representativewas concerned that DOE's position on what information will be included in theLSS may be premature and "drive" negotiations on the LSS rulemaking, and heasked why DOE was incorporating elements into the system that may be changedduring the rulemaking. DOE explained that some applicable data is now beingdeveloped, and that it needs to be cataloged so it will not be lost. A Staterepresentative asked what kind of information might be lost that would be usedin licensing, to which DOE replied that the data needs to be provided in aformat suitable for the LSS, and that this format needs to be developed beforethe rulemaking. DOE then asked States and Indian Tribes to send theircomments on the Special Grant Condition. (See July 1987 ACTION ITEM #16).

Referring to language in the Special Grant Condition that requires Statesand Indian Tribes to provide data developed with grant funds to DOE, a Staterepresentative asked whether DOE has an equal obligation to provide data toaffected parties. DOE replied that the Department is obligated by Section 117to provide all relevant information to affected parties. Another Staterepresentative said DOE can "sequester" reports for years, but affectedparties cannot. Referring back to the Special Grant Condition, a DOErepresentative said the memo focuses on the protection of Tribal information,since potentially sensitive information is already being developed and IndiansTribes want assurances that it is protected. A State representative said heagreed with the general policy n the memo, but feels that questions have tobe answered about implementation; the memo refers to "masking data" and to"providing data in a timely manner." DOE responded that the POs will work outthese kinds of implementation issues.

STATE AND INDIAN TRIBAL ACTIVIT ES UNDER THE NWPA

Nez Perce indian Tribe

Several key projects, including environmental and socioeconomic studies,and document review,have been delayed because the Nez Perce have not receivedthe full amount of their grant request. Seven months into the grant year theTribe has received only 55 percent of its grant request. The Nez Perce

1040R DRAFT 11/05/87

complimented the BWIP PO for giving the Tribe more latitude in the day-to-daymanagement of their grant, but noted that HQ has not been satisfied with thePO's technical review of the Nez Perce's proposal. Pending award of the restof the Tribe's grant, the Nez Perce are focusing on public information, C&Cnegotiations, and staff development.

Texas

In conjunction with local governments, the State is studying near-termsite characterization impacts in Deaf Smith County, with special attention toimpacts to school districts. The study is needed because more people aremoving into the Panhandle than the environmental assessment projected.

The Waste Deposit Impact Committee (WDIC) was formed two years ago underState sponsorship to enable taxing jurisdictions in the vicinity of the DeafSmith County site to participate in the project. WDIC is currently focusingon socioeconomic and geotechnical issues and developing procedures forinteracting with SRPO. WDIC reports that it receives excellent support fromthe State.

Washington Governor's Office

The State has awarded a contract to Impact Assessment, Inc. of La Jolla,California, for a major study of potential socioeconomic impacts at Hanford.Th study will begin in four to six weeks. To ensure the quality of the study,the State will provide for extensive peer review of the contractor's work.The State is also supporting local government participation in socioeconomicand transportation studies, although it has had "mixed success" in obtainingDOE's approval for the effort. In this respect, Washington believes that itis up to the State to determine what studies it needs to conduct, and not forDOE to "micromanage" the State's program. The State noted that it spent$10,000 of its grant to supply additional information about the scope of theproposed socioeconomic study.

Washington Legislature

The two main issues of concern to the legislature are transportation anddefense waste, and legislation has been proposed to regulate radioactive wastetransportation in Washington. State legislators testified in Washington, D.C.on the MRS bill and have expressed considerable interest elsewhere in regionalMRSs. Several legislators also met with Ben Rusche to discuss ways to improveC&C outside the formal C&C agreements. They expect to follow up on themeeting this fall. The legislature has entered into several contracts withvarious entities for program support, most notably the University ofWashington. The legislature is also close to reaching an agreement with theBWIP PO that will enable the executive branch and the legislature to both haveaccess to State universities for program support. Finally, the legislature issponsoring a report on the overall condition of the nuclear industry, withspecial attention to the effect of waste management issues. The report willbe released in August or September.

1040R DRAFT 14 11/05/87

Yakima Indian Nation

The Yakima Indian Nation reported that they have had a difficult fiscalyear because of delays in receiving their grant, although they have submittedamended grant proposals for socioeconomic, transportation, and culturalresource studies. The PO has indicated it is likely to approve theseactivities. The Yakimas have submitted their grant proposal for FY '88 andhope to begin activities for the next fiscal year without extensive delays inreceiving grant funds.

Mississippi

The State has been awarded a grant for $53,000 and applied for anadditional $94,000 for a non-geotechnical contractor. At the same time, theState has terminated its contract with a geotechnical consultant, which willsave $250,000. Plans to ship defense waste from Savannah River throughMississippi to WIPP have aroused intense interest in the State and have beenthe subject of extensive newspaper coverage. Mississippi and Alabama arejointly submitting a proposal to DOE to locate the supercollidingsuperconductor in the two States. The State has published the 39th issue ofits nuclear waste program highlights newsletter, and plans to issue an eightpage fact sheet in August, which will be distributed to 2-3000 persons. TheState's waste program database is 70 percent cataloged. Finally, Mississippiis following the progress of proposed legislation on the waste managementprogram, and has hired a consultant in Washington, D.C. to assist with thiseffort.

Nevada

During its most recent session, the Nevada legislature created BullfrogCounty, which is 144 square miles in area and approximately coincident withthe Yucca Mountain site. The Governor will appoint county officers. Thelegislature also passed several resolutions on liability issues,transportation, and the use of grant funds for litigation. The State NuclearWaste Program Office now has a staff of 11. The State planning division haslet a contract to study radioactive waste transportation issues in Nevada.The State continues to experience delays in receiving part of its grantrequest and reports that it has provided to DOE all the clarifying informationit can. The delays are due, in part, to differing views on what isscientifically justifiable, and in this respect, Nevada believes it has theright to determine what is justifiable to meet its needs. DOE has approvedthe State's socioeconomic study program, and Nevada has hired Mountain WestResearch to conduct a three-year assessment of potential socioeconomicimpacts. As part of this effort, the State will be conducting nationalsurveys on behavioral perception. Nevada reports it has received "excellent"cooperation from DOE and SAIC in socioeconomic studies, and that DOE and SAICparti ipated in recent peer review of progress in the socioeconomic program.The State has contracted with two individual experts to estimate ad valoremtaxes on Yucca Mountain. Estimates of the tax should be available by the endof the year. Finally, Nevada representatives are concerned about recentpersonnel changes at DOE's Nevada Project Office, and hope they will notseriously affect the State's relations with DOE.

1040R DRAFT 11/05 /87

Utah

Utah's nuclear waste office has been restructured; former program directorPat Spurgin is the new Director of State Lands and Forestry, while Ruth AnnStorey, the Governor's Assistant for Environmental and Physical Resources, isthe new Office Director. There are now three professional staff members andthree clerical staff in the State's nuclear waste office. Bim Oliver isresponsible for day-to-day administration of the program. The staff iscurrently organizing all documentation of the State's nuclear waste programfor the State archives.

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR)

The CTUIR received their grant for FY '87 nine months after submitting aproposal to DOE. They have submitted a grant request for FY '88 and are nowhiring additional staff, including an engineer, a geohydrologist, and asocioeconomist. At the same time, the CTUIR are beginning a study ofcultural resources, and hope to hire a staff member to begin collectingbaseline data on environmental conditions. They have also hired a contractorto prepare videos on the waste management program. The Director of theCTUIR's nuclear waste program has testified before Congress, the NRC, and theNAS on their concerns, especially outsiders' sensitivity to the Tribes' uniqueculture. Steve Kale recently visited the CTUIR reservation to go camping withTribal leaders. (Kale also visited the Nez Perce Tribe and took a riverrafting trip) The CTUIR remain very concerned about the extent of DOE's"micromanagement" of the Tribes' affairs. Finally, the affected Indian Tribeshave established a joint cultural resources group, which held its firstmeeting the week of July 20, 1987, and will continue to meet until the Tribes'concerns are addressed.

Louisiana

Louisiana is completing the phase down of its nuclear waste program, andwill receive half the funding next year as it received this year. In thisrespect, the State has terminated its contract with Louisiana StateUniversity, leaving one full time staff member and two part-time contractors.The State expressed its thanks to SRPO for its help with their grant.

Tennessee

Tennessee did not receive any grant funds in FY '87, but DOE allowed theState to carry over unexpended funds from FY '86. The State reports the MRSproject office has been very cooperative and has not in erfered with theirmanagement of the grant. The Waste Management Institute at the University ofTennessee is the State's prime contractor to review the MRS proposal and rodconsolidation issues. The State has met with DOE several times to exchangetechnical information. With respect to litigation over the MRS, the SupremeCourt refused to review a lower court's ruling upholding DOE's position on C&Cwith the State. The courts have not clarified when Tennessee may issue anotice of disapproval, which the State plans to do. The Governor has alreadysubmitted a letter to DOE that he regards as a formal disapproval. Thelegislature, however, will not issue a notice of disapproval unless Congressapproves the MRS. If the MRS is authorized, the State will apply for grantsto expand its review of the program.

104OR DRAFT 16 11/05/8 7

Oregon

Oregon has six full time staff working on nuclear waste issues, and isworking closely with Washington and the CTUIR. The State is looking forwardto expanding its role in assessing socioeconomic impacts.

Other comments

A DOE representative complimented States and Indian Tribes for theirreports and repeated the Department's commitment to reduce delays in awardinggrants. A local government representative expressed concern that localgovernments are not involved enough in the program at the Federal and Statelevel, but he complimented Texas for taking an "enlightened" approach to suchparticipation. He further urged DOE to encourage local governmentparticipation since they have distinct responsibilities, especially inmitigating impacts.

OUTREACH COMMITTEE

Information Services Update


15. An updated copy ofthe InformationServices Directorywill be sent tothe ISCG roster.

G. King Completed

After the facilitator reviewed the status of action items from the 3/87ISCG meeting, Ginger King, DOE-HQ, summarized recent program developments,including the following:

March 31, 1987June 10, 1987

June 11, 1987

June 17, 1987

June 21, 1987

DOE submitted MRS proposal to Congress;DOE released first annual report on spent fuel storagecapacity;DOE submitted revised Mission Plan Amendment to Congress;DOE selected private firms for negotiations to develop newgeneration of shipping casks;DOE submitted draft language to Congress to implement MRSauthorization; andDOE submitted Annual Report to Congress and released 5thfee adequacy report.

Upcoming events include release of the final Federal Register Notice on thedefense waste fee and an updated Total Systems Life Cycle Cost Report. DOEhas also released an updated Information Services Directory and a publicationscatalog, featuring 500 of the most requested program documents. Some 20hearings on proposed legislation have been held in Congress, and Congressionalstaff are planning to visit Hanford, the Nevada Test Site, and WIPP, as wellas meet with waste boards in affected States.

1040R DRAFT 11/05/87

In response to questions, King said the OCRWM Policy Reader, which is sentto States and affected Indian Tribes, includes all documents that are sent toCongress. A State representative asked whether DOE plans to respond to GAO'srecent report on the MRS proposal, to which another DOE representative repliedthat DOE is developing additional information in response to GAO's specificconcerns.

SCP Outreach

The following are the March 1987 ISCG meeting action items:


16. DOE will determine C. Peabody Completed andhow it plans to discussed at Julyrespond to NRC's 1987 ISCG meeting.comments in the (see below)site characteri-zation analysisand inform theStates and IndianTribes of theseplans.

17. DOE will determine C. Peabody Completed andwhether SCP reference discussed at Julydocuments can be 1987 ISCG meeting.made available in (see below)a form compatiblewith the LSS.

Ginger King summarized the status of DOE's outreach planning for SCPrelease (See slide package distributed in accordance with July 1987 ActionItem #5). DOE has been sharing draft chapters of the SCPs with NRC, States,and Indian Tribes. When SCPs are released for public comment, DOE willconduct briefings and hold public hearings. NRC's comments on the SCP will beprovided in the NRC Site Characterization Analysis report. DOE will respondto comments on the exploratory shaft facility before beginning construction.DOE is considering the States' and Indian Tribes' request for a six-month SCPcomment period. Overviews for each SCP are under development to assist thepublic in reviewing the SCPs. The Department will provide 30 days noticebefore the SCP is released. All references will be available on release day.In response to questions, King said NRC has committed to providing earlycomments on the sections of the SCP related tothe exploratory shaft.

In response to Action Item #16 from the March 1987 ISCG meeting, HQ statedthat the nature of NRC's comments in the site characterization analysis willdictate what is the appropriate document for DOE's response to NRC. Forexample, general comments on the adequacy of sections of the SCP could beaddressed in the SCP comment-response document, while comments on a specifictest or analysis could be addressed in the semiannual progress report.Therefore, after NRC's comments have been received, DOE will determine howbest to respond to the comments, and will inform the States and Indian Tribesof how the response will be made.

1040R DRAFT 18 11/05 /8 7

In response to Action Item #17 from the March 1987 ISCG meeting, Kingreported that the LSS is expected to be operational by 1991. Therefore theLSS would not be used to provide SCP reference documents to the States andIndian Tribes. The LSS, which is still being designed, is currently plannedas a computerized information management system that will allow on-line,full-text retrieval of repository records. OGR has also established a specialgrant condition on data and reports requiring that State and Indian Tribedocuments be in a computer-readable format that is consistent with the LSS.For documents not prepared in the computer-readable format, the full text willbe available in the LSS, but it is expected that there will not be full-textretrieval in the sense that documents can be retrieved by means of key words;instead the full text will be available by searching the document index. Mostof the SCP reference materials will be provided in the form of hard copymicrofiche, and most of these materials are not in the computer-readableformat. Therefore, while the full text will be available, there may not befull-text retrieval.

Project Office, State, and Indian Tribal Reports on SCP Release

NNWSI has formed a task force to prepare for printing and issuing theirSCP. The task force is now making arrangements for printing 2000 copies ofthe SCP, which will be about 8000 pages long, setting up a toll free telephonenumber, and compiling a mailing list.

BWIP is planning for SCP distribution and working with libraries to ensurethe availability of references. The PO will be discussing with States andIndian Tribes the locations for briefings and hearings. In conducting thebriefings and hearings, BWIP plans to follow the model of the Hanford defensewaste EIS outreach effort.

Nevada believes DOE should not print the SCP until the impacts of theAppeals Court decision on 40 CFR 191 are determined. Washington's plansdepend on the length of the comment period, although the State is consideringholding four hearings, and is now developing a site characterization focuspaper. The affected Indian Tribes have not made outreach plans, but expectthat those plans will depend on the length of the comment period and reflectWashington's outreach effort. Oregon is hiring a public informationcontractor and working closely with Washington,

Facility Specific Outreach and Participation Plans

Ginger King, DOE-HQ, summarized the status of the Participation Plans (seereference package). HQ has responded to comments from States, Indian Tribes,and P)s on draft HQ criteria for reviewing the Plans. Two of the major HQresponses were that the Plans should be milestone based and should addressState and local governments as well as the public. King stressed that thePlans are intended to be living documents that will change as program needschange.

Project Office representatives then summarized the status of efforts atPOs for each plan. At a meeting with HQ staff on June 18, 1987, NNWSIobtained HQ approval of NNWSI's proposal to develop a generic checklist forall milestones to be contained in the Plan. NNWSI will meet with the StatePlanning Advisory

1040R DRAFT 1 9 11/05/87

Group to discuss the participation process after the generic checklist isdeveloped. SRPO is working with Susan Wiltshire to develop the participationplan tor Texas. Wiltshire is meeting with interested persons in Texas to seehow they would like to participate in the program. SRPO hopes to conduct aworkshop with local citizens this Fall to begin developing the ParticipationPlan for Texas. BWIP has written a strawman Participation Plan, which will besubmitted to HQ as soon as possible.

State and Indian Tribal Presentations on Outreach Efforts

The CTUIR are conducting public information meetings and tours of culturalsites at Hanford. The most recent issue of the Tribes' newsletters waspublished in April and distributed widely. The CTUIR have produced publicservice announcements (PSAs) on the program, and report that PSAs seem to bemore effective than newspaper notices. A program on Indian Tribal usagerights at Hanford was broadcast on television in Richland, and may bebroadcast on Oregon public television.

Utah has no active outreach program, except for responding to "infrequentbut interesting" letters from the public.

Aside from publishing a regular newsletter and an "extensive mailingoperation," Nevada reports that the State nuclear waste office is keeping a"low profile" during the current legislative session.

Misissippi has curtailed its outreach program, but continues to publishits "Highlights" newsletter, develop fact sheets, respond to correspondence,and provide speakers to interested groups.

Washington has an active outreach program. Its most recent newsletter wasdistributed to 14,000 persons. The State is conducting approximately two townmeetings per month; more than 250 people have been turning out for eachmeeting held so far. A toll-free number (800-262-SITE in Washington) has beenset up to answer public inquiries on the program and is receiving 30-40 callsper month. The State continues to update and expand it series of fact sheetsand display materials.

The Nez Perce continue to publish a newsletter, brochures, and fact sheetson the program, and have conducted several public meetings. The major issuesof concern have been transportation, possessory use rights, and development ofbaseline data on cultural resources. The Tribe plans to survey its membershipon issues of concern and hopes to produce documentaries. The Nez Perce alsocoordinate many of their activities with Washington.

Texas, Louisiana, and Tennessee did not report on their outreach programs.

1040R DRAFT 20 11/05 /8 7

Project Office Reports on Public Information Activities

The second repository program continues to be on hold at CPO. In the areaof transportation, CPO signed contracts in June to develop new shipping casks,and is revising the Transportation Institutional Plan.

A new Project Manager for NNWSI will hopefully be in place by the end ofAugust. NNWSI approved $7.9 million of the State's grant request. TheProject Office is moving to the same building where their prime contractor,SAIC, is located.

SRPO has been active since moving to Hereford. Citizens in the Panhandlehave been especially interested in the project's immediate impact on theregion, and SRPO is issuing a weekly report on this topic. Out of a projectstaff of 109, 63 moved to the Panhandle from Ohio and 46 were hired locally;42 live in Hereford, 12 live in Canyon, 34 live in Amarillo, and 2 live inVega. About 30 percent of SRPO's expenditures have been in Hereford, 50percent in Amarillo, and 13 percent outside of Texas. To assist localbusinesses, SRPO issued a booklet on how to bid for contracts with DOE andfact sheets on job opportunities and doing business with DOE, and conducted aworkshop on doing business with DOE, which 150 persons attended. The PO iscontinuing work on the land acquisition process. The State was awarded $2.5million of its grant request, and the PO expects to award additional fundssoon.

104OR DRAFT 21 11/05/87

PLENARY SESSION

Current Master Calendar

Responses to July 1987 Seattle ISCG Action Items #1 and #3

Intergovernmental Resource Center Status Report and Synopsisof Draft IRC Briefing Book

Outline of Action Item Tracking System (AITS)

Revised OGR Internal C&C Guidelines

Revised Agenda and Commitments from the Dallas, Texas,October 1, 1987 DOE Meeting with States and Indian Tribes

October 1, 1987 Letter from J.S. Herrington on SecondRepository

MASTER CALEN DAR

November 3, 1987

KEY

ECG - ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATING GROUPGCG - GEOSCIENCES COORDINATING GROUPISCG - INSTITUTIONAL/SOCIOECONOMIC COORDINATION GROUPNAS/DOE - NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES/DOENRC-LSS - NRC-LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM ADVISORY COMMITTEENRC-S/T - NRC-STATES AND INDIAN TRIBESPA/SACG - PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT/SAFETY ASSESSMENT

COORDINATING GROUPPMCG -'PROJECT MANAGEMENT COORDINATING GROUPQACG - QUALITY ASSURANCE COORDINATING GROUPRECG - REPOSITORY ENGINEERING COORDINATING GROUPS/T - STATES AND INDIAN TRIBESTCG - TRANSPORTATION COORDINATING GROUPTN/DOE - TENNESSEE/DOE

NOVEMBER 1987

{COULD NOT BE CONVERTED TO SEARCHABLE TEXT}

DECEMBER 1987{COULD NOT BE CONVERTED TO SEARCHABLE TEXT}

JANUARY 1988{COULD NOT BE CONVERTED TO SEARCHABLE TEXT}

FEBRUARY 1988{COULD NOT BE CONVERTED TO SEARCHABLE TEXT}

MARCH 1988{COULD NOT BE CONVERTED TO SEARCHABLE TEXT}

APRIL 1988

{ C OU LD NOT BE CONVERTEDTO SEARCHABLETEXT}

{COU LD NO T BE CO NV E RT E D TOSE A RC HA BL E TEXT }

MAY 1988

JUNE 1988{COULD NOT BE CONVERTED TO SEARCHABLE TEXT}

JULY 1988

{CO ULD N

OT BE CO NVE RTED TOSEARCHABLE T

E XT}

AUGUST 1988

{COULD N OTB E CO N VER T ED T O S E ARCHABL E

T E X T}

SEPTEMBER 1988{COULD NOT BE CONVERTED TO SEARCHABLE TEXT}

OCTOBER 1988{COULD NOT BE CONVERTED TO SEARCHABLE TEXT}

Response to Seattle ISCG Action Item #1

QUESTION FROM CHAIRMAN SHARP

QUESTION 10:

ANSWER:

Please explain the programmatic impact of the recent courtdecision nullifying the EPA standards promulgated undersection 121 of the Act.

At this time, we do not foresee any programmatic impact

resulting from the court decision.

Response to Seattle ISCG Action Item 3

Department of EnergyWashington, DC 20585

SEP 08 1987

Mr. Bill Burke, DirectorUmatilla Nuclear WasteStudy Program

Confederated Tribes of theUmatilla Indian Reservation

P.O. Box 638Pendleton, Oregon 97801

Dear Mr. Burke:

Thank you for your June 17, 1987, letter responding to my inquiryconcerning the resumption of Consultation and Cooperation Agree-ment negotiations. You have succinctly stated the three concernsthat the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation(CTUIR) have had in the past with the consultation relationshipbetween the Department of Energy (DOE) and the CTUIR. I think thoseconcerns have been resolved to the satisfaction of both theDepartment and the CTUIR. I have briefly summarized the resolu-tion of those concerns below.

Regarding the issue of eligibility for impact assistance underSection 118(b) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (the Act),the Departmental determination on this issue, as expressed in aJanuary 29, 1987, letter from J. H. Anttonen, Assistant Managerfor Commercial Nuclear Waste, to E. H. Patawa, Chairman, CTUIR,was that, "affected Indian Tribes," as defined in Section 2(2)(B)of the Act, are eligible to receive financial assistance todevelop a report requesting impact assistance under Section 118(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Furthermore, if the Hanford site isfinally selected and receives Nuclear Regulatory Commission au-thorization for constructing a repository, then the Department ofthe Interior designated affected Indian Tribes for the Hanfordsite would be eligible for financial and technical impact assis-tance (to address impacts of repository development) underSection 118(b)(3)(A) and (B) of the Act.

Your second concern related to delays in DOE finalizing the FY 87grant to the CTUIR. The final installment of the FY 87 grant wasaccepted by the CTUIR on July 8, 1987. The Department expectsthat the streamlined grant review process that we are currentlyimplementing will reduce delays in future grant awards.

Celebrating the U.S. Constitution Bicentennial - 1787-1987

- 2

You also raised the issue of the applicability of the variousprovisions listed in Section 117(c) of the Act to Consultationand Cooperation (C&C) Agreements between the Department andaffected Indian Tribes. The Department addressed that concern ina June 19, 1987, letter from Ben C. Rusche, Director, Office ofCivilian Radioactive Waste Management, to Louie H. Dick, Jr.,Chairman, Nuclear Waste Advisory Committee, which stated that forpurposes of a written C&C Agreement DOE and affected IndianTribes may negotiate procedures to address any issues of concernto the affected Indian Tribes that are related to the publichealth and safety, environmental, and economic impacts of arepository. This position reflects the intent of Congress thatconsultation and cooperation applies to affected States' andIndian Tribes' concerns across a broad range of issues.

I hope that the CTUIR shares the Department's view that these threeissues have been satisfactorily resolved, and invite the CTUIRto consider renewing C&C negotiations with the Department.

Sincerely,

Stephen H. KaleAssociate Director for

Geologic RepositoriesOffice of Civilian RadioactiveWaste Management

Department of EnergyWashington, DC 20585

JUN 19 1987

Mr. Louis H. Dick, Jr., ChairmanNuclear Waste Advisory CommitteeConfederated Tribes of theUmatilla Indian Reservation

P.O. Box 638Pendleton, Oregon 97801

Dear Mr. Dick:

In my February 13, 1987, letter to Mr. J. Herman Reuben, Chairmanof the Nez Perce Indian Tribe, a copy of which was included inthe reference package for the March 10-12, 1987, Institutional/socioeconomic Coordination Group (ISCG) Meeting, I addressed theissue of whether the eleven items listed in Section 117(c) of theNuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (the Act) may be included in aConsultation and Cooperation (C&C) Agreement between theDepartment of Energy (DOE) and affected Indian Tribes.Subsequently, representatives of the Confederated Tribes of theUmatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) expressed a desire forfurther amplification on DOE's position with respect to whatprocedures may be included in a negotiated C&C Agreement betweenDOE and the affected Indian Tribes. Specifically, the CTUIRbasked if a negotiated C&C Agreement with them may include proce-cures related to offsite concerns such as those described inSection 117(c)(5) of the Act. In response to the concernsexpressed by the CTUIR by letter and at the ISCG Meeting, thefollowing information is being provided.

THe Department recognizes the importance Congress placed on therole of consultation and cooperation between the Department andStates and Indian Tribes in siting a repository. Congressexpressed its intent about consultation and cooperation inSection 117(b) of the Act, which requires the Secretary toconsult and cooperate with the Governors and legislatures ofaffected States and the governing body of any affected IndianTribe in trying to resolve their concerns regarding the publichealth and safety, environmental, and economic impacts of arepository. The Secretary, in carrying out his duties under theconsultation and cooperation provisions of the Act, is to takethose concerns into account to the maximum extent feasible and asspecified in written agreements with affected States and IndianTribes.

Celebrating the U. S. Constitution Bicentennial - 1787-1987

-2-

The Department has previously stated that it considers itappropriate to negotiate any issues of concern to the IndianTribes in arriving at a completed C&C Agreement. Therefore, forpurposes of a written C&C Agreement, DOE and affected IndianTribes may negotiate procedures to address any issues of concernto the affected Indian Tribes that are related to the publichealth and safety, environmental, and economic impacts of arepository.

I trust that this response, in addition to the Department'sdetermination that "affected Indian Tribes," as defined bySection 2(2)(B) of the Act, are eligible to receive financialassistance to develop a report requesting impact assistance underSection 118(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act (see enclosed letter datedJanuary 29, 1987, from John Anttonen to Elwood Patawa), isevidence of the Department's commitment to consult and cooperatewith the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation.

Sincerely,

Ben Rusche, DirectorOffice of Civilian Radioactive

Waste Management

Enclosure

cc: William Burke, CTUIR

Department of Energy

P O box 550Richland, Washington 99352 87-AMC-6

JAN 29 1987

M:. Elwood H. Patawa, ChairmanBoard of TrusteesConfederated Tribes of the

Umatilla Indian ReservationP. 0. Box 638Pendleton, OR 97801

Dear Mr. Patawa:


Mr. Elwood H. Patwa

{ C OU L DNOTBE CONVERTEDTOSEARCHABLETEXT}

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RESOURCE CENTER STATUS REPORTAND SYNOPSIS OF DRAFT IRC BRIEFING BOOK

Staus of IRC Document Collection

The Draft Intergovernmental Resource Center briefing book will be handedout at the ISCG Meeting.

IRC document collection is continuing.

- State and local government documents listed in catalogs of Statepublications have been obtained.

To collect documents on Indian Tribes, on-line searches ofbibliographic data bases were conducted, as well as on-siteof the Smithsonian and the Department of Interior's NaturalLibrary collections. In addition, the Nez Perce Tribe sentNez Perce Country to HQ.

Synopsis of Draft IRC Briefing Book

searchesResourcescopies of

The draft briefing book includes:

- a section on each State with a candidate repository site and thesurrounding local governments;

- a general information section on Indian Tribes; and

a section on each affected Indian Tribe.

The State and local government sections provide:

- a of Congressional delegates;

a description of the State legislature and its functions, and a listof State legislators representing the site area;

- a description of the types of local governments, including counties,towns, or unincorporated areas, including information on theirbudgets, and land use planning;

- some demographic information about the local areas, includingpopulation statistics;

- maps illustrating the specific candidate repository site within eachState.

11/05/87

The section entitled General Information on Indian Tribes includesinformation on:

- Indian Reservations;

- Indian Tribal Government;

- the relations between Indians Tribes and the Bureau of Indian Affairs;

- historical information, including Acts and policies;

- the Hanford Reservaton in relation to the Indian Reservations; and

- treaties of 1855 and 1863 with the affected Indian Tribes.

The sec ions on the Affected Indian Tribes generally provide informationon:

- the Reservation, such as its location and population;

- treaties, including those regarding fishing rights;

- history and culture, including religious beliefs and early governmentstructures;

- Indian Tribal government, such as membership and enrollment, andTribal and General Councils;

- economy, including the Indian Tribal income; and

- the Indian Tribe and the Nuclear Waste program.

There is also a section of maps indicating Indian Reservation locations.

Next Steps

States, Indian Tribes, and Local parties are encouraged to send to WilmaProbst comments on the draft briefing book and to suggest documents HQshould include in the RC.

The draft briefing book will be revised to incorporate comments receivedby January 30, 1988, and provided to HQ technical staff and to the ISCGroster. The IRC briefing book will also be put on Infolink.

DRAFT KA 67

ACTION ITEM TRACKING SYSTEM (AITS)

'AITS' IS A PC DATABASE SYSTEM DESIGNED TO BE A MANAGEMENT TOOL. IT ISUSED TO HELP TRACK THE PROGRESS AND COORDINATION OF ACTION ITEMSORIGINATING FROM OGR COORDINATING GROUP MEETINGS.

REPORTS ARE DESIGNED TO IDENTIFY ACTION ITEMS BY ANY OF THE FOLLOWINGCRITERIA: COMMITTEE, DUE DATE, INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNED TO THE ACTION ITEM,AND MEETING DATE.

ACTION ITEMS THAT ARE A CARRY-OVER FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING AREIDENTIFIED AS SUCH.

REPORTS WILL BE GENERATED MONTHLY FOR SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATINGGROUP CHAIRPERSONS TO MONITOR THE STATUS OF ACTION ITEMS.

BOLDFACE INDICATES PROPOSED CHANGES

GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THECONSULTATION AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT

PROVISIONS OF SECTION 117 OF THENUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1982

(REVISED DRAFT 11/4/87)

1.0 PURPOSE

The purpose of this document is to assist the Department of Energy(DOE) headquarters and operations offices in developing EFFECTIVEConsultation and Cooperation (C&C) agreements as OUTLINED IN Section117 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (the Act). C&C agreementsWERE CONSIDERED BY THE DRAFTERS OF THE ACT TO BE AN IMPORTANT means ofensuring that States and affected Indian Tribes participate in theplanning and development of the NUCLEAR waste DISPOSAL program. C&Cagreements ARE INTENDED TO govern the procedures to be followed inINTERACTIONS between DOE and States or AFFECTED INDIAN Tribes and HELPform the foundation upon which such relations may be guided.

These C&C guidelines provide general guidance to DOE offices. Theguidelines will be supplemented with frequent communications betweenthe operations offices, DOE PROJECT OFFICES, and headquarters with theaim of developing agreements that address the specific concerns of eachState and affected Indian Tribe, AS WELL AS DOE. THESE COMMUNICATIONSMAY BE IN THE FORM OF POLICY INITIATIVES, AS WELL AS DISCUSSIONS ATVARIOUS COORDINATING GROUP MEETINGS. ALSO, THE MISSION PLAN AS WELL ASOTHER OCRWM AND OGR GUIDELINES SHOULD BE REFERRED TO AS APPROPRIATE.THESE INCLUDE THE OCRWM DRAFT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE ANDPAYMENTS-EQUAL-TO-TAXES GUIDELINES, THE INTERNAL GUIDELINES FORINTERACTIONS WITH COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AND THE OGRGUIDELINES FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

The Act establishes A comprehensive PROCESS for the siting,construction, operation, and closure of mined geologicrepositories for disposal of high level radioactive waste andspent fuel. The Act contains a specific finding that State andpublic participation in the planning and development ofrepositories is necessary to promote public confidence in theDepartment's nuclear waste disposal program. To ensure thatStates and affected Indian Tribes are involved in the repositorysiting process, the Act requires the Federal Government to consultand cooperate with States and affected Indian Tribes on means of

INSTAF 227 11/06/87

resolving their concerns about repository impacts. AN ONGOINGEFFORT IS BEING MADE TO COOPERATIVELY DEFINE THE C&C PROCESS. Aspart of this, the Act requires the Department to seek to enterinto and negotiate binding written agreements for this purpose.

2.2 Consultation and Cooperation Agreements

Section 117(c) of the Act PROVIDES for written C&C agreements.The purpose of the agreements is to set forth procedures underwhich the Department will consult and cooperate with States andaffected Indian Tribes IN AN EFFORT to resolve their concernsregarding the public health and safety, environmental, andeconomic impacts of characterization, AND construction ANDOPERATIONS activities relating to the development of nuclear wasterepositories.

C&C agreements offer several potential benefits to the Department,States, and affected Indian Tribes:

They lay a foundation and establish, IN A FORMAL DOCUMENT,the mechanisms for the productive interaction and informationexchange between the Department and the State or INDIAN Tribethroughout all phases of repository development.

They define and demonstrate publicly, IN A WRITTEN AGREEMENT,that procedures are in place for ensuring proper review ofPOTENTIAL health, safety, environmental, and socioeconomicimpacts of the project.

They provide AN AGREED UPON mechanism for State AND INDIANTribe review and evaluation, including REASONABLE independentmonitoring and testing of activities on CANDIDATE repositorysites AND AT THE SITE ULTIMATELY SELECTED FOR THE REPOSITORY.

They establish a means to resolve OBJECTIONS OF STATES ORINDIAN TRIBES.

3.0 ELIGIBILITY AND PARTICIPANTS

The Act specifies that the Secretary of Energy shall seek to enter intonegotiations with States and affected Indian Tribes concerning C&Cagreements within 60 days after the time (1) a site is approved by thePresident for site characterization under Section 112(c) of the Act, or(2) a written request for an agreement is received from a State oraffected Indian Tribe which has been notified by the Department that ithas identified within the State/INDIAN Tribal area a "potentiallyacceptable" site(s) as defined in Section 116(a) of the Act, whicheveroccurs first.

THE STATE OR INDIAN TRIBE WILL CHOOSE MEMBERS OF ITS NEGOTIATING TEAMAND DETERMINE SIGNATORY AUTHORITY ACCORDING TO ITS OWN LAWS ANDREGULATIONS. THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR NEGOTIATING C&C AGREEMENTSWITHIN DOE RESIDES WITH THE APPROPRIATE OPERATIONS OFFICE. THEOPERATIONS OFFICE MANAGER SHALL APPOINT ALL MEMBERS OF THE NEGOTIATING

INSTAF 227 11/06/87

TEAM, INCLUDING THE CHIEF NEGOTIATOR. EXCEPT FOR THE PERMANENTHEADQUARTERS REPRESENTATIVE. THE CHIEF NEGOTIATOR SHALL INITIAL ALLTENTATIVE AGREEMENTS. HOWEVER, FINAL CONCURRENCE AUTHORITY IS VESTEDIN DOE HEADQUARTERS. IN ADDITION, HEADQUARTERS IS RESPONSIBLE FORENSURING CONSISTENCY IN NEGOTIATING POSITIONS AMONG THE VARIOUSOPERATIONS OFFICES, AS WELL AS PROVIDING INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY OF THEOVERALL PROCESS.

SIGNATORY AUTHORITY TO SIGN THE C&C AGREEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THEDEPARTMENT IS VESTED IN THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY. UNDER APPROPRIATECIRCUMSTANCES, THE SECRETARY WILL SIGN COMPLETED AGREEMENTS. IN ALLOTHER SITUATIONS, THE SECRETARY WILL DELEGATE SIGNATORY AUTHORITY TOTHE OCRWM DIRECTOR. CLOSE COORDINATION BETWEEN THE OPERATIONS OFFICESAND HEADQUARTERS ON ALL ASPECTS OF THE AGREEMENT WILL PRECEDE ANYFORMAL SIGNING.

4.0 CONTENTS OF THE AGREEMENTS

4.1 General

C&C agreements set forth formal processes by which the Departmentand States or affected Indian Tribes may interact and cometogether on issues of importance to both. Section 117(c) of theAct IDENTIFIES 11 areas FOR WHICH PROCEDURES SHALL BE SPECIFIED INTHE AGREEMENTS. THE DEPARTMENT CONSIDERS IT APPROPRIATE TONEGOTIATE ON ISSUES OF CONCERN TO STATES AND AFFECTED INDIANTRIBES.

The C&C agreement establishes procedures for addressingsubstantive issues which will be encountered in the main phases ofthe repository development process. After the C&C agreement issigned, follow-up negotiations may be needed to help consummateANCILLARY agreements concerning issues affecting later phases ofthe repository development program. The C&C agreement MAYESTABLISH the ground rules for all subsequent negotiations.

4.2 Specific

Each C&C agreement MAY be unique, depending on the NEEDS OF-TEEPARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT. The following common elements, HOWEVER,ARE REQUIRED BY THE ACT.

1. State and INDIAN Tribal participation procedures.

Procedures by which States and affected INDIAN Tribesmay study, determine, comment on, and makerecommendations on possible public health, safety,environmental, social, and economic impacts of arepository.

Procedures which the Department will use in consideringand responding to comments and recommendations,including a time period for responding.

INSTAF 227 11/06/87

Guiding Principles

- DOE should be prepared to provide access to informationneeded and financial support to help States AND INDIANTribes prepare comments and recommendations.

- Scheduling and timing should allow DOE adequate time foroperations OFFICES and headquarters' PREPARATION ANDreview of material TO BE SHARED WITH STATES AND INDIANTRIBES.

2. Procedures for periodic review/modification of C&C agreement.

Guiding Principles

- THE AGREEMENT IS A FLEXIBLE OR "LIVING" DOCUMENT THATCAN BE MODIFIED AT ANY TIME WITH MUTUAL WRITTEN CONSENT.

- THE PROCESS FOR INITIATING AND EFFECTING MODIFICATIONSHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN THE AGREEMENT.

3. Procedures regarding impact reports and assistance.

o Procedures by which a State or INDIAN Tribe is to submitan impact report and request for impact assistance underSection 116(c)(2) or 118(b)( ).

Guiding Principles

Consideration should be giver to how impact assistancecan address local community concerns.

4. Procedures for resolving STATE AND INDIAN TRIBAL offsiteconcerns at sites for which the Nuclear Regulatory Commissionhas authorized construction:

State/INDIAN TRIBAL/Federal liability arising fromaccidents.

Necessary road upgrading and access to the site.

Ongoing emergency preparedness and emergency response.

Monitoring of transportation of nuclear waste and spentfuel through the State.

Conducting baseline health studies of persons livingnear the repository site, and reasonable periodicmonitoring thereafter.

Monitoring of the repository site upon decommissioningand decontamination.

INSTAF 227 11/06/87

Guiding Principles

- Full consideration should be given to the offsiteconcerns of communities in the immediate area.

5. Procedures for review and evaluation of the overall project,including identification in the agreement of key events,critical path milestones, and decision points.

Guiding Principles

- Every effort should be made to accommodate State ANDINDIAN TribAL desires for periodic project review andevaluation. This can be accomplished by setting upregularly scheduled review meetings, as well asproviding for unscheduled meetings, as required.

6. Notification of transportation of waste and spent fuel intothe State FOR DISPOSAL AT THE REPOSITORY.

Guiding Principles

Notification should be made as early as possible and inas detailed a form as possible. Also, acharacterization of the nature of the waste to betransported should be provided. Conformity with Federalregulations is required. DOE WILL ALSO COMPLY WITHAPPLICABLE STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS.

- A SET TIME-FRAME SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED FORNOTIFICATION. ALSO, SPECIFIC CONTACTS SHOULD BEIDENTIFIED FOR PROPER NOTIFICATION.

7. Procedures for independent testing and monitoring.

Guiding Principles

DOE must recognize State AND INDIAN TribAL rights ofsite access for testing and monitoring purposes. Theserights must not unreasonably interfere with or delayon-site activities.

8. Procedures for the sharing, within applicable Federal, State,AND INDIAN TRIBAL laws, of technical and licensinginformation, and utilization of available expertise for thepurpose of:

Facilitating permit procedures.Joint project review.Joint surveillance and monitoring.

INSTAF 227 11/06/8 7

Guiding Principles

Technical information should be made available at theearliest possible time. With regard to certain data --such as proprietary data or data relating to patentprotection -- all applicable laws governing release mustbe adhered to.

With regard to information of a policy nature, DOE WILLMAKE AVAILABLE TO STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES AT THEEARLIEST PRACTICAL TIME policy working papers orexcerpts thereof.

DOE should affirmatively invite State AND INDIAN TribALconsultation with regard to utilizing availableexpertise, as well as offering available DOE expertiseto them.

Because of the SCHEDULE mandated by the Act, clearprocedures should be set up for facilitating theprocessING of NECESSARY permitS; WHERE POSSIBLE, abuilt-in appeal process leading up to and including THEINVOLVEMENT OF THE Governor/INDIAN Tribal council SHOULDBE DEVELOPED.

Reasonable limits should be sought as to the areas forjoint environmental surveillance and monitoring, as wellas involvement by the StateS AND INDIAN TribeS in allsuch joint efforts.

9. Procedures for public notification of C&C agreements.

Guiding Principles

- Procedures should, to the extent practicable, INCLUDETHE PUBLIC WHENEVER POSSIBLE.

10. Procedures for resolution OF STATE AND INDIAN TRIBALOBJECTIONS.

Guiding Principles

- The process of ISSUE resolution should start at thelevel where ISSUES originated, with UNRESOLVED ISSUESsent up the organizational ladder (both in DOE and atthe State OR INDIAN Tribe level).

- The various levels of possible ISSUE resolution and theOFFICES OR POSITIONS authorized to negotiate at thoselevels should be clearly indicated.

- A clear time-frame for resolving ISSUES should beprovided.,

INSTAF 227 11/06/87

ALTHOUGH NOT REQUIRED BY THE ACT, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHERPROVISIONS THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR INCLUSION IN AN AGREEMENT.

THESE INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING:

1. General and introductory provisions, including:

Parties to the agreement.Scope and duration of the agreement.Purpose AND OBJECTIVES of the agreement.Identification of working level contact points.Definition of APPROPRIATE terms.

Guiding Principles

- Clarity is essential in defining parties, indicatingsignatory authority, and delegations of authority.

- Clear indication should be given that C&C agreementspertain to the entire process of repository developmentthrough Phase IV, subject, of course, to periodic reviewand modification.

- A definite time-frame for negotiation of the C&Cagreements should be set. The Act provides guidance onthis, requiring the agreement, to the maximum extentfeasible, to be completed not later than 6 months afternegotiations have begun. REPORTS TO CONGRESS ON THESTATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS MUST BE SENT IF THIS TIME FRAMEIS NOT MET.

2. PROCEDURES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT.

PROCEDURES THAT WOULD OUTLINE A PROCESS BY WHICH LOCALGOVERNMENTS WILL PARTICIPATE IN THE REPOSITORY PROGRAM.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

- DOE MUST RECOGNIZE THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE ENTITIESWITHIN STATES AND THAT DOE SHOULD WORK THROUGH THESTATES, WHENEVER POSSIBLE, CONCERNING LOCAL GOVERNMENTINVOLVEMENT. (OCRWM'S "INTERNAL GUIDELINES FORINTERACTIONS WITH COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS"SUPPORTS THIS PRINCIPLE.)

3. PROCEDURES FOR THE DISCONTINUATION OF STATE/INDIAN TRIBALFUNDING IF AND WHEN A SITE IS DROPPED FROM FURTHERCONSIDERATION.

INSTAF 227 11/06 /87

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

- THE POTENTIAL FOR DISRUPTION EXISTS IF A SITE IS DROPPEDFROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION NEAR THE END OF THE TERM OF AGRANT AND FUNDS HAVE ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED FOR THE NEXTPEASE OF THE PROGRAM. DOE SHOULD SEEK AN ORDERLYSHUT-DOWN PROCESS TO FACILITATE STATE AND INDIAN TRIBALFINANCIAL PLANNING, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH EXISTINGDOE RULES.

5.0 TIME FRAME AND SCOPE OF C&C AGREEMENTS

Each C&C agreement negotiated with a State or affected Indian Tribeshould prescribe mechanisms which are applicable during the entirerepository development process -- from notification through repositoryconstruction, operation and closure. An agreement covering all phasesof the program will ensure an orderly C&C process as envisioned in theAct by helping to avoid short term perturbations. Of course, it willnot be possible to prescribe detailed mechanisms for the handling ofall issues which may eventually become germane. Accordingly, the C&Cagreement should address these issues by stipulating an "agreement toagree" when and if certain events, such as approval for sitecharacterization or issuance of a construction authorization, occur.THESE ISSUES COULD BE ADDRESSED IN MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGREEMENT OR INANCILLARY AGREEMENTS.

INSTAF 227 8 11/06/87

{ C OULD N O T B E CONVERTED TO SEARCHABLE TEXT}

DOE MEETING WITH STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES

COMMITMENTS

Dallas, TexasOctober 1, 1987

1. DOE will provide its position to the States and Indian Tribes as soon aspossible on pending Department of Transportation legislation related to

a. the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA).

2. DOE will release the Environmental Regulatory Compliance Plans (ERCPs) byor before the January 8, 1988 release of the consultative draft SCPs andthe Environmental and Socioeconomic Monitoring and Mitigation Plans(MMPs).

3. If the Secretary sends a letter to Congress on DOE's position regardingany bill amending the NWPA, DOE will provide copies of the letter to theStates and Indian Tribes.

4. After the consultation workshops are held, DOE will continue to consultwith the States and Indian Tribes and provide opportunities for commentson the consultative draft SCPs and MMPs.

5. DOE will provide immediate written notification of any projected changein the release date for the consultative draft SCPs.

6. DOE will continue to provide status reports to the States and IndianTribes on the prognosis for release of the SCPs, with approximately 30days notice before the SCPs are released.

7. DOE will provide the MMP references, as well as the consultative draftSCP references, when the documents are released.

8. The States and Indian Tribes will provide input by the end of October tothe Project Managers on the location and number of meetings for theconsultative draft SCP workshops, and then DOE will develop site-specificaction plans for the workshops.

9. DOE will check on the status of the State of Mississippi's request forthe draft SCP chapters.

10. DOE will work with the States and Indian Tribes to award full-year grantsand/or approve scopes of work as soon as possible after uncertaintiesregarding program budget and direction are resolved.

11. At the next ISCG, there will be discussion of whether it would bepossible for the two remaining grantees to adjust to a calendar yearbasis for grants rather than a fiscal year.

12. BWIP will meet with the Umatilla and Yakima to clarify scopes of work inrelation to FY 88 funds for the upcoming quarter.

13. At the next ISCG and at the next DOE Meeting with the States and IndianTribes, DOE will review and discuss the grant process and how best todevelop procedures for multi-year programs.

14. a. BWIP will arrange a meeting in coordination with the State ofWashington and USDOE representatives to discuss the proposeddefinition of site for PETT.

b. DOE will continue to negotiate with .the States and Indian Tribesregarding PETT and financial assistance issues prior to initiation ofa formal rulemaking.

15. NNWSI intends to release the Environmental Program Plan with theconsultative draft SCP and will inform the State if that schedule changes.

16. DOE will investigate to what extent it can respond to the State andIndian Tribe request that DOE provide to them copies of allcommunications between DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)regarding repromulgation of 40 CFR 191.

17. In the meeting highlights, DOE will include copies of the slides onbudget alternatives presented at the meeting.

18. DOE will provide copies of the FY 89 budget request to the States andIndian Tribes as soon as it is submitted to Congress.

19. The committee of DOE and State and Indian Tribe representatives thatpreviously met to discuss the DOE Meeting with the States and IndianTribes will reconvene to discuss a number of questions, including: how tomake the triannual meetings as effective as possible; how to coordinatediscussion qf issues at the various program meetings; and how to reducethe total number of program meetings.

20. As preparation for the next meeting on PETT and financial assistance, theStates, Indian Tribes, and appropriate local governments will provide toDOE/HQ within 30 days suggestions, ideas, alternative interpretations,etc. regarding PETT and related issues.

2

THE SECRETARY OF ENERGYWASHINGTON. D.C.

October 1, 1987

HQO.871002.0076

Honorable John McKernanGovernor of MaineAugusta, Maine 04333

Dear Governor McKernan:

As you know, in May 1986, I directed the Departmentof Energy to postpone, until the mid-1990's or later,site-specific work related to a second repository forhigh-level nuclear waste. I made this decision based onthe progress in siting the first repository andprojections which showed that a second repository is notneeded until well into the next century.

Recognizing that new legislative action byCongress would be required to implement this decision, Isaid, in testimony before Congress on April 23, 1987,that absent Congressional direction to the contrary, theOffice of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM)would resume site-specific activities for a secondrepository at the end of the fiscal year.

Opponents of the Department's second repositorydecision have filed suit to compel the Department toresume the site-selection process. Numerous casesregarding this matter are being litigated, and theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit hasscheduled an oral argument on this issue on October 9.In a declaration filed on June 26, 1987, in the case ofState of Washington v. U.S. Department of Energy(9th Cir. 87-7085), I stated that I have notified OCRWMto "recommence site-specific activities on the secondrepository program by September 30, 1987...in the eventthat Congress does not take legislative action..."

I have been pleased to see action in Congress thatholds considerable promise for new legislation regardingthe second repository program. That has beenencouraging. Both the House and Senate are consideringbills to end the second repository process, although

Celebrating the U.S. Constitution Bicentennial - 1787-1987

-2-they differ in format. I am particularly encouraged bythe progress of S. 1668, sponsored by Senators Johnstonand McClure. It includes a prohibition on further site-specific work on a second repository and calls for areport on the need for a second repository. I feel thatthis legislation lays out an effective course of actionfor this program. There is every indication that theSenate will conclude consideration on this matter inearly November. It is my hope that this will providethe impetus for action in House of Representatives.

However, notwithstanding this fact, until the law ischanged I am obligated to comply with the current secondrepository mandate of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of1982. While I remain optimistic, the Congressionalprocess has in fact not advanced to a stage that pro-vides definitive legal direction on this matter, withinthe stated timeframe. Therefore, the Department willresume the second repository site-selection process fromthe point at which it was suspended in May 1986. In aneffort to give Congress and the legislative process achance to come to a final solution of this difficultproblem with minimum interference from political forces,I specifically draw your attention to the fact that theonly step contemplated is the resumption of the prepara-tion of the Area Recommendation Report (ARR) which nowinvolves the review and consideration.of the 60,000comments received on the draft ARR. .This process willtake approximately 12 to 18 months. Until the ARR hasbeen completed, the Department need not and does notintend to conduct any activities on any of the sitesdescribed in the draft ARR.

I am hopeful that Congress will act soon to resolvethis issue; and once Congressional action is completed,I intend to revise our activities to conform to thedirectives from Congress. Progress has already beenmade toward resolving this matter, and a concertedeffort on behalf of all interested parties can conclu-sively end this issue. In the meantime it is my obliga-tion as Secretary of the Department of Energy to ensurethat we obey existing law.

Yours truly

John S. Herrington

OUTREACH AND PARTICIPATION COMMITTEE

November 6, 1987 Memo from S. Kale to Project Managers onSchedule for Participation Plans


memorandumDATE: NOV

REPLY TOATTNOF: RW-223

SUBJECT Schedule for Participation Plans

TO J. Anttonen, BWIPC. Gertz, WMPOJ. Neff, SRPO

As part of our continuing consultation and cooperation program, Iam establishing the following schedule to ensure that theParticipation Plans are completed as soon as possible:

Nov. 5 Project Offices continue informal discussionsto with States, Indian Tribes, and local parties,Dec. 18 as required by Mission Plan and OGR Participa-

tion Guidelines for initial plan.

Nov. 9 Project Offices send to Headquarters theirdraft participation plans; if the draft plan isnot ready, an annotated table of contentsshould be submitted.

Nov. 9 Headquarters reviews draft plans.to Jan. 15

Nov. 13 Headquarters sends draft plans (or tables ofcontents) in ISCG reference package to States,Indian Tribes, and interested parties.

Dec. 3 Project Offices report at ISCG meeting onstatus of informal discussions and draft plansand seek specific comments from affectedparties.

Jan. 15 Project Offices submit initial plans toHeadquarters.

Feb. 1 Issue initial near-term (1988) plans toaffected parties.

-2-

While I recognize that there are uncertainties about the programthat make long-term institutional planning difficult at thistime, it is possible for us to define the near-term opportunitiesfor States, Indian Tribes, and local governments. However, theParticipation Plans can define how in the upcoming year DOE willprovide opportunities for participation in technical activities.Therefore, the initial plan will cover CY 1988 with semiannualupdates in accordance with the OGR Participation Guidelines.

I want to again emphasize that these plans are to address theparticipation of States, Indian Tribes, and local parties, aswell as the public. In the absence of C&C Agreements, theseplans will define and document how we are consulting andcooperating with the States and Indian Tribes, and how we areinteracting with local governments and the public.

I hope that the required informal discussions with States, IndianTribes, and local parties are well underway by the December ISCGMeeting and that there is substantive progress to report on thedevelopment of the plans at that time. As the informaldiscussions proceed, your staff should coordinate with CarolPeabody and Barry Gale of my staff, who will be working closelywith Ginger King of OPO.

Stephen H. KaleAssociate Director for

Geologic RepositoriesOffice of Civilian RadioactiveWaste Management

cc: T. Isaacs, RW-22J. Bresee, RW-22B. Gale, RW-223C. Peabody, RW-223J. Leahy, RW-223G. King, RW-43D. Siefken, WestonG. Shaw, WestonD. Meier, Weston


* November 3, 1987 Memo from B. Gale to POs on the Schedulefor Final Revisions to the SMMPs

* Agenda and Minutes from the September 1987 Denver ComprehensiveSocioeconomic Plan Workshop

* Economic Impacts of Perceived Risk: Outline of HQActivities and Glossary of Terms


memorandumDATE: NOV 0 3 1987

REPLY TOATTN OF; RW-223

SUBJECT: Schedule For Final Revisions to the Socioeconomic Monitoring andMitigation Plans

TO: W. Dixon, WMPOJ. Mecca, BWIPR. Lahoti, SRPO

As you are aware, the schedule for the release of theSocioeconomic Monitoring and Mitigation Plans (SMMP) was revisedin order to coincide with the release of the consultation draftsof the Site Characterization Plans on January 8, 1988. The SMMPsand the Comment Analysis Documents (CADs) were distributed to GCand EH on October 15. We are attaching for your review therevised Chapters 2 and 6 of the SMMPs. These chapters have beenrevised to be consistent with the Environmental Monitoring andMitigation Plans and with program developments since the issuanceof the draft SMMPs in December 1986.

In order to issue the SMMPs by January 8, 1988, we have preparedthe following schedule for completion of the SMMPs.

EH and GC comments on Chapters 3-5 to OGR: November 3

HQ distributes the comments to the POs: November 3

EH, GC, and PO comments on Chapters 2 & 6 November 13to OGR:

Draft SMMPs Chapters 3-5 to HQ: November 20

HQ audit of draft SMMPs completed: December 7

Final Changes due to audit completed: December 15

If you have any questions please call Raj Sharma at FTS 896-5559or (202) 586-5559.

Barry G. Gale, ChiefEconomic and IntergovernmentalAnalysis Branch

Office of Civilian RadioactiveWaste Management

Attachment

Kale, RW-20Isaacs, RW-22Bresee, RW-22Sharma, RW-223Whitfield, BWIPLundgaard, WMPODarrough, SRPOShaw, WestonMcDavid, Weston

WORKING DRAFT

2. INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the background, purpose, scope, and approach taken

by the Department of Energy (DOE) in drafting its Environmental Monitoring and

Mitigation Plans (EMMPs). DOE is also preparing Socioeconomic Monitoring and

Mitigation Plans (SMMPs), which have a purpose and scope similar to that of

the EMMPs, but focus instead on significant adverse socioeconomic impacts of

site characterization and the associated monitoring and-mitigation programs.

2.1 BACKGROUND

DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management is responsible for

implementing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of l982, which requires that

the Federal Government develop the first geologic repository for permanent

disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

The NWPA specifies the process for selecting a repository site and

involving the States, Affected Indian Tribes, and the public in the repository

siting process. DOE identified nine potentially acceptable sites for the

repository in February l983. The suitability of these sites for a repository

was evaluated in accordance with DOE's siting guidelines (l0 CF 9 60). The

results of these evaluations were reported in draft Environmental Assessments

(EAs) issued for public review and comment in December l984, and in the tinal

EAs prepared for the five sites nominated for site characterization. The

final EAs were issued in May 1986 and incorporated responses to public

comments made on the draft EAs.

The Secretary of Energy then recommended to the President three sites as

suitable for characterization as candidate repository sites: Yucca Mountain

site, Nevada; Deaf Smith County site, Texas; Hanford site, Washington. On May

28, 1986, the President approved characterization at these three sites and

this formally initiated the site characterization phase, which is expected to

last about seven years.

2.2 PURPOSE

Section 113(a) of the NWPA requires DOE to conduct its site

characterization activities in a manner that minimizes any significant adverse

environmental impacts. These impacts are identified in Chapter 4 of each EA,

which includes an analysis of potential environmental and socioeconomic

impacts resulting from site characterization activities. The EMMPs also

address potentially significant impacts identified in public comments received

during the 1984 EA hearing process, the EA public comment process, and during

consultations with States and Affected Indian Tribes. Any potentially

significant adverse environmental impacts identified during the SCP public

hearing process will be included in the EMMPs.

To document its compliance with the Section ll3(a) requirement tominimize significant adverse impacts during site characterization, DOE isdeveloping EMMPs and SMMPs for each candidate site. The documents describeDOE's monitoring and mitigation programs for site characterization and focusonly on activities with a potential for significant adverse impacts. The EAsaddressed DOE's proposed site characterization activities and their potentialimpacts as understood at the time of their issuance. The final EAs documentthat no significant adverse environmental or socioeconomic impacts wereexpected from site characterization activities. However, as indicated above,DOE is considering information acquired since issuance of the EAs in preparingthe EMMPs and SIMMPs. This information concerns primarily additional detail onthe scope and schedule of planned site characterization activities. Where asufficient degree of uncertainty associated with a single sitecharacterization activity or combination ot activities, and a resultantpotential for significant adverse impact, DOE will monitor such activities.

Potential for significant adverse impacts can be established in one oftwo ways: (1) identification in Chapter 4 of the EAs; or (2) a determinationby DOE that a single activity or combination of activities conducted duringsite characterization has a sufficient degree of uncertainty associated withit and a resultant potential for significant adverse impact. Such adetermination may come as a result of DOE's review of the comments on the EAsand the SCPs or after discussions with affected parties. Where an activityhas a potential for significant adverse impact, the EMMPs and SMMPs willdescribe the monitoring that is to be conducted. Any significant adverseimpacts identified in the future, through monitoring, through the SCP hearingand public comment process, or in discussions with affected parties, will bedescribed and procedures for developing mitigative action (i.e. adjustments in

DOE's activities) will be provided in subsequent EMP and SMMP Progress

Reports.

For the purposes of this document, mitigation is defined as those changes

in site characterization activities that serve to avoid or minimize, to the

maximum extent practicable, any significant adverse environmental impacts.

Compensation is not included in this use of the term mitigation.

2.3 SCOPE

The EMMPs focus only on the site characterization phase of the repository

program, and are one part of a total comprehensive environmental program.

Moreover, they represent only a part of the monitoring and mitigation

activities planned during site characterization. The relationship of the

EMMPs to other proposed environmental studies and a summary of the associated

plans and program documents are presented in the draft Environmental Program

Overview (EPO), Appendix A.

The EMMPs do not address repository construction, operation, closure, or

decommissioning, and do not address repository development issues. The scope

of the EMMPs is also distinct from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

process. The EMMPs are not intended to describe how DOE will gather data for

the Such EIS data-gathering efforts will be described in an EIS

Implementation Plan to be developed after the repository EIS scoping

hearings.

-4-

2.4 APPROACH AND ORGANIZATION

Many steps are required to develop an effective monitoring and mitigation

program. These steps include defining terms such as "significant" and

mitigation; establishing impact thresholds that would lead to mitigation

measures; developing mitigation measures; determining the process tor

gathering monitoring data; and updating and modifying the EMMPs. A systematic

approach to ensure that these steps are addressed in a comprehensive and

consistent manner is outlined below.

Because the EMMPs focus only on those aspects of site characterization

that have the potential for significant adverse impacts, the definition of

significant is a key determinant of which site characterization activities

will be monitored. Determinations of significance for the EMMPs are

consistent with the definition of significant in Section l508. of the CEQ

regulations for implementation of NEPA (Council on environmental Quality,

. The range of impacts addressed in the EMMPs is consistent with those

impacts considered under the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

regulations for the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA).

The term "mitigation" should not be confused with the general procedures

DOE will use to minimize the impacts of site characterization activities. As

discussed above, for the purposes of this document, mitigation is defined as

those changes in site characterization activities that serve to avoid or

minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, any significant adverse

environmental impacts. This could include, for example, rescheduling certain

site characterization activities to avoid impacts to the terrestrialecosystem. DOE also Intends to use Good Engineering Practice (GEP), whichincludes accepted engineering actions or procedures to minimize or eliminateimpacts of site characterization activities.

An important aspect of the EMMP development process will be thedetermination of thresholds that will indicate the need to begin moreextensive monitoring, or modification of particular site characterizationactivities. These threshold levels will be discussed with States and Affectedindian Tribes.

The discussion of site characterization activities in Chapter 3 of theEMMPs includes discussions of GEP that will be used in conducting sitecharacterization activities. Examples of GEP include the use of water spraysduring access road construction to aid soil compaction and dust suppression;establishment of a leachate monitoring program for the rock storage pile andwaste water pond; and locating site facilities so as to reduce the potentialfor fire.

Chapter 4 discusses potentially significant impacts to be monitored underthe EMMP. The variables to be monitored, the techniques for sampling, anddata collection and measurement, are presented in Chapter 5 of the EMMPs.This chapter also contains a general discussion of possible mitigativemeasures that can be used to minimize significant impacts. A comprehensivelist of mitigative measures will be developed as monitoring and mitigationprograms are implemented for modifying particular site characterizationactivities or combinations of activities. These measures and their resultswill be discussed with affected parties and will be detailed in the EMMPProgress Reports.

Chapter 6 of the EMMPs outlines procedures for modifying the EMMPs duringsite characterization in response to changes in site characterizationactivities, the acquisition of new information on the site, or the resultsfrom the monitoring program itself. Periodic review of each monitoringprogram will be conducted to ensure the adequacy of indicators and techniquesused to monitor site characterization activities and the effectiveness of anymeasures used to minimize significant adverse environmental impacts of sitecharacterization. If the results of monitoring programs indicate that asingle site characterization activity or combination of activities lead tosignificant adverse environmental impacts additional mitigative measures willbe considered. Periodic monitoring reports will be prepared during sitecharacterization, and will provide a feedback mechanism so that individualmonitoring programs can be established or Moditied.

WORIKING DRAFT

6. METHODOLOGY FOR MODIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND MITIGATION PLANS

6.1 INTRODUCTION

This EMMP contains the most current information available on theactivities to be conducted during site characterization. As sitecharacterization activities are conducted, DOE may need to modify the EMMPbecause of: changes in the schedule or scope of site characterizationactivities; changes to site characterization activities warranted by thecollection of environmental monitoring data; the acquisition of newinformation on the site environment; or new methods of impact analysis. DOEwill issue periodic EMMP Progress Reports that will reflect thesemodifications. The need to conduct additional or alternative monitoring willalso be discussed with States and Affected Tribes. The specific mechanismsfor modification of the monitoring program are presented in this chapter.

b.Z MODIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND MITIGATION PLANS

The EMMP describes a process that will be implemented over a number ofyears during which new or more detailed information will become available.Because changes in planned site characterization activities may occur, themonitoring and mitigation activities will need to be evaluated on a regularbasis.

b.2.1 Modification Due to Changes in Site Characterization Activities

Approximately every six months, DOE will issue SCP Progress Reports that

will document completed and planned activities, and describe revisions to

previously planned site characterization activities. Such revisions may

include changes in the schedule, location, or equipment to be used in various

site characterization activities. If changes in site characterization

activities result in the potential for significant adverse impacts,

appropriate monitoring strategies will be developed and be documented in EMM?

Progress Reports. In addition, concerns raised by affected parties on changes

to monitoring and mitigation will be addressed in EMMP Progress Reports.

6.2.2 Modification Due to Evaluation of Monitoring Data

DOE's monitoring plans described in the EMMPs are designed to reduce the

degree of uncertainty associated with site characterization activities for

which DOE has determined that there is a significant degree ot uncertainty and

a resultant potential for significant adverse impact. Such monitoring may

enable DOE to modify its site characterization activities before any

significant adverse environmental impacts occur, or will allow DOE to minimize

the level of such impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Evaluation of

monitoring data may reveal a need to modify the existing monitoring program

through changes to schedule, equipment location, or data gathering

techniques. In this circumstance DOE will expand or reduce the monitoring

effort, as appropriate, and document this in the EMMP Progress Reports.

b.2.3 Modification Due to Other Factors

Factors other than those discussed above such as inclement weather and

destruction or malfunction of monitoring equipment may require changes in

monitoring and mitigation programs. Any modification will be discussed with

States and Affected Tribes and will be documented in EMMP Progress Reports.

DRAFT AGENDA

COMPREHENSIVE SOCIOECONOMIC PLAN WORKSHOP

DENVER, COLORADO

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1987

PURPOSE REFERENCETIME ITEM

2:00 Introductions Initiate Meeting Agenda

2:15 Purpose andOverview

Establish ContextFor Workshop

Outline ofOverview

2:30

3:30

States/IndianTribes OpeningRemarks

Present StateIndian TribeProgram Overview

B R E A K

4:00 Bases forSocioeconomicStudies:RegulatoryRequirements

Review MajorRegulatoryRequirements

List of MajorRegulations

4:30

5:00

8:30

Discussion Share Views

A D J O U R N

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1987

OpeningRemarks

Review offirst day

9:00 Bases forSocioeconomicStudies:Policy

Review MajorSocioeconomicIssues

Discussion Share Views

B R E A K

REFERENCEPURPOSE

ITEMTIME

Present ConceptWhere And When

SocioeconomicSubjects WillBe Addressed

Matrix of Major

SocioeconomicSubjects to Indicate

Where And When They

Will Be Addressed

Share Views

Present ConceptProposed ProcessTo Resolve Issues

Related To Content

Outline of Potential

Process for Issue

Resolution, Including

Interaction Between

DOE and States

Indian Tribes

Share views2:30

3:00

3:30

Discussion

B R E A K

Discuss Next

Steps

Identify NextSteps

4:00 A D J O U R N

DRAFT NOTES

COMPREHENSIVE SOCIOECONOMIC PLAN WORKSHOP

DENVER, COLORADO

SEPTEMBER 21-22, 1987

Honday, September 21, 1987

Introduction and Overview.In the introductory comments, Barry Gale announced that Ann McDonoughwould be leaving the Economic and Intergovernmental Analysis Branchof the Office of Geologic Repositories. The following organizationalchanges and programmatic responsibilities are now in effect: RajSharma will manage the socioeconomic program, Allan Benson willmanage PETT and grant activities, and Carol Peabody will manage theeconomic risk effort.

Barry stated in his overview that this workshop is a starting pointfor a series of workshops to effectively deal with the DOE repositoryprcgram's socioeconomic and sociocultural issues. The purpose ofthis workshop is to take the first step in developing a comprehensivesocioeconomic plan which will describe the overall DOE program. Thedecision to hold a joint workshop involving DOE Headquarters, projectoffices, and affected parties was an outgrowth, in part, of severalaction items from past Institutional Socioeconomic Coordinating Groupmeetings. A critical element in DOE's planning process is thefostering of interaction with the affected parties; the overallplanning process will seek to develop that element.

The technical aspects of the planning process open for discussion inthis workshop were the "what, where, and how" of a comprehensivesocioeconomic plan, involving the following three steps: (1)development of a process for determining/selecting studies DOE willconduct; (2) development of a process for determining how the studyresults will be utilized; and (3) development of plans for conductingthose studies.

States/Tribes Opening RemarksAffected party representatives expressed concern over the wordscomprehensive plan," because it sounds like a plan will stifle or

impede the independent studies of the affected parties. DOE statedthat its plan will not affect the agenda or independence of affectedparties; this workshop is looking only at DOE's plan. The Nez Percein their activity update said that they are currently staffing, doingprofiling work, and reviewing secondary data. The Umatilla areprogressing in a similar manner to the Nez Perce. The State ofWashington is currently identifying issues, developing a researchdesign (data and possible methods), and reviewing special impacts;concern over timing and efficacy of DOE study plan.

Denver Workshop Notes -2

Regulatory Requirement Basis for Socioeconomic StudiesTo select studies which will be included in the DOE comprehensivesocioeconomic plan, DOE proposed a detailed analysis of applicableregulations. Attention was given to the reference package sectionentitled "Selections from Statutes, Regulations, Statements ofIntent, and Precedents Relevant to Socioeconomic Analysis." Thecomprehensive listing ranked references related to socioeconomicanalysis within the repository program according to: statutes (NWPA,NEPA, and AIRFA), regulations (10 CFR 960, 10 CFR 60, and 40 CFR1500-1508), statements of intent (preamble to 10 CFR 960, MissionPlan, and EA Comment-Response Documents), and program precedents(Appendix IV of 10 CFR 960, Decision-aiding methodology, and theEAs). The process selected has to be defensible.

Affected parties felt that information on DOE Orders needed to beincluded in the process. DOE took a first action item to provide allrelevant DOE Orders at next meeting. Concern was expressed overtying everything to existing regulations, rather than looking at whatis needed and then developing a research plan and method to studyit. Affected parties stated a concern that if issues are studiedprematurely then others could be precluded from being added later inthe EIS process; DOE appears to be narrowing field of vision/focusrather than expanding it. It was asked if DOE has regulations whichdirectly implement NEPA and to what extent they constrainsocioeconomic analysis? DOE took a second action item to provideimplementing regulations for NEPA pertinent to socioeconomicanalysis. DOE stated that it is DOE's responsibility to be cognizantof the issues and educated on the literature surrounding theissues/methods in order to review affected party studies. Affectedparties felt that DOE should look at NEPA as broadly as possible,placing great flexibility in its application and use.

Tuesday, September 22, 1987

Major Socioeconomic Issue CategoriesDOE presented a discussion of its effort to create a process toidentify and classify major socioeconomic issues. Reference materialwhich was included for the workshop presented, in a general fashion,two sets of issue categories: those considered to be clearly drivenby regulatory requirements, and those for which a basis remains to bedetermined. Issues listed as clearly driven by regulatoryrequirements come from the regulations discussed in Monday'spresentation, and are similar to most of the usual categories offactors included in socioeconomic impact assessments, e.g.,demographic, economic, community services, revenues andexpenditures. Issues indicated as not yet having a clearlyestablished regulatory base (e.g., stigma effects, psychologicalimpacts, perceived risk, and sociocultural impacts) need a process todetermine the appropriate handling of those issues.


Participants noted that there is a problem determining what is anacceptable area of impact assessment and what is not. Affectedparties wondered how DOE was addressing sociocultural issues and thecase law involved. DOE said resources are being devoted to it. Athird action item was to have the POs and HQ put together a list ofrelevant issues, delineate them, and then categorize them. A fourthaction item was that DOE will run example issues through the issueresolution matrix process; the results will be discussed at the nextworkshop so that the issue resolution process can be furtherrefined. A fifth action item was that DOE will ask the Departmentofficials with the responsibility in making decisions onsocioeconomic categories and NEPA cognizability be present for adiscussion on their decision rationale at future workshops.

Matrix of Major Socioeconomic SubjectsA decision was made to postpone the presentation of an issueresolution matrix, per action item four, until it could be tested onsome sample issues, therefore, next workshop. DOE stressed theflexibility of the agenda and its responsiveness to PO and affectedparty requests. It was decided to provide time in the afternoon forsimultaneous HQ/PO and affected party executive sessions.

Issue Resolution ProcessDOE presented a discussion of its issue resolution process whichconsists of three basic steps: 1. development of screening criteriafor evaluating issues, 2. assemblage of unresolved socioeconomicissues, and 3. implementation of the screening process includingapplication of criteria to unresolved issues.

Screening criteria will have two levels. The first level wouldevaluate the appropriateness of the subject matter in light of theapplication of regulations, federal agency precedent, existing andfuture DOE commitment, and policy directives. The second level wouldevaluate the feasibility of addressing the remaining issues based onthe purpose of analysis, acceptability of methodologies, andappropriateness of timing. In assembling the unresolvedsocioeconomic issues DOE will rely on four basic sources: writtencomments from affected parties, site specific interactions amongproject offices and affected parties, DOE HQ and affected partymeetings, and scoping meetings and hearings. These issues will thenbe classified into two major categories--issues clearly driven byregulatory requirements and issues which have not been resolved.Once the background has been developed as to the regulations to applyand the policy formulated, then the first and second level screeningcriteria would be applied.


Discussion revolved around what is the definition of "issue" and"resolution." Is an issue a topical area or can it be a singleitem? Does resolution mean a study will be done by DOE? DOE saysthe purpose of the issue resolution process is to better informdecision makers. Some participants felt that DOE should address theproblem of perceived risk and stigma now because those issues affectthe process. A sixth action item called for key issues to be putthrough the issue resolution process matrix. Key issues should besubmitted by affected parties through their POs. Included should becomments on the issue resolution process itself as to the order ofthe process, the screening process, and the screening matrix.

DOE said the next workshop presentation of the issue resolutionprocess will be more refined due to the discussions which took placeat this workshop. The guidance provided by the affected partiesallows DOE to begin an analysis of the process. A seventh actionitem proposed that in the next workshop ways in which DOE will dealwith the unique status of the Indian nations in regard tosocioeconomic studies starting with the Treaty of 1855 will beaddressed. An eighth action item stated that the terms of purpose,regarding the issue resolution process, will be more clearly defined,i.e., the aspects of the screening process to be focused on will bedelineated in greater detail in the preparatory mailout for the nextworkshop.

Executive SessionsThese took place concurrently.

OCRWM ACTIVITIES DEALING WITH PERCEIVED RISK - FY 1988

OCRWM will not perform a perceived risk study

OCRWM will become familiar with issues and methods

ANL will brief OCRWM on:

- Plans by States and Indian Tribes- Methods used in such studies

o ANL will develop a white paper to define terms, issues, andoptions

o Relationship with Project Offices

PERCEIVED RISK GLOSSARY

THE NEED FOR CONSISTENT TERMINOLOGY

CONSENSUS BUILDING REQUIRES A COMMON LANGUAGE

o REDUCES THE AMBIGUITIES INHERENT IN THE S.E. STUDY PROCESS

o REDUCES IMPEDIMENTS TO COMMUNICATING ISSUES, METHODS, ANDFINDINGS

o HELPS IN THE DEFINITION OF THE OBJECTIVES

o MAKES EXPLICIT THE IMPLICIT ASSUMPTIONS IN A TERM OR CONCEPT

RISK

o A chance of loss; usually includes both the loss and theprobability associated with the loss

PERCEIVED RISK

o Perception that a hazard or chance of loss exists due to anevent

o No actual physical damage is necessary nor is there a need foran accident to ever occur for there to be a degree ofperceived risk

ECONOMIC IMPACTS DUE TO PERCEIVED RISK

the perceptions that a hazard or chance of loss exists mayresult in a change in the economic behavior of individualsaffecting local trade, property values, tourism and/orindustrial activity

STIGMA

o A literal translation of stigma: an identifying mark orcharacteristic of a potential problem

o Stigma effects result from perceptions of a problem

TABLE OF CONTENTS

* VIEWGRAPH OUTLINE

* COPY OF PRESENTATION

* EXHIBITS

1. ROSTER OF PRC WITH PICTURES AND INFORMATION

2. AREAS OF CONCERN OF PRC

3. SUMMARIES OF ANNUAL REPORTS OF PRC

4. MEMO FROM CARBIENER TO NEFF, MARCH 7, 1987 ONCONTINUATION OF PRC

5. LIST OF 40 PEOPLE VISITED AS BACKGROUND BY PRCCHAIR

6. MEMO FROM NEFF TO ISAACS, SEPTEMBER 21, 1987

THE NEW CHALLENGE

GREATER VISIBILITY

GREATER ACCESSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC

NOT A PROGRAM MOUTHPIECE

NOT A COMMUNICATOR TO PUBLIC

SUSTAINING THE MISSION OF OBJECTIVITYIN REVIEW AND ADVICE

THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE

LETTERS SOON TO GO TO OVER 40NOMINEES SOLICITING INTEREST

EACH RESPONDENT TO BE INTERVIEWED

APPLICATION OF CRITERIA,CONSULTATION WITH PRC ANDRECOMMENDATION TO SRP BY PRC CHAIR

o FIRST PRC MEETING IN TEXASPLANNED FOR JANUARY 25-26

- INTRODUCTION OF PRC BYPROGRAM MANAGEMENT

- HOSTING REPRESENTATIVESOF GROUPS

- HOSTING ALL PEOPLE WHO WEREINTERVIEWED IN BACKGROUND ORIN NOMINATION PROCESS

THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS

AS OF MID-NOVEMBER, 1987, 40 CANDIDATESHAD BEEN NOMINATED

OBJECTIVITY - THE PRIMARY REQUIREMENT

PLACE OF PRC IN MIDST OF VARIOUSGROUPS

MEMO OF JEFF NEFF TO TOM ISAACS,SEPTEMBER 21, 1987

LOCAL RECEPTIVIETY - LETTER FROMMR. EDWARD WIECK

"I HAVEN'T CONTACTED EITHER OF THESE GENTLE-MEN SO HAVE NO IDEA OF THEIR WILLINGNESSTO SERVE ON YOUR COMMITTEE. I HAVE NOQUALMS ABOUT YOUR MENTIONING MY NAME, SOLONG AS YOU MENTION MY FEELING ABOUT THEIMPORTANCE OF LOCAL INPUT EVEN THOUGH WEMAY HAVE NEGATIVE FEELINGS ABOUT THE PROJECT.I ALSO ENJOYED OUR VISIT AND HOPE TO MEETAGAIN SOMETIME."

TRANSITION

FUTURE ROLE OF PRC STUDIED ASPROGRAM MOVED TO SITE

MARCH 7, 1986 ONWI PROPOSESCONTINUATION OF PRC IN A SITE-SPECIFIC MODE IN MEMO FROMWAYNE CARBIENER TO JEFF NEFF

1986-87 PRC MEMBERS WORK ONROTATION OF SOME MEMBERS

MAY-JUNE, 1987 PRC CHAIR VISITS40 PEOPLE IN TEXAS AS BACKGROUNDAND TO SEED NOMINATION PROCESS

OCTOBER 1, 1987, LETTERSREQUESTING NOMINATIONS SENT TO40 PEOPLE

ASSESSMENT

SELF-ASSESSMENT

PROFESSIONAL ASSESSMENT BYAPPROPRIATE SOLUTIONS, INC.DR. DENNIS BENSON

FINDINGS CONSTRUCTIVE

NEED TO IMPROVE VISIBILITY

ON-GOING SYSTEM ADOPTED

THE COMMITTEE AGENDA

INITIATIVE FROM PROGRAM MANAGEMENTAND THE COMMITTEE

SINGLE REVIEW, EG. WASTE PACKAGE

MULTIPLE REVIEWS, EG.

SOCIOECONOMIC PLANNING

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLANNING

PRC ANNUAL REPORTS CONTAINSUMMARY OF ALL REVIEWS

HISTORY

PRC HAS MET 40 TIMES

INTEREST IN TECHNICAL, SOCIOECONOMIC,AND INSTITUTIONAL MATTERS.

INTERPLAY OF REVIEW AND ADVISORY FUNCTIONS

CONCENSUS STYLE

MINORITY REPORTS

REPORTS TO BPMD MANAGEMENT

MEMBERSHIP

o COLLEGIALITY

ATTENDANCE RECORD

ROTATION OF SOME TO MAKE WAY FORREGIONAL PRESENCE

CURRENT MEMBERSHIP AT 10

o TO FILL 4 REGIONAL SEATS

TO MAINTAIN 1 "ALUMNI" SEAT

ORIGINATION

NOMINATIONS BY NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

SELECTION BY CRITERIA:

1. PROFESSIONAL ROLE

2. ORGANIZATIONAL AFFILIATION

3. GEOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY

4. PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS

5. DEGREE OF COMMITMENT

FUNCTIONS

INDEPENDENT, OBJECTIVE REVIEW

ADVICE TO PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

HEALTHY TENSION BETWEEN THE TWO

THE PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE

A PRESENTATION TO ISCG MEEGING

LAS VEGAS, DECEMBER 1, 1987

THOMAS H. LANGEVIN

THE PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE IS AN INDEPENDENTCITIZENS GROUP THAT BRINGS A WIDE SPECTRUMOF INTERESTS AND DISCIPLINES TOGEHTER TOPROVIDE OBJECTIVE CRITICAL REVIEW TO BATTELLE'SOFFICE OF NUCLEAR WASTE ISOLATION (ONWI) ANDTO ITS SALT REPOSITORY PROJECT OFFICE (SRPO).IT MAKES PERIODIC ASSESSMENTS ON A VARIETYOF PROGRAMS AND ON VARIOUS NUCLEAR WASTEISSUES. BRINGING ITS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONSDIRECTLY TO PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.


A PRESENTATION TO ISCG MEETING

LAS VEGAS, DECEMBER 1, 1987

THOMAS H. LANGEVIN

THE PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE IS AN INDEPENDENTCITIZENS GROUP THAT BRINGS A WIDE SPECTRUMOF INTERESTS AND DISCIPLINES TOGEHTER TOPROVIDE OBJECTIVE CRITICAL REVIEW TO BATTELLE'SOFFICE OF NUCLEAR WASTE ISOLATION (ONWI) ANDTO ITS SALT REPOSITORY PROJECT OFFICE (SRPO).IT MAKES PERIODIC ASSESSMENTS ON A VARIETYOF PROGRAMS AND ON VARIOUS NUCLEAR WASTEISSUES. BRINGING ITS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONSDIRECTLY TO PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.


(PRC)

A PRESENTATION TO THE MEETING OF THE

INSTITUTIONAL/SOCIOECONOMIC COORDINATION GROUP

(ISCG)

LAS VEGAS - DECEMBER 1, 1987

Thomas H. Langevin

INTRODUCTION

The Program Review Committee is anindependent citizens group that brings awide spectrum of interests and disciplinestogether to provide objective critical reviewto Battelle's Office of Nuclear WasteIsolation (ONWI and to the Salt RepositoryProject Office (SRPO) It makes periodicassessments on a variety of programs andon various nuclear waste issues, bringing itsfindings and recommendations directly toprogram management.

FUNCTIONS

The Committee brings independent, objective review of programs, plans anddocuments to the manager of Battelle's Project Management Division, toONWI, and to SRPO. Over a period of time the PRC learned to maintain an

PRC Presentation to ISCG Meeting, 12/1/87

independence for review while also developing an advisory role to programmanagement. The comparability of the two functions has been maintainedby conscious effort by the Committee members. They have kept themselvessufficiently informed and sufficiently close to the program to be able toadvise effectively. However, they have recognized that an independent andobjective attitude conveyed with honesty is the best way they can trulyassist ONWI, SRPO, and the national nuclear waste program.

ORIGINATION

After eight months of conceptualization, planning, membership recruitment,and organization; the Program Review Committee (PRC) was appointed andheld its first meeting in January, 1980. The membership came fromnominations secured by invitation to a great number of nationalorganizations representing a variety of professions and activities.

Of those nominated, 43 responded affirmatively to a letter inviting theirinterest, and all were interviewed, primarily by one-on-one visits. From thisemerged a slate of 13 proposed members, each with an alternate. Specificcriteria were developed from which the members were chosen. These wereessentially the same as the recent revision in connection with the committeemove to Texas. The criteria are: (1) Professional Role

(2) Organizational Affiliations(3) Geographic Diversity(4) Personal Characteristics(5) Degree of Commitment

MEMBERSHIP

The members, who represent a wide variety of professions and skills, havedeveloped an effective collegiality and a solid commitment to theCommittee's task. One need only look at the attendance record. Twomembers, in fact, had not missed a meeting over the seven years until the36th meeting. Few members have missed more than a couple of times. Themembership has remained nearly constant. One member left after severalyears and was replaced by a national nomination/selection process; onemember left about a year ago because of his job demands at the FarmBureau Federation. More recently as plans were developed for the move of


the committee to Texas and the adding of regional presence, severalmembers rotated off to make room for the prospective new members. Thoserecently leaving included Charles Hebel, manager of research for Xerox;Hymer Friedel, radiologist from Cleveland; and James Wall, editor of theChristian Century. The current membership including the chair is 10. Thefull authorized strength is 15. (Exhibiti )

HISTORY

Since its inception, the PRC has met 40 times and reviewed a great manyprograms of Battelle's Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation (ONWI). In fact, therecords of the meetings reveal a fairly good picture of the development andoperation of ONW I nearly since its beginning.

Review of specific programs while maintaining a wide picture of the wholeprogram, tended to relate to the committee's work to clarify the twofunctions referred to earlier - review and advice. Keeping up a wide-rangingcontact with the program came from a measured decision not to be lost in"bits and pieces", nor give its time only to institutional issues, as some in theprogram expected. But it became apparent to the committee early on thatwhile it was to be an overview committee, it needed to deal not only withinstitutional issues, but technical and socioeconomic issues as well. An earlycommittee study of its role developed the recognition that the three areas ofconcern could not really be separated and that to be effective, the PRC wouldserve best where the three intersected at the management level. (Exhibit 2)That was probably the key to the development of the PRC's operation.

Another basic feature of the PRC's mode of operation, already referred to,was the constant interplay of the review and advisory function. There was alot of committee discussion about that, and it still is an active and healthy"tension" on the committee, that is how to be close enough to the programand its management to advise it well and at the same time maintain theobjectivity required by the committee's mission. The assessment of thecommittee referred to later came up with good marks for the committee onobjectivity and independence of view, while at the same time a few ONWIpeople thought the PRC was too close to management. The PRC continues towork on this dynamic.

The committee developed and maintained a style in which concensus


appears to be the natural outcome of committee discussions. Members haverelied on each other for their expertise on a given area - and all havelearned. While not numerous, minority views do on occasion appear incommittee reports.

The committee has operated by ad hoc subcommittees when suchsub-groups are desirable. For a time, there were three regularsubcommittees: Technical, Socioeconomic, and Institutional; but thefunction of review did not fit into that form very well, and more often thannot the committee liked to operate as a whole.

Committee members have not wasted time on writing by committee. Usuallydraft documents are circulated by the chair and revised according tomembers' comments. Occasionally a document has had to circulate twice inorder to gain full acceptance. A stenographic record of each meeting is kept.In addition a less complete record of meeting is distributed. Subsequent tothe meeting a review report is filed with the manager of Battelle's ProgramManagement Division to which ONWI reports. Copies go to ONWI managersand to SRPO.

THE COMMITTEE AGENDA

The on-going agenda of the PRC has resulted from initiative by programmanagement and from committee initiative as well. Some agenda itemshave remained on the docket over a period of time. Others have beensingular. An example of the latter was the PRC review of the waste packagea number of years ago. On the other hand there have been continuingreviews in socioeconomic planning and public participation processes inwhich the PRC has reviewed draft documents and plans on numerousoccasions.

An example of a distinct advisory process was the PRC's review of a decisionanalysis methodology which was transmitted to the ONWI manager. At thattime the decision on the methodology was immediately on his desk. Thesummary of the PRC's annual reports give a fairly good review of the PRC'sagenda over the years. (Exhibit 3)


ASSESSMENT

The committee has assessed itself in various ways over several years. Mostsignificantly it engaged a professional consultant who conducted a formalassessment of the committee, seeking date and counsel from ONWI, theDepartment of Energy's Columbus staff, and members of the Committee'sInterest Group which the chair had attempted to keep informed andinvolved-- not too successfully, it turned out.

Dr. Dennis K. Benson, the evaluator, reported that "the findingsoverwhelmingly are constructive". But he also found areas for improvementin certain aspects of critical review and on finding ways to improve itsimpact over a broader "audience" in ONWI. While certainly the PRC has beenlistened to, for the most part, sometimes only those involved directly withthe committee on a given program tended to know about it. Visibility hassince been worked on, and hopefully has been improved. On balance, thecommittee has made an impact on Salt Repository Program in its effort tohelp make that program effective and with the highest self imposedstandards of quality. Plans are in place to do another professionalassessment after the PRC has completed its transition to Texas andestablished additional regional consciousness.

TRANSITION

As ONWI's service to the Salt Repository Program turned toward therecommendation and selection of sites, plans were laid to further developthe PRC so that its membership, now national, would develop a greaterregional and local consciousness in the area of whichever salt site was chosenfor characterization. The ONWI manager, Dr. Wayne Carbiener, recommendedto SRPO the continuation of the PRC as the ONWI program becamesite-specific. (Exhibit 4) A new nomination process was developed, modeledafter the original; selection criteria were reviewed; and policies andprocedures revised with the new conditions in mind. The plans now call forthe retention of 10 of the present members and the addition of 4 or 5 whowill come from the region - probably all from Texas. One seat will be heldopen to share among the "Alumni" members. It is planned that one suchmember will attend every meeting of the committee each year, therebykeeping the wider professional attachments their presence provides.


In May of 1987, the PRC chair, working with George Loudder and HelenLatham, developed a list of twenty people in the region and asked to visitwith them to reality test assumptions about the PRCs transition, to solicitinterest, and to lay the base for their willingness to nominate candidates at alater time. These people in turn recommended about twenty more people tosee in such a background exploration, and these also were visited one on oneat their homes or offices. (Exhibit 5)

THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS

In September, 1987, all forty people who had been visited were sent arequest to nominate candidates for consideration. Since that time about 40candidates have been nominated in a very good response to the letter ofrequest. The nominated people reflect the type of regional presence favoredby the people visited; a strong person, held in high regard and beyondreproach, whom one could trust to tell it like it is to the program, yet open,fair, and objective. There is no doubt that the list of nominees containspeople who meet the stated criteria. A key element was the recognition thatone could well be in opposition to the project in Texas, but recognize that ifsite charaterization is indeed to occur, then having people on the PRC held inhigh regard would be only sensible in assuring that the program was indeedopen for review and was being reviewed by a committee of stature in thenation and in the region.

A retired farmer at first did not want to visit with the PRC chair because heopposed the program and had a lot of neighbors who were upset by it.However, he relented and consented at least to a preliminary visit. At theclose of the visit, he held that he was in favor of the approach and thatcertainly any of his friends would realize that if the program were to go onthey would be benefited by having on the PRC somebody credentialed by astrong regional presence. It is worth quoting the letter in which the retiredfarmer nominated two people: "1 haven't contacted either of thesegentlemen so have no idea of their willingness to serve on your committee. Ihave no qualms about your mentioning my name, as long as you mention myfeeling about the importance of local input even though we may havenegative feelings about the project. I also enjoyed our visit and hope tomeet again sometime."

It became apparent as well in the various background conversations that the


PRC's presence was no less desirable by virtue of the variety of emergingstate and local groups and committees. In fact, it was easy for the peopleinterviewed to recognize that the existence of the various groups made thePRC even more desirable, since in its review and advisory role it would beopen to listen to the opinions of all interested parties. For example, severalconversations with Dr. Phil Niedzelski-Eichner, the director of the WasteDeposit Impact Committee, revealed the nature of iminent WDIC studies.The PRC will want to have those studies as part of its own work in assessingthe site characterization process.

With respect to public participation groupings, an objective review of theseprocesses will be desirable. A recognition of the distinct role of the PRC iscarried in a memo from Jeff Neff to Tom Isaacs on September 21, 1987.(Exhibit 6)

THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE

As this report is written, letters are ready to go out to all nominees solicitingtheir interest. Each will be sent background material on this program and onthe PRC. Each who responds affirmatively will be interviewed, andcredentials developed. Then in consultation with the PRC, the chair will beresponsible to make recommendations to the program for membership. It isplanned that each will have a qualified alternate.

It is anticipated that the PRC will hold its first meeting in Hereford onJanuary 25-26, 1988. A part of the meeting will probably be a reception bySRP leadership to which a variety of people will be invited to meet the PRC.Invitees will include all people visited in the background or post-nominationvisits, since together the eighty people or so in those two groups represent asignificant body of regional/local leadership.

The first meeting in Texas will also permit the PRC to host a variety ofinterest groups to make clear the role and function of the PRC.

THE NEW CHALLENGE

Now in the site-specific arena, with greater PRC visibility and accessibility tothe public, the mission will have to be kept clear. The PRC will not be a

PRC Presentation to ISCG Meeting, 12/1/87 8

vehicle for communication with the public. It will not be the mouthpiece ofthe program, nor an agency to set up a continued discussion with citizens ona host of nuclear waste issues. The PRC will not be a broker or a mediator.

While it is to be completely objective as it offers reviews and advice, it issubjectively committed to its goal to help the SRP do the very best programmanagement job possible.

THL/pl:11/12/87

EXHIBIT I

PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR WASTE ISOLATION

April 1987

Membership

BENSON, WILLIAM E.B.

Geologist. With National Science Foundation, 1956-1980. Ph.D. YaleUniversity. Involved in the nuclear waste issue as early as 1956.Currently serving as Senior Staff Officer, National Academy ofSciences. Nominated by the National Science Foundation.

CONDELL, YVONNE

Biologist. Professor at Moorhead State, Minnesota.Active in the American Association of University Women,chairing various activities. Special interests in aspectsof biology and environment. Nominated by the American Associationof University Women. Earned Ph.D. at the University of Connecticut.

FORD, DOROTHY

Vice President and Group Sales Manager of M&M Travel Agency.She is active in groups for women. She is a past president ofthe National Federation of Business and Professionals Women'sClubs and was nominated by them. Dr. Ford is an alumnus ofKansas University, USC, and Cal State University, Los Angeles.

FRIEDELL, HYMER L.

Professor Emeritus, Case Western in Cleveland. Medical doctor (Radiologist)as well as Ph.D., University of Minnesota. Consultant on Radiation Hazardsand Honorary Member, National Council for Radiation Protection and Measure-ment, Washington, D.C. Former Executive Officer and Deputy Chief of theMedical Section of the MANHATTAN PROJECT (Manhattan Corps of Engineers).Long, distinguished career with a great many publications.

GUSCOTT, KENNETH

Consultant, Boston, Massachusetts. Nuclear engineering backgroundbut widely experienced in public affairs. His firm, Ken GuscottAssociates, is a business management firm. Nominated by the NAACPand seconded by the National Urban League.

2

KIHN, HARRY

Retired from RCA. Consulting electrical and electronics engineering.MSEE, University of Pennsylvania. Involved in research programs, e.q.,on team which developed monochrome and color T.V. and microwave, com-puter systems, solid state, defense systems, air traffic controlsystem. Twenty-five patents. Life Fellow, IEEE. Senior editor ofGovernor's Commission on Science and Technology. President, Societyof Professional Engineers (Mercer Region). Lives in Lawrenceville,N.J. Nominated by the American Management Association.

LANGEVIN, THOMAS

President Emeritus, Capital University. Historian with Ph.D. fromUniversity of Nebraska. Was post-doctoral Carnegie Fellow atUniversity of Michigan. Has been active in urban affairs, inter-institutional matters; program development and review; and voluntaryactivities at the local, state, and national levels, particularly inthe Humanities. Consultant in Tampa, Florida, and Columbus, Ohio.

MOSS, THOMAS

Physicist, biophysicist. Ph.D. from Cornell University. Ateacher, researcher, staff director of a Congressman's officeand of a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee, he hasdirected the Pennsylvania ad hoc Congressional Task Forceon Three Mile Island Economic Recovery. Currently Dean ofGraduate Studies and Research, Case Western Reserve Univer-sity, and Board Member of their technology transfercorporation.

O'CONNOR, JOHN

Philosopher with doctorate from Harvard. Assistant Director forPrograms, National Humanities Center. Taught previously at CaseWestern Reserve. Nominated by the American Philosophical Association.

SMITH, ESTUS

Senior Associate at Kettering Foundation, Dayton, Ohio. Ph.D. inMusic,University of Iowa. Active in the Arts and Humanities at the local,state, and national levels. Nominated by the National Federation ofState Humanities Council (formerly, the Federation of Public Programsin the Humanities).

TOULOUSE, CHARLOTTE

Involved citizen in Albuquerque, NM. Involved with New Mexicans forJobs and Energy, as well as New Mexico Chapter of "Nuclear Energy Women".University of New Mexico, fine arts. Nominated by an individual citizen.

WALL, JAMES

Editor, Christian Century. Theologian with degree from Emory and furtherwork at the University of Chicago. Memor of the President's Commissionon White House Fellowships. Nominated by an individual citizen.

-3-


OFFICE OF NUCLEAR WASTE ISOLATION

April 1987

PRC "Alumni"

HEBEL, L. CHARLES (Resigned 1986)

Manager, Research Planning at Xerox Corporation, Palo Alto, California.Doctorate in Nuclear Physics from the University of Illinois. RecentlyU.S. principal representative of Working Group Four of the InternationalNuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation. Nominated by the American Physical Society.

PORTERFIELD, JAMES (Resigned 1985)

Assistant Director - Natural and Environmental Resources Division, FarmBureau Federation, Park Ridge, Illinois. Graduate work, Iowa StateUniversity, Ames. Nominated by the American Farm Bureau Federation.

STEINBACH, SHELDON (Resigned, 1982)

General Counsel, American Council on Education, Washington, D.C., ColumbiaUniversity Law School. Practiced law. Was involved in higher educationissues in Congress.

October, 1981

"We are not usedjust as windowdressing. Werepresent thepublic interest.

Program ReviewCommitteeYVONNE CONDELL, Ph.D. biology

professor Moorhead State Universityis interested in the environment. Nom-inated by the American Association ofUniversity Women.

ESTUS SMITH, vice president for aca-demic affairs Jackson State Universitywas nominated by the Federation ofPublic Programs in the Humanities. Hehas a Ph.D. in music and is active in thearts and humanities.

L. CHARLES HEBEL, Ph.D., nuclearphysicist and manager of researchplanning, Xerox Corporation, PaloAlto, was active in the InternationalNuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation. Nomi-natedbytheAmericanPhysicalSociety.

HYMER FRIEDELL, M.D., Ph.D. (pro-fessor emeritus, Case Western ReserveUniversity), is a radiologist with morethan 30 year's experience in medicalresearch on atomic energy. Nominatedby Battelle's Human Affairs ResearchCenter.

CHARLOTTE TOULOUSE, nominatedby an individual citizen, is active in theNew Mexico chapter of Nuclear EnergyWomen and in New Mexicans for Jobsand Energy.

WILLIAM E. B. BENSON, retired geol-ogist involved in the nuclear wasteissue since 1956, has a Ph.D. from YaleUniverity. Nominated by NationalScience Foundation.

Happenings October, 1981Happenings October, 1987

JAMES McKENDREE WALL, Ph.D., KENNETH GUSCOTT, business managenominated by an individual citizen, is a ment consultant from Boston, is widelytheologian, very active in public and experienced in public affairs, withchurch affairs, and editor of "Christian nuclear engineering background.Century". Nominated by the NAACP; seconded

by National Urban League.

HARRY KIHN, retired RCA electricalengineer who helped develop colortelevision, has 23 patents. He is now aconsultant in New Jersey. Nominatedby the American ManagementAssociation.

DOROTHY FORD, Ph.D., vice presi-dent and owner of a California travelagency, is active in groups for women,minorities, and citizens Nominee ofBusiness & Professional Women's

JOHN O'CONNOR, Ph.D., is execu-tive secretary of the American Philo-sophical Association and an associateprofessor, University of Delaware.Nominated by the Association.

THOMAS LANGEVIN, president emer-itus, Capital University, has a Ph.D. inhistory, and is chairman of the Pro-gram Review Committee. He organ-ized the Committee and interviewedall nominees.

the Public InterestClubs, Inc.

Program Review CommitteeThe Program Review Committee met in Colum-

bus September 21-22 to continue reviewing the over-all program of the Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation.The 14-member group, chaired by Tom Langevin, anindependent Battelle consultant, reports its findingsdirectly to Neal Carter, manager of BPMD. It repre-sents a distinguished cross section of U.S. opinionleaders.

According to Tom, members were nominated bykey organizations and by interested citizens in allparts of the United States. Tom stresses "We are notused just as window dressing. We represent the pub-lic interest. No group of 14 can represent that wholeinterest, but we are determined to bring reasonedjudgment to bear on issues. Each member is expectednot only to reflect what he or she personally and

Representsprofessionally thinks about the work performed andplanned by ONWI, but also about the concerns ofother people with whom they interact."

Some members are experts in technical fieldsclosely related to the effects of nuclear power or tothe proposed construction of a geologic repository,such as medicine (radiology), nuclear physics, admin-istration, engineering, biology, and geology. Othersare well known in one or more fields for theircontributions in minority, women's, and civic groups;history; philosophy; farming; higher education; thearts and humanities; law; public affairs; and business.

The Committee's next meeting will take place atthe NWTS Information Meeting in Columbus nextmonth.

HAPPENINGS December 1985

ONWI Program Review CommitteeProvides Objective Appraisal

Just as smart consumers or seriouslyill patients believe in "getting a secondopinion" in making major decisions,the Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation(ONWI has its own means of securinganother point of view about its work.The ONWI Program Review Commit-tee (PRC) provides this objectiveappraisal for the project and representsone of several ways that the twonuclear waste disposal projects withinBPMD use the peer review technique.

The process of peer review involvesthe appraisal of specialized aspects ofa technical activity by those who arequalified to perform the work indepen-dently and to understand and evalu-ate its results. The PRC. rather thanconducting technical peer review assuch, emphasizes the review of overall,programmatic concerns and the inter-related areas of technical, institutional,and socioeconomic issues. The Engi-neering and Geologic Review Groupseach provide objective assessment also,but they focus instead onlv on thespecific disciplines that their respectivetitles suggest. The OCRD project hasa similar system of peer review groups.

Now in its sixth year of operation,the PRC recently decided to "practicewhat they preach" and undergo anindependent assessment of their ownwork, their method of operation, andtheir image among relevant audiences.This article will describe the purposeand membership of the PRC, summa-ri:e what the committee has attemptedthus far, and report what issues it hasidentified through the self-study asessential to its future.

Who Belongs to the PRC?

The PRC was founded according tothe ONWI Program Plan of 1979,which called for a committee of"recognized leaders in their line ofendeavor ... to be . . drawn from allsectors of the national scene that areconcerned with waste isolation issues."The membership spans a diversespectrum of disciplines, ranging fromhigh technology to theology andphilosophy. Members were securedfrom a nomination, interview, andrecommendation process in which

Several members of the PRC include, from left Dr. Yvonne Condell, Dr. Thomas H.Moss, and Dr. Tom Langeuin, Chairman.

over 60 organizations were requestedto submit nominations; 38 peoplewere interviewed, and 13 peoplewere appointed to the original commit-tee in addition to the chairman, Dr.Thomas Langevin, President Emeri-tus of Capital University. (See insertfor detail on other members.)

What's Been on thePRC Agenda

Early on in the group's work, a con-scious decision was made to keep thethree areas of technical, institutional,and socioeconomic issues interrelated,and not, as Tom said, "to be paintedinto an institutional corner." A con-sideration of how these areas interactwith each other is what the committeebelieves is the most important role itcan play.

At least one PRC member personallyobserved nearly all of the publicinformation meetings and the Envi-ronmental Assessment (EA) hearings.Evaluations of these events were parti-cularly helpful to the ONWI Institu-tional Project Office. The PRC alsoreviewed documents that responded tovarious concerns stated at the salt sitehearings. Other items reviewed by thecommittee include:

The engineered waste packageprogram

2

A decision analysis program

Quality assurance program

The Socioeconomic Program Plan

The draft Program Managementplan

The draft PublicPlan.

The committee makes recommen-dations to ONWI and BP\MD manage-ment that are distributed to SRPO.The group has also attempted to main-tain contact with national interestgroups such as the National Academyof Sciences, Friends of the Earth andthe American Medical Association.

What Does the PRC Plan for theImmediate Future?

Members of the PRC believe in theconcept of peer review so intently thatthe group recently decided to undergoa self-assessment by an outside consul-tant. "A voluntary request for outsidereview is uncommon," says Tom, "butso is this particular group. Since webegan in 1979, all of the PRC membershave displayed a high level of enthu-siasm and dedication to the work to bedone."

Contintued on pg 3

ONWI, Continued from pg 2

Besides the PRC members themselves, other participants in theirappraisal included members of SRPO,ONWI management, and interestgroups from across the country. At thePRC's November meeting, duringwhich they toured the Waste IsolationPilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, NewMexico and talked with communityleaders, the group discussed issuesuncovered by the self-study andassessment.

The appraisal pinpointed the needfor increasing awareness of the PRCamong ONWI staff members, andparticularly among members ofnational interest groups. The need forrotating membership was also intro-duced and was discussed, as well asother issues related to maintainingcommittee independence, impact,method of operation, and its relation-ship to the public. With site characteri-zation coming up, the PRC hasdeveloped plans for the continuationand reorientation of the committee tobring its end review function to a sitespecific program.

PRC Committee MembersIn addition to the Chairman. Dr. Tom

Langevin, other members of the ONWIProgram Review Committee are Dr.William E. B. Benson, a geologist andsenior staff officer with the NationalAcademy of Sciences; Dr. YvonneCondell, Professor of biology, MoorheadState University; Dr. Dorothy Ford,Vice President and owner of a Californiatravel agency; Dr. Hymer L. Friedell, aradiologist and Professor Emeritus at CaseWestern Reserve University; KennethGuscott, a business management consul-tant; Dr. Charles L. Hebel, a nuclearphysicist and Manager of ResearchPlanning at Xerox Corporation; HarryKuhn, an electrical engineer who hasearned 25 patents and has retired from theRadio Corporation of America; Dr.Thomas H. Moss, a physicist and Deanof Graduate Studies and Research at CaseWestern Reserve University; Dr. JohnO'Connor. a philosopher and AssistantDirector for Programs of the NationalHumanities Center; James Porterfield,Assistant Director of the Natural andEnvironmental Resources Division of theFarm Federation; Dr. Esrus Smith, FellowKettering Foundation CharlotteToulouse, a community leader; and JamesMcKendree Wall, a theologian and Editorof Christian Century magazine.

EXHIBIT 2

AREAS OF CONCERN

OF THE


SOCIOECONOMIC

EXHIBIT 3


Summary Report

Fiscal Year 1979-80

Formation and Membership

The Program Review Committee was initiated in the summer of 1979with the working out of ideas for the Committee culminating in a Planfor the Initiation of Program Review Committee, submitted by the Chairmanto Dr. John M. Batch, General Manager of Battelle's Project ManagementDivision on August 2, 1979. This Plan contained statements of purpose;proposed operating procedures; budget estimate; membership selection plans,etc. The index of the August 1, 1979 Plan is attached Exhibit No. 1].

Following approval of this plan, selection processes were initiated.Nominating were secured, credentials evaluated and interviews of 38 peoplethroughout the United States were conducted. Twelve members of the Committeewere recommended on December 7, 1979. The Summary of the Report isattached [Exhibit No. 2]. Later one additional recommendation was made,giving the total Committee membership of 14 at the end of this Fiscal Year[Exhibit No. 3].

Membership Search

Assuming the probability of two more members, there are four areasof representation which have been given recent attention -- 1) the PacificNorthwest; 2) Labor; 3) Environmentalist; 4) Native American.

Progress has been made on all four; interviews have been conductedwith two labor representatives in Washington, D. C.; a Hopi Indian in Phoenix;and preliminary work has been done on an environmentalist in Seattle, WA.It is hoped that recommendations can be made this calendar year or earlynext but the need for those members does not prevent the effective operationof the Committee as now constituted.

The PRC's 1980 Program

Meetings of 1-1/2 days each were held in January, March, May, July,and September, with a meeting scheduled in December 1980 as this is written.

The early meetings of the PRC were geared to "educate" the committeethrough reading assignments and by means of briefings presented by theDepartment of Energy and ONWI, in order to bring the interdisciplinarycommittee to a general understanding of what it would later review.

-2-

Meeting No. 1 dealt with DOE, NWTS, and ONWI's organization andprograms. Meeting No. 2 was devoted to a general review of ONWI'snontechnical programs. Meeting No. 3 was devoted to a generaldescription and discussion of studies in institutional (nontechnical)issues, given by persons from the Human Affairs Research Center inSeattle. Meeting No. 4 was devoted to ONWI socioeconomic programsin general; consultation and concurrence; and ONWI's informationservices. Meeting No. 5 was devoted to a tour of the Department ofEnergy's Nevada Test Site in Las Vegas and a complete review by thecommittee of its policies, procedures, and expectations.

The Committee has now completed a general review of NWTS,as ONWI and the Department of Energy see it, and through readinggood deal of printed material on the matter of high level nuclearwaste. The Agendas and Records of the Meetings are attached [ExhibitNo. 4 -- Agendas and Exhibit No. 5 -- Records of Meetings].

Committee Functions, Policiesand Operating Procedures

At the September 23 meeting in Las Vegas, the Program Committeethoroughly reviewed itself based on a summary document of Expectationswhich the Chairman put together from a written statement of expectationsfrom each PRC member. These, after discussion in Las Vegas, werebrought together as Assumptions on which Committee's Purposes andProcedures are based [Exhibit No. 6].

Following a concensus on Assumptions, a formal committee voteadopted revised Statements of Purpose [Exhibit No. 7); General Policies[Exhibit No. 8]; and Operating Procedures [Exhibit No. 9).

Review Process

In a recent day-long meeting in Las Vegas, NV, the ProgramReview Committee, from the vantage now of these past months of "education"and preparation, is now getting into detailed reviews of particularaspects of ONWI's programs. It will initiate reviews on its own andfrom other segments of the public, as well as at the request of ONWI,Battelle, or the Department of Energy.

It will maintain liaison with the other peer review committees,particularly the Technical Advisory Committee, since issues cannotreally be so clearly identified as either "technical" alone, or"nontechnical" alone.

The Program Review Committee will operate with task forcesset up for specific issues. These will maintain an interdisciplinarycharacter; take advantage of the special qualifications of members tobetter address certain issues; and concentrate committee effortsgeographically in order to do the most economical job.

-3-

Its reviews will be in written form and will be transmittedto Dr. John M. Batch, General Manager, Battelle Project ManagementDivision, who in turn maintains contact with ONWI and the Departmentof Energy. The Committee has been assured that each of its writtenreview reports will receive a written response.

Scope of Work

The PRC, in its review process, will give attention not onlyto ONWI's in-house" operation in Columbus, but is also to review ONWI'sNWTS responsibilities. The Committee is geared to follow ONWI in itschanging relationships as the high level nuclear waste program movesalong. It will seek to maintain a necessary balance between technicaland nontechnical issues. While it will seek to understand constraintsunder which ONWI may operate in a given instance, the Program ReviewCommittee intends to be a direct and candid critic.

Review Docket

As this report is being written, the Program Review Committeeis establishing its docket for 1981. It is doing so with the realizationthat most items will remain on a general docket over a period of time,since ONWI is an on-going, dynamic program. Ideas for the immediatedocket are being circulated to the Committee as this report is written[Exhibit No. 10].

Also, plans are being completed for the participation by theProgram Review Committee in the 1980 NWTS Information meeting. It willreview the meeting. Also, the Chairman will make a report onthe PRC which summarizes its first year and invites interested partiesto express its concerns to the PRC so that they can be fully taken intoconsideration [Exhibit No. 11].

The Committee has pledged itself to review items not only onits own initiative or by request from ONWI or Battelle, but also to beresponsive to public concerns voiced to it or sensed by PRC membersfrom their many associations in public sectors. To be open; to seek toknow; to evaluate clearly on the basis of evidence; and to represent thepublic interest--all are clearly felt obligations by the Program ReviewCommittee. Such a key national issue as high level nuclear waste requiresno less.

THL:flh10/20/80


Summary Report

Fiscal Year 1980-81

Committee Development

The PRC has become more knowledgeable of the nuclear waste issuesas the second year progressed.

In addition, the Committee by now has developed a style ofoperation in which various characteristics have emerged. These include:1) extremely good attendance, considering the diversity and commitmentsof the group; 2) solid work in the reading and study of materials sentout before meetings; and 3) ability to penetrate into issues quickly,but with reserved Judgment in leaving out points of view. An area forimprovement is to better develop a follow-up system to keep awarenessof an issue alive after it has been considered or reviewed.

The subcommittee structure is working, but needs more develop-ment and improvement. There is a difficulty in both distance and time.To now, we have used a portion of PRC meeting time for subcommitteesessions, and have agreed that on certain key issues as they emerge, wemay ask a subcommittee to meet separately at an alternate time, orperhaps to come in one day earlier than the full Committee. An exampleof that which may be emerging is the study of ethical issues now beingcarried on by the Socioeconomic Subcommittee. The subcommittee structurehas emphasized the strong relationship between the "Technical", the"Institutional", and the "Socioeconomic". By now we have been convincedthat there is no issue which is purely restricted to the one definition.Also, there really is no such thing as a 'non-technical" issue which canbe dealt with without reference to the technical.

The PRC has established for itself the workability of a broadlyinterdisciplinary focus.

Review of the Past Year's Program

The Agendas and Records of the Meetings of the year are carriedas exhibits. But here are a few highlights.

The sixth meeting of the PRC was in conjunction with the 1980NWTS Information Sessions. The PRC accepted the task of evaluating theconference, both general and technical sessions. A full report of thatwas filed, but as an exhibit in the report, only the summary recommendationis carried (Exhibit 4, p. 16).

On January 26-27, 1981, in Columbus, Ohio, the seventh meetingof the PRC brought in several guests, particularly Dr. Thomas Cochran

-2-

of the Natural Resources Defense Council to present positions on theConfidence Rulemaking Proceedings which had been given attention by thePRC earlier. Dr. Cochran helped the Committee focus on the variousissues which were bringing a Committee docket into being. In addition,the PRC gained some experience in the style with which it intendedto operate when dealing with substantive issues, particularly onesof a controversial nature (Exhibit 4, p. 20).

The March 23-24 meeting of the PRC was devoted to draftversions of both the Socioeconomic Program Plan and the CommunityDevelopment Handbook, as it was then called. The Committee filed afindings report on the Socioeconomic Program Plan (Exhibit 5, p. 69).

The ninth meeting of the PRC gave more attention to the Com-munity Development Handbook, and a review of that was filed (Exhibit 5, p. 72).That meeting was held in Jackson, Mississippi, in order for theCommittee to "get a feel" of community concern and/or interest as thecontext for its considerations as a Committee. Also, over half of themembers of the PRC toured Richton, Mississippi, and met with variouscommunity leaders. These visits helped give the PRC added perceptionsof its emerging role as a Committee, particularly with reference tobringing public concern or interest directly to its attention andmaintaining an independent public presence of use to ONWI/NWTS withoutat the same time being its spokesman (Impressions of Mississippi,Exhibit 5, p. 76).

The tenth meeting of the PRC was in Hanford, Washington, onJuly 27-28. Since the Committee had visited Nevada earlier, it wantedto be able to put BWIP into its perspective (Exhibit 4, p. 53).

The last meeting of the year was held in Columbus, Ohio,September 21-22 with attention being devoted to the new strategy,particularly TEF, as well as introductory work on the engineeredpackage. As this report is written, the draft of Committee findingson TEF is being circulated for a report to be submitted to Mr. Cartershortly. The Record of the meeting itself is attached (Exhibit 4, p. 60).

In all, it was a busy year for the Committee, with continuededucation, but with the movement into the submission of formal reviewreports.

The Committee received overt written responses to its reviewsfrom Dr. Carter on both the Socioeconomic Program Plan and the CommunityDevelopment Handbook (Framework for Community Planning). Not coveredby a written response as such was the response to the Committee's reviewof the 1980 NWTS Information meeting which was inherent in the plansfor the 1981 Information Meeting (Exhibit 6, p. 89).

3

Plans for the 1981-82 Fiscal Year

The 1981-82 meeting schedule has been planned:

Meeting #12 - November 17-19, 1981.Review of NWTS Information Sessionand Draft Report of Human InterferenceTask Force.

Meeting #13 - January 25-26, 1982.Review of the Engineered Package.

Meeting #14 - March 8-11, 1982.Attendance at Nuclear WasteTucson, Arizona.

Conference,

Meeting #15 - May 24-25, 1982.Agenda to be determined.

Meeting #16 - July 26-27, 1982.Agenda to be determined.

Meeting #17 - September 20-21, 1982.Agenda to be determined.

Other Issues on PRC Docket

Other Issues currently under consideration by theand/or its subcommittees include:

Committee

1. Ethical issues in nuclear waste management(possibly major feature of May, 1982 meeting).

2. The Regulatory Scene (NRC-EPA).

3. Safety assessment.

4. ONI/ONWI Plan for Public Information activities.

4

Objectives for the 1981-82 Fiscal Year

In terms of the operation of the Committee there are severalkey objectives for 1981-82.

1. Better utilization of PRC's "interest group".

2. Smoothing out the operation of the subcommittees.

3. Development of information flow in order to distinguishcarefully the areas/issues where PRC involvement canbe most useful.

4. Committee evaluation and reconsideration of originalidea of Committee turnover. (Committee had agreed topostpone this consideration for a year.)


Summary Report

Fiscal Year 1981-82

Introduction

The Program Review Committee is nearing the end of its third year ofoperation.

In the first year, 1979-80, the Committee was organized, developed anoperating style, and went through an educational process involvingnuclear waste issues in general and Battelle's Office of Nuclear WasteIsolation in particular.

The second year was one of continued education, but that soon gave wayto the work for which it was established--that is, to review ONWIprograms.

The Committee moved more vigorously into formal program reviews in itsthird year. Broadly interdisciplinary in character, the Committeenevertheless developed well its ability to establish a committee positionon the various issues with which it was concerned. It has presented itscandid opinions to the general manager of Battelle's Project ManagementDivision under which ONWI operates.

Summary of the Past Year's Program

The Agenda, Records of Meetings, and the Committee reviews are carried asexhibits. However, here are some highlights.

The twelfth meeting of the PRC was held in conjunction with the ThirdAnnual NWTS Information Meeting on November 16-19, 1981, in Columbus,Ohio. During the several days the Committee met five times. Sessionswere devoted to several reviews, which had been occurring simultaneously,these being of the NWTS Information Meeting itself (Exhibit 5, p. 68)on the Human Interference Task Force Report (Exhibit 5, p. 74); and onthe proposed Test and Evaluation Facility (Exhibit 5, p. 63).

The next meeting of the Committee was on January 25-26, 1982, also inColumbus. That meeting was almost entirely devoted to the considerationof the engineered waste package program. The Committee report on thewaste package is carried as Exhibit 5, p. 81.

The fourteenth meeting of the Program Review Committee was held in Tucson,Arizona, to permit Committee members to Attend Waste Management '82, theannual meeting sponsored by the University of Arizona College of Engineering.

2

The Committee used the meeting to seek a broader perspective on nuclearwaste management in general and where ONWI fits into the whole. TheCommittee submitted a report of its impressions of the conference(Exhibit 5, p. 77).

On May 24-25 in Columbus, the Committee devoted a meeting to the topicof ethics. The purpose was not to study ethical issues in waste manage-ment as such, but rather to work toward a conceptual base from which theCommittee could better operate on the matter of ethics where such issuesappear in its review of ONWI programs. Two philsophers, referred to theCommittee by the American Philosophical Association, guided the Committeediscussion and helped put together a "position paper" which describesthe approach to ethical issues the Committee intends to pursue (Exhibit 5,p. 87). It was a valuable conclusion, and the Committee's perceptionson ethics were put into play in the subsequent meetings of the fiscalyear, particularly its September meeting dealing with decision analysis.Following that, the Committee's "ethics papers" were sent out for theuse of various people within BPMD/ONWI (EXHIBIT 5, p. 92).

The July 26-27 meeting was held in Columbus and gave attention to ONWIinformation activities--both technical and public information programs.The discussion of these reviews went on into the September meeting, afterwhich a review report was submitted (Exhibit 5, p. 97).

The final PRC meeting of the fiscal year, the sixteenth meeting of theCommittee, took place in Columbus on September 20-21, 1982. The meetingwas primarily devoted to the review of the decision analysis processwhich was under discussion in ONWI. The Committee was asked to readgenerally on decision analysis; hear the possibilities for an ONWIdecision analysis approach to site selection; and give candid and spon-taneous reactions and opinions. Those were offered in a report soonafter the meeting (Exhibit 5, p. 93).

Committee Reviews and Responses

The Committee review reports which are briefly described above are carriedconsecutively as Exhibit 5.

In achieving its position on given issues, the PRC has utilized a sub-committee structure (Technical, Institutional, and Socioeconomic). However,for the most part, the PRC does much of its work as a full Committee.The chairman serves also as staff and puts together review reports aftermeetings by circulating mark-up drafts to the entire Committee. Theresponses to the PRC come in several forms. Immediate ones occur duringthe various sessions when the Committee is in discussion and/or findingssessions with ONWI people. Written responses from ONWI or Battelle'sProject Management Division occur as well and are carried in this reportas Exhibit 6, p. 102.

The last two Committee reviews have taken place recently enough that responsesfrom ONWI have not yet been developed.

3

Committee Self-Evaluation

Toward the end of this, the third year, the Committee evaluated itself.It did so by using a formal evaluation instrument which asked the membersto rate how they felt the Committee was doing held against its own statedpurposes, objectives, and processes. The Committee members also ratedthemselves as individuals held against the stated responsibilities ofmembership (Exhibit 7, p. 117).

The background of the formal evaluation was developed from two previousoccasions when members were asked to describe their expectations for theCommittee at the time. The chairman used those expressions as well as thewritten Committee objectives to put together the self-evaluation questions.

While there were differences of opinion, there was strong concensus oncertain things--one was that the Committee had achieved an effectivereview process and style. But there was concensus as well that thereneeded to be stronger Committee communication with a wider range ofpublic, particularly when related to the fact that the PRC membershiphas been very stable. Only one resignation has occurred--that recently--when Sheldon E. Steinbach, General Counsel of the American Council onEducation, had to leave the Committee because of an enlargement of hisactivities at the Council.

All PRC members were nominated, most by national organizations, so thereis a pool of continuing nominees in what has been called an "InterestGroup" from which to fill the vacant seat, although another call fornominations has just recently been sent out.

Committee Outreach

The "Interest Group" around the Committee has not been utilized as fullyas possible, largely due to the press of organization, establishment ofstyle, etc. However, there has been some continued contact with a numberof people. This past year, the Chairman pursued a more vigorous outreachprogram in order to enlarge the expertise available to the Committee onits own ground, as well as to bring a wider public perspective than 14committee seats makes possible.

In recent months, all people in the "interest group" were re-contacted tobe assured of their continuing interest. In addition, the idea for aliaison person to the Committee from the staff of various national organi-zations was pursued. The chairman wrote to all national organizationsoriginally contacted several years ago and some others as well, solicitingliaison nominations. As this is written, the PRC chairman has interviewed29 persons from this "Interest/Liaison Group". The list identified as"PRC Interest/Liaison Group" is carried as Exhibit 8, p.130.

It is now the intent of the Program Review Committe to share its agendasand records of meetings with the outreach group and when subject matter

4

suggests, invite one or the other to participate in a PRC meeting asa committee member for that session.

In addition, there has been developed a PRC program plan to establishCommittee presence in the field, e.g., at hearings or state and localoccasions where the chairman or other PRC members, while not representingBattelle, can, as review agents, bring to the Committee grassrootsopinions, particularly in areas where nuclear waste repository sitecharacterization is imminent or occurring.


Summary Report

Fiscal Year 1982-83

Introduction

As it nears the end of its fourth year, the Program Review Committee con-tinues to be heavily involved in its review and advisory functions. Lastyear's Annual Report gave evidence that after the time of orientation andthe conduct of early reviews, the PRC had hit its stride as a review com-mittee determined to present to Battelle's Office of Nuclear Waste Isolationan independent reflection of public opinion.

During this past year the Committee held fewer meetings in favor of travelprimarily aimed at reviewing hearings. Taking the meetings, travel, andother outreach activities together, the Committee continued a very activeprogram.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PAST YEAR'S PROGRAM

The agendas, Records of Meetings, Committee reviews, and responses toreviews are carried in this report as exhibits. The following arehighlights:

A. Committee Meetings

The first meeting of the fiscal year was the Committee's 18th meetingwhich was held in conjunction with the Fourth Annual NWTS InformationMeeting held in Las Vegas, Nevada, on December 13-16, 1982. The Committeemet several times during the Information Meeting so that individuals couldcheck impressions with other Committee members. Individuals evaluatedspecific technical sessions and together the Committee evaluated the NWTSInformation Meeting as a whole (Exhibit 5, p. 33).

The Nineteenth meeting of the PRC was not held until March 28-29, 1983.The previously scheduled January meeting was cancelled in order to givethe ONWI program and the PRC time to "digest" the impact of the NuclearWaste Policy Act of 1982 which was enacted late in the calendar year.The March meeting of the PRC, held in Columbus, was then devoted largelyto the newly enacted legislation. The meeting provided the opportunityfor presentations by ONWI leadership and discussion by the PRC of itsrenewed challenge to keep its review/advisory functions viable in the"post-legislation" period.

The PRC meeting scheduled for May, 1983, was cancelled in favor of travelby various PRC members to the "salt site nomination hearings". Thetwentieth meeting of the Committee was then held on July 25-26, 1983. Themeeting was almost entirely devoted to the issue of public involvementin ONWI's program, particularly developing as clearly as possible the

2

distinction between public information, public involvement, and publicparticipation. (The Committee's report on ONWI's public involvement isExhibit 5, p. 81.) Also at the July meeting groundwork was laid for thelater review by the PRC of ONWI's Environmental Assessment work.

Finally, the PRC meeting previously scheduled for September was post-poned until October 31-November 1 since the ONWI program to be reviewedwas delayed. That meeting reviewed DOE/ONWI responses to concernsvoiced at the salt hearings of last spring. It is described briefly hereto "round out" the year's activities, but the meeting records will actuallyappear in next year's Annual Report, since it fell into the 1983-84fiscal year.

B. Committee Outreach

1. Department of Energy Hearings on Proposed General Siting Guidelines.

Various PRC members were involved in hearings in Washington, D.C.;Seattle; New Orleans; and Salt Lake City (Reports filed are carried asExhibit 7, p. 103).

2. DOE Hearings on Proposed Nomination of Potential Sites for aHigh-Level Radioactive Waste Repository (Salt Site Hearings).

Individual PRC members were assigned to each of the hearings, and inthe case of Texas, two members together attended the hearings in Tuliaand Hereford. Individual reports were filed and subsequently, the PRCas a whole reviewed these and developed a Committee review documentincorporating findings and recommendations to ONWI (Exhibit 5, p. 41).

3. EPA Hearings

Several PRC members attended the Environmental Protection Agency'spublic hearings on 40 CFR 191 in Washington, D. C. and Denver, Colorado.Their reports are carred as Exhibit 8, p. 113.

4. Public Information Meetings

Toward the end of the fiscal year, ONWI conducted DOE informationmeetings at the salt site locations in order to respond to concernsvoiced the previous spring at the "salt site hearings". Several PRCmembers attended the sessions and interacted with local citizens in Moab,Utah; and Hereford and Tulia, Texas. (Their Reports are Exhibit 10, p. 138.)

As this report is written, two PRC members are scheduled to attendsimilar information meetings in Minden, Louisiana on December 8 and inRichton, Mississippi on December 10.

3

At the PRC meeting of October 31-November 1, 1983, individuals whoattended the information meetings shared impressions with each otherand ONWI staff who had been involved in planning and conducting theevents.

4. Conferences attended by PRC members.

During the year, several members were asked to attend conferencesdeemed relevant to the Committee's responsibilities. Those meetingsattended included the MIT conference on "Institutional Stability and theDisposal of Nuclear and Chemically Toxic Wastes" on May 16 and 17 whichwas attended by two members of the PRC. Another PRC member attendedthe Meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis from July 31-August 3,1983, in New York City. In addition, the PRC chairman attended the "Don'tWaste America" campaign strategy conference sponsored by the NuclearInformation and Resource Service held in Las Vegas, Nevada, December 17-19,1983. These reports are carried as Exhibit 9, p. 116.

BPMD/ONWI RESPONSES

The Program Review Committee interacts with ONWI staff directly in itsreview of programs, and its advisory voice is often heard directly andpersonally in these exchanges. However, written review reports arefiled in any case. These are referred to in the previous descriptionof activities. Written responses to the Committee from BPMD/ONWI areimportant in giving to the PRC a sense of what has happened to itsrecommendations for findings, as well as furnishing the basis for furtherdialogue in some cases. The responses are carried as Exhibit 6, p. 85.

PRC INTEREST/LIAISON GROUP

A definite effort was made over the past year to keep the Committee'sinterest group reasonably well informed of PRC activities. The groupmembers are identified in Exhibit 11, p. 138.

Several times during the year the PRC chairman directed specific materialsor requests to the interest group and received from a number of peoplevery helpful written or telephoned advice. For example, in setting upfor the PRC's move into a greater awareness and encouragement of publicparticipation techniques, four people answered the chairman's requestfor information and/or opinion. These were utilized in the Committee'sreview of ONWI public involvement activities. A working paper whichconceptualizes the Interest Group is carried as Exhibit 12, p. 141.

4

MEMBERSHIP SEARCH

During the year, Dr. Thomas Moss was appointed to replace Mr. SheldonSteinbach, who had resigned the previous year. In keeping with theprocess through which the Committee was organized, a call for nominationsto fill the vacant seat went out to around fifty organizations. Credentialswere completed on nine candidates. Six of these were interviewed by thePRC chairman. Dr. Thomas Moss, now Director of Research Administrationat Case Western Reserve, previously served as Staff Director for theSubcommittee on Science, Research and Technology of the U.S. House ofRepresentatives. The Committee is at its full strength of 14.

It is worth noting that the PRC has maintained a very fine attendancerecord, particularly considering the fact that the Committee normallymeets every other month.

THL/cjh11/22/83


Summary Report

Fiscal Year 1983-84

Introduction

The Program Review Committee continued a very active program during theyear involving both review and advisory functions. In its activity, theCommittee remained commited to provide to Battelle's Office of NuclearWaste Isolation an independent voice from the public. No person orgroup can purport to represent "the public" which, after all, is extremelyvaried and complex. But each PRC member serves one place or other in apublic arena. It is that perspective the PRC works to bring to the Officeof Nuclear Waste Isolation.

Description of Past Year's Program

The agendas, records of meetings, Committee reviews, Committee reports,and responses are carried in this report as exhibits. The following arehighlights.

A. Committee Meetings.

The first meeting of the fiscal year on October 31-November 1,1983, in Columbus was the twenty-first meeting of the Committee.The meeting was devoted to the peer review of ONWI-519 and to itscontinued review of ONWI's public involvement activities. ONWI-519 was the document with which ONWI was to respond to variousconcerns voiced at the salt site hearings which had taken placein the fall of 1983 and early in 1984. The Committee evaluatedthe ONWI document in draft form. Its comments are carried inExhibit 5, p. 42.

The twenty-second meeting of the Committee on January 23 and 24,1984, was devoted to the draft of Volume I of the Mission Planof the Department of Energy. The review, conducted at the requestof Mr. Jeff Neff, entailed Committee members' study of the documentas well as subcommittee attention to specific sections of thedocument by subpart or issue. The Committee review report iscarried as Exhibit 5, p. 51.

On March 26-27, the PRC held its twenty-third meeting in Columbusin order to review BPMD/ONWI's Quality Assurance program. Thereview was set to be conducted over two Committee meetings--Marchand July. The Quality Assurance process was the focus of the Marchmeeting; attention was given to manuals and procedures. No reviewof that was written, but there was developed a "PRC Working Paper"which would point toward the July review of quality and its controland assurance as a management function. The twenty-fifth Committee

2

meeting on July 23-24 resulted in a review paper which wasdirected to quality as a management commitment. The "workingpaper" and the Review are carried as Exhibit 5, pp. 144 and 149,respectively. (Subsequent to the review of Quality Assurance,Mr. Carter sent to the PRC a draft proposal on a QualityAchievement Council which has been established, requestingits comments which were conveyed in a recent PRC meetingoutside the scope of this fiscal year report.)

In between the March and July meetings, the Program ReviewCommittee met in Columbus on May 21-22 in order to reviewthe third draft of Chapter 2 of the Environmental Assessments,which dealt with the site selection process. In order tobetter understand the Environmental Assessment document, theCommittee studied the "Stand Alone Disqualifying Condition"working draft, as is apparent by reading the Committee reviewwhich is carried as Exhibit 5, p. 126.

B. Committee Outreach.

During the year various Committee members attended the 1983Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Information Meeting inWashington, D.C. While the PRC had not been invited as acommittee to review the meeting as had been the case whenBattelle managed the annual meeting, the PRC members whoattended submitted an informal review of their impressionsto Mr. Carter with particular critique of all ONWIconference participants (Exhibit 5, p. 44).

During the previous fiscal year and into this one, variousPRC members attended the Nuclear Waste Information Exchanges.Individual reports of each exchange was submitted, andeventually a consolidated review report was submitted. Theconsolidated report and subsequent individual reports whichresulted from later exchanges are carried as Exhibit 5, p. 94.

In general, the Committee has continued to remain in conversationwith ONWI on the matter of its interaction with citizens, and oncitizen information, involvement, and participation. VariousCommittee recommendations on citizen participation are carriedin various parts of Committee reports.

BPMD/ONWI Responses

In many cases, PRC impressions or comments on the ONWI programs are directand a part of a Committee discussion with ONWI's staff. However, a writtenPRC review report is filed in any case. The PRC receives both oral andwritten responses as well, although in some cases there is a time lapse.An acknowledgement just for the record is not sought, but rather a substantive

3

reaction to the Committee is encouraged and expected. Responses insubstance were not expected on the Review of the Mission Plan nor onthe comments offered to ONWI on its participation in the Washinqton,D.C. Information Meeting.

One substantive response to the PRC in its consideration of quality andits assurance was in the form of a draft proposal sent by Mr. Carter tothe PRC for its comment. The letter from him is carried in Exhibit 6, p. 202,but the draft report review has only recently been filed so that bothit and the PRC response falls outside the scope of this fiscal yearreport.

PRC Interest/Liaison Group

From time to time during the year, agendas have been sent to the Interest/Liaison Group, the membership of which is carried as Exhibit 7, p. 203.

Members of the Interest/Liaison Group in Washington, D.C., were invitedto an informal discussion meeting with the PRC members who were attendingthe Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Infomation meeting. Attendingthe meeting were:

John BosleyLuther CarterJeff FletcherEmanuel GordonRichard ScribnerLouis Urbanczyk.

THL/cjh1/15/85


Summary Report

Fiscal Year 1984-85

Introduction

In continuing its review function at Battelle's Office of Nuclear WasteIsolation, the Program Review Committee reviewed a number of programs.In addition, many of its members, under a set schedule, attended nearlyall of the Draft Environmental Assessment Briefings and Hearings whichwere held in the "salt states" during January and February, 1985.

During the year, the PRC initiated an evaluation of itself and retaineda professional firm to conduct the assessment.

As the fiscal year ended, the Committee was giving attention to its futurerole as the Salt Repository Program moved toward the site characterizationphase.


The agendas, records of meetings, Committee reviews and reports, and thereport on the assessment of the Committee are carried in this report asexhibits. The following summzarizes the year's activities.


The first meeting of the fiscal year was on November 26-27 in Columbus,Ohio, and was used to update the Committee on the significant changes whichhad been occurring in the nuclear waste program. To do that, the Committeemet with the ONWI Project and Technical managers as well as with the GeneralManager, following which general agenda items were developed for the forth-coming year. These are covered in a memo to Wayne Carbiener dated December 6,1984 (Exhibit 5, p. 33).

The twenty-seventh meeting of the Committee was held on January 28-29,again in Columbus. There were two major areas of interest. First, theCommittee consolidated its impressions of the conduct of the JanuaryEnvironmental Assessment briefings in Texas, Utah, Mississippi, and Louisiana.The Commitee developed findings and recommendations on the briefings (Exhibit 5, p. 37).Additionally, it read and discussed ONWI's revised draft SocioeconomicProgram Plan and submitted a review report (Exhibit 5, p. 51).

The March 25-26, 1985, meeting of the PRC gave attention to ONWI's 1985Technical Project Plan, heard a progress report on site characterization

1

2

planning, as well as a report on the activities of the Technical AssuranceCouncil. Members of the PRC who had attended the DOE Draft EnvironmentalAssessment Hearings reported to the full Committee and helped develop acomposite report, which is attached along with the individual reports (Exhibit 5, p. 54The response to the other reports is in a memo to N. E. Carter (Exhibit 5, p. 76).

ONWI's Draft Project Management Plan was reviewed by the Committee onMay 20-21 in Columbus, along with progress reports on site characterizationplanning, the quality achievement program, and the work of the TechnicalAssurance Council. Committee findings are carried in a memo to N. E.Carter dated May 28, 1985 (Exhibit 5, p. 78).

The thirtieth meeting of the PRC was on September 23-25 in order toreview ONWI's Draft Public Participation Plan. Discussions were held withthe author of the draft, Susan Wiltshire. A panel representing ONWI andthe Department of Energy's Salt Repository Office put the draft plan intocontext. The Committee's findings and recommendation were transmitted toW. Madia on October 15 (Exhibit 5, p. 82).


As mentioned above, various PRC members attended information meetings andhearings as reviewers. Committee members who did so used the opportunityto visit with as many citizens as possible.

The PRC interest-liaison group had earlier received agendas, but sinceit appeared to be simply a "paper flow", a summary of the PRC annual reportwas sent to each person on the list with an offer to provide additionalinformation, by request, on issues in which anyone would be interested.

Assessment of the Program Review Committee

During the year the PRC initiated an assessment by contracting with Dr. DennisBenson of Appropriate Solutions, Inc., who conducted the evaluation. Question-naires were sent to PRC members, to BPMD/ONWI managers, to people in theSalt Repository Project Office, to people at the Department of Energy, andto the Liaison/Interest Group. The consultant's final report on the resultsof the assessment and the Committee's initial response are attached (Exhibit 5,p. 86.

The Future Role of the Program Review Committee

As the fiscal year ended, the PRC was giving attention to its role in the lightof program changes while the publication date of the Environmental Assessmentsapproached and as ONWI and the Salt Repository Office moved toward sitespecific programs.

THL/cjh10/17/85


Summary Report

Fiscal Year 1985-86

Introduction

The Program Review Committee met five times during the year, including a meet-ing in connection with its trip to Carlsbad, New Mexico and a tour of WIPP.

Reviews conducted during the year all related in one way or another tovarious aspects of program planning as the Salt Repository Program getsready to make a transition to a site and initiate site characterization.

In addition, considerable work went into defining the future role of thePRC as it reoriented itself to reflect more regional and local consciousness.


The agendas, records of meetings, and Committee reviews and reports arecarried in this report as exhibits. The following summarizes the year'sactivities.


The first meeting of the fiscal year was in Albuquerque and Carlsbad,New Mexico. In addition to transaction of Committee business involvingCommittee assessment, the meeting was devoted to meetings with DOE-Albuquerqueofficials; a tour of the Waste Isolation Project; and visits with project andcommunity leaders. The Committee was not at WIPP to develop a critique, butrather to gain impressions of a project in relationship to community--obviously an important factor in contemplating the move of the Salt RepositoryProgram to a site for characterization. The PRC had already put considerableeffort into public participation concerns for the salt program, so talkswith the Carlsbad people were valuable. The PRC impression and "learnings"were developed into a formal report and submitted to BPMD/ONWI management(Exhibit 5, p. 34).

The thirty-second meeting of the PRC was held on January 27-28, 1986in Columbus to review the site characterization planning going on in ONWI'sField Operations Department. Issues expected to be crucial as characterizationoccurs were reviewed, including technical, socioeconomic, and those involvingpublic--that is, institutional issues. A Committee review report on theplanning of the Field Operations Office was submitted on February 18 (Exhibit 5,p. 38).

2

The March 24-25 meeting of the Committee was held in Columbus in orderto get an overview of the activities of the Salt Repository Project Office(DOE). Jeff Neff and others described planning, strategy and resolution,socioeconomic issues, and institutional and site transition planning. TheRecord of the Meeting documents the discussions (Exhibit 4, p. 23) and amemo to Jeff Neff places the record in the perspective of PRC programming(Exhibit 5, p. 42).

The thirty-fourth PRC meeting was held in Columbus to discuss two keyelements of SRP planning: (1) Site Transition and (2) Consultation andCooperation. In addition, attention was given to reports on licensingdirections, the work of the Environmental Coordinating Group in Washington,D.C., and in public participation planning. The Committee review wassubmitted to Mr. Madia on June 5, 1986, and primarily offered opinionsand recommendations on the various planning efforts. Subcommittee reportswere attached to the review (Exhibit 5, p. 43).

On July 28-29, 1986, the PRC again met in Columbus to give attentionto the Readiness Review for field activities as the program moved towardsite characterization. The Start-Up Team chair, John Griffin, led theTeam's presentation. The Committee spent most of its time discussingissues on the readiness review process. Committee responses and adviceto program management is carried as a review report (Exhibit 5, p.50).


The visit of the PRC to Carlsbad, reported earlier, was a definiteoutreach in itself, but was valuable in providing a reality perspectivefrom the WIPP experience in Carlsbad which the Committee could use inanticipating the dynamics of the salt program initiating characterizationat a site.

Several members represented the PRC at two meetings: (1) The Inter-national Symposium on Alternative Low-Level Waste Technologies was attendedby Dr. Yvonne Condell. Her report to the Committee is carried as Exhibit 6, p. 55.

Dr. William Benson and Dr. Thomas Moss attended Waste Management '86in Tucson. Their impressions and analyses are carried in their reportsas Exhibit 6, p. 61 and Exhibit 6, p. 68.

The Future Role of the Program Review Committee

Last year's annual report indicated that with the Salt Repository Programmoving toward a site specific status, the PRC was giving attention to itsfuture role. Considerable attention was devoted to that during the pastyear. Perspective on that future role was achieved in discussions withONWI and SRPO management, analysis of last year's PRC assessment, Committee

3

discussions, and studies and reports done by the PRC chair. These studiesand reports included a complete description of the future role of critical,objective review; transition in membership to reflect greater regional andlocal consciousness; and anticipated issues of PRC concern as field workand site characterization occurs.

At its July meeting, the PRC gave particular attention to membershiptransition.

As this report is written, the system for seeking nominations for newmembers is in place awaiting the program's ability to initiate its movesto the site.

THL/cjh10/1/86

EXHIBIT 4

Review and Approval

NameDL Keller

Concurrence

Approved RK Kennedy

No.

Internal Distribution

WJ Madia JS TreadwfWA Carbiener GLPO FileLJ LaFountain StaffRK Kennedy ONWI FilesSJ Basham HC LathamDL Keller /LB

March 7, 1986

J. 0. Neff, Manager, SRPO

ATTENTION: L. K. McClain


Over the past several months ONWI has been evaluating the future role ofthe Program Review Committee (PRC), particularity in light of SRPO'santicipated move to site-specific activities. We have concluded thatthe PRC should be continued to assist SRP management by providingcritical, objective review of program issues and activities. Thecommittee members bring to this critical review their considerableexperience with nuclear waste management issues, their recognizedexpertise in a variety of social and technical disciplines, and perhapsmost important their broad representation of the public interest. Ourrecommendation to continue the PRC is further based on the followingconsiderations:

The PRC will be reoriented to reflect the site-specificprogram. This membership

rotation through which three-year, staggered terms willcause either the reappointment or rotation off by up to1/3 of the members each year. In keeping with the regional/local interest the selection process for new members willgive priority to regional or state candidates. The committeewill remain at 15 members. It is also recommended that someof the PRC meetings be held in the region/locality of thesite with an announced schedule so that interested peoplein the areas could attend or participate. The PRC willdevelop a "positive listening" role to local concernswithout becoming a spokesman for the SRP program.

An independent assessment of the PRC by Dr. Dennis K. Bensonof Approprite Solution's Incorporated was completed earlythis fiscal year. Dr. Benson reported that the findingsoverwhelmingly are constructive." The assessment resultsalso provide ONWI management with insight into improvingthe PRC's work in such areas as increasing its impact inits primary mission of critical review, more timely responseby ONWI staff to PRC review activities, and further evaluationof the PRC's relationship with SRPO.

Vistors Entrance: 1375 Perry Street. Columbus OhioTelephone (614) 424-5674 - Telex 24-5454

J. D. NeffU.S. Department of Energy 2 March 7, 1986

Our mission plan and current plan budgets support our recommendation to

Please contact D. Keller at Ext. 7676 for further Information or questions.

Wayne . CarbienerProgram Manager

WAC/DLK:dmh

In triplicate

WBS 1.3.5.4ONWI-010-86-0030

EXHIBIT 5

NAMES OF PEOPLE TO WHOMNOMINATION LETTERS WERE SENT

10/1/87

Proposed List Of People

To Receive Requests To

Nominate New PRC Members

T.H. LangevinSeptember 10, 1987

NAMES OF PEOPLE TO WHOMNOMINATION LETTERS WERE SENT

10/1/87

1. Dr. Perry Adkisson, Chancellor, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

2. Dr. Arthur Ahlschwede, Retired Executive Director of the Board of HigherEducation, The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

3. Dr. Robert C. Albin, Associate Dean of Agricultural Sciences (Research)Texas Tech University. (In contact with Del bert Devin and the Nuclear WasteTask Force.) Lubbock, TX.

4. Mr. Sam Attebury, Agri-businessman.

5. Mr. Charles Ball, Executive Vice President (Staff Director) of the TexasCattle Feeders Association.

6. Mr. Mike Bowles, The Mike Bowles Company, Hereford, TX.

7. Dr. Tom Burkes, Faculty, College of Engineering, Texas Tech University.(Coordinator of University Contact with the new Waste Deposit Impact Committeein Hereford [WDIC].) Lubbock, TX.

8. Mr. Paul W. Cain, President and Chief Operating Officer, Mesa LimitedPartnership, Amarillo, TX.

9. Mr. William Clevinger, (farmer, involved in Sugar Beet Association),Wildorado, TX.

10. Mr. Delbert Devin, President of Nuclear Waste Task Force, Inc., Dimmitt,TX.

11. Mr. Wes Fisher, Mayor of Hereford.

12. Mr. Clint Formby, Businessman, Owner of Hereford Radio Station and otherstations elsewhere.

13. Mr. Paul Grimes, Vice President External Affairs, West Texas StateUniversity, Canyon, TX.

14. Mr. Louis G. Hinders (farmer and involved with Dairy Association), Canyon,TX.

15. Mr. Robert D. Josserand, President, AzTx Cattle Co., Hereford, TX.

16. Mr. Jerome W. Johnson, Attorney at Law, Amarillo, TX.

17. Mr. Carl King, Chairman of Texas Corn Growers Association. Dimmitt, TX.

18. Mr. Wales Madden, Jr. and Mr. Wales Madden III. The father, a business manfrom a pioneer family, is one of the most influential men in Texas.

19. Mr. E.T. Manning, Attorney at Law, Amarillo, TX.

20. Dr. Ray F. Martens, President, Concordia Lutheran College, Austin,TX.

21. Dr. Margaret Maxey, Clint Murchison Chair of Free Enterprise,University of Texas.

22. Dr. George Miller, President, Amarillo College.

23. Mr. Larry S. Milner, President, Amarillo Chamber of Commerce.

24. Mr. D.G. "Bill" Nelson, Executive Vice President (Staff Director) ofthe Texas Wheat Growers Association.

25. Mr. Philip Niedzielski-Eichner, Executive Director of Waste DepositImpact Committee (WDIC), Hereford, TX.

26. Mr. Glen Parkey, the Mayor of Amarillo.

27. Dr. Phillip Periman, M.D., President, The Don and Sybil HarringtonCancer Center, Amarillo, TX.

28. Dr. Frederick W. Rathjen, Professor of History, West Texas StateUniversity (made presentation in Columbus to BPMD/ONWI Family night),Canyon, TX.

29. Dr. Ed. Roach, President of West Texas State University, Canyon.

30. Honorable Tom Simons, Deaf Smith Ccunty Judge, Hereford, TX.

31. Dr. Danny Smith, Acting Director of the Texas Office of Nuclear WasteProgram.

32. Dr. Fred A. Snyder, Fred A. Snyder and Associates (a consultingfirm), Amarillo, Tx.

33. Dr. Mason Somerville, Dean of College of Engineering, Texas TechUniversity, Lubbock, TX.

34. Ms. Claudia Stravato, Deputy Comptroller State of Texas.

35. Dr. John Sweeten, Agricultural Engineering Department, Texas A&MUniversity, College Station, Texas.

36. Mr. S.M. True, President of the Texas Farm Bureau, Plainview, TX.

37. Dr. James Veninga, Director, Texas Committee for the Humanities.

38. Mr. John Ward, City Manager of Amarillo.

39. Mr. Ed Wieck, retired farmer. Involved in various organizations. Canyon,TX.

40. Rev. Darrel Gilbertson, Pastor, Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church, Amarillo,TX.

EXHIBIT 6

Department of EnergySalt Repository Project Office110 North 25 Mile Avenue

Hereford, Texas 79045

September 21, 1987

Thomas H. Isaacs, DirectorRepository Coordination Division, HQRW-22

SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SRP PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE

Following is information related to the questions raised during the meetingwith you and other OGR members on August 26, 1987, regarding the ProgramReview Committee of the Salt Repository Project Office.

The function of the SRPO's Program Committee is to provide uppermanagement with the periodic evaluations of technical and institutionalaspects of the program by a group of independent, credentialed citizenswho are informed about the program. These recommendations are used inevaluation and planning. Additional information on functions, purpose,selection process of members, transition of the seven-year-oldcommittee to a Texas perspective, and committee member selectioncriteria is included in the attached summary, which was provided to youat the meeting.

o The presence of similar review committees at the Nevada and Washingtonsites has been investigated and neither project has a committee likethe PRC, which provides an appraisal directly to management from itssocietal perspective. Both Nevada and Washington have state functions,funded by the DOE grants, to review the program. BWIP Staff expressedinterest in the role of, and In learning more about, the PRC.

Information about the Environmental Evaluation Group (EEG) shows thatit also is dissimilar to the PRC in purpose or functions. New MexicosEEG is a committee organized and appointed by, acting on behalf of., andreporting to the State of New Mexico. The EEG was established as partof the contract entered into between DOE and the New Mexico Health andEnvironment Department. The purpose of the EEG is to provide anindependent, technical review of the WIPP project to the governor,primarily in the areas of public health and safety. Administratively,the EEG is within the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division inthe Health and Environment Department. (There is also a StateRadioactive Waste Consultation Task Force, whose chairman is theofficial point of contact for DOE.) A Supplemental StipulatedAgreement, signed in December 1982, addressed five state concerns, oneof which sought state environmental monitoring of the WIPP operations.DOE agreed to fund a state environmental monitoring program to collectbaseline data and monitor during and after WIPP operations and toprovide funding for that work to the EEG. The EEG has a full time

Celebrating the U.S. Constitution Bicentennial - 1787.1987

Thomas H. Isaacs, Director - 2 - September 21, 1987

technical staff experienced in health physics, environmentalengineering, hydrology, and geology and produces reports reviewing WIPPactivities. To date, Texas has not expressed interest in forming asimilar group.

The difference between the PRC and the National Academy of Sciencescommittees, which are to be established for reviewing each site'scharacterization activities were discussed during the August 26meeting. The major difference, as you pointed out, is that the NAScommittees will focus on "technical slices" rather than broad reviewsor project appraisals.

The question as to whether the PRC concept may be made more valuable ifbroadened to the other (PRC-type groups developed at the otherprojects) is a subject that would benefit from discussion withrepresentatives of those offices. Perhaps this would be appropriatefor consideration at the executive session of a future ISCG meeting.would be pleased to have the chairman of the SRP Program ReviewCommittee give a presentation on its functions, site focus, and imputto management at the next meeting. Then ISCG members could thendiscuss the potential for broader applications.

I would like to stress that the PRC has had, and in my opinion, will continueto play a vital role in management decision making and the institutionalperspectives of the Salt Repository Project Office for several reasons.First, I believe the PRC is unique in offering a broad, objective, committedand knowledgeable evaluation resource for program management. Second, thiscommittee provides a different dynamic than a technical review group or astate review group. The PRC represents the societal view, cutting across manytechnologies in the credentials of its membership, and across all aspects ofthe SRP in its overall program review. They have had positive effects on theSRP program in areas of QA, institutional, environmental assessment review,internal training, readiness review, and socioeconomic issues. Its new focuswith members from the Panhandle region will enhance the committee'sunderstanding of the issues. Third, the credentials of the present andpotential members are outstanding (see pages 5-7 of the attachment); theirprestige in the positions they represent and have access to enhances ourprogram's credibility. Fourth, the committee's objectivity is beyond questionand it is important that such review elements (not politically driven) exist,especially for the SRP. The SRP is new to the Panhandle and is trying toestablish the support and networks that may already exist at the other twoprojects, where DOE has had a presence and many personnel for decades.

While you consider the possible applications to the other two projects, I haveasked the PRC chairman to proceed with the process of obtaining nominationsfor the regional representation we desire to include on the committee (seesecond paragraph of page 3 of the attachment for description of the process)so that we can maintain the transition schedule. The process can be placed onhold, if desired, at later points in the schedule.

Thomas H. Isaacs, Director - 3 - September 21, 1987

I hope that this addresses your questions.if you have further questions.

Please contact me or Linda McClain

J.O. NeffProject ManagerSalt Repository Project Office

SRPO:LKM:max:1082SW

Bresee, RW-22Gale, RW-223Probst, RW-223Daly, RW-222Morrison, OCMPowell, BWIPDixon, NTS

277-87-OM

F United States Government Department of Energy …and the Draft Highlights from the July 21-23,...

Documents

Transcript of F United States Government Department of Energy …and the Draft Highlights from the July 21-23,...