ML080710522
| ML080710522 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 03/21/2008 |
| From: | Kuo P NRC/NRR/ADRO/DLR |
| To: | Rachel Johnson Prairie Island Community Council |
| Le, Ngoc, NRR/DLR/RLRA, 415-1458 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML080710522 (5) | |
Text
March 21, 2008 Mr. Ronald Johnson Tribal Council President Prairie Island Indian Community 5636 Sturgeon Lake Road Welch, MN 55089
Dear President Johnson:
This is in follow-up to the February 27, 2008, meeting with you and Ms. Heather Westra at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. The staff very much appreciates the opportunity to discuss the Prairie Island Indian Communitys (the Community) interest in the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP) license renewal application, which the staff expects to receive in April 2008.
The staff works with Native American Tribal governments on a government-to-government basis to ensure that the rights of sovereign Tribal governments are fully respected. In keeping with this relationship, the NRC staff appreciates the offer of assistance in the environmental review of the proposed action (license renewal) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The staff understands that the Community is evaluating its options for participating in the staffs review and will notify NRC if it wishes to pursue status as a cooperating agency.
The staff requests that, as you explore the option of cooperating agency status, you consider the Factors for Determining Whether to Invite, Decline or End Cooperative Agency Status, enclosed for your convenience. These factors can be accessed at http://www.nepa.gov/nepa/regs/cooperating/cooperatingagenciesmemorandum.html. Should the Community decide to pursue cooperating agency status, the NRC staff requests that the Community notify the NRC by letter and address each of the Factors therein for staff consideration.
As stated in the February 23, 2008, letter from J. E. Dyer to you, the staff is receptive to your request to have the Communitys environmental specialist accompany the NRC staff during its environmental site audit of the PINGP. Should the NRC staff accept the PINGP license renewal application for review, we will contact you with the dates of the environmental site audit so your environmental specialist can make necessary arrangements.
Please direct all correspondence related the PINGP license renewal review to Mr. Ngoc (Tommy) Le, Senior Project Manager. He can be reached by phone at (301) 415-1458 and by email at nbl@nrc.gov. Similarly, the NRC staff requests the name and contact information of a point of interface from the Community.
The staff remains committed to continue working with the Community on a government-to-government basis and will be available to meet with representatives of the Community at meeting facilities located on the reservation, if such a meeting would be beneficial.
R. Johnson Thank you again for your interest in PINGP license renewal and your offer to assist the staff in conducting the associated environmental review. We look forward to hearing from the Community regarding the options it wishes to pursue for participation in the staffs environmental review.
Sincerely,
\\RA\\ Sam Lee for Pao-Tsin Kuo, Director Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: Heather J. Westra, Interim Director Land and Environment Department 5636 Sturgeon Lake Road Welch, MN 55089
Enclosure:
As stated
R. Johnson meeting would be beneficial. Thank you again for your interest in PINGP license renewal and your offer to assist the staff in conducting the associated environmental review. We look forward to hearing from the Community regarding the options it wishes to pursue for participation in the staffs environmental review.
Sincerely,
\\RA\\ Sam Lee for Pao-Tsin Kuo, Director Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: Heather J. Westra, Interim Director Land and Environment Department 5636 Sturgeon Lake Road Welch, MN 55089
Enclosure:
As stated DISTRIBUTION:
DLR R/F PBubar RLickus EWilliamson RVirgilio RTurtle JOlmstead SCampbell ACCESSION NO.: ML080710522 OFFICE DLR:LA DLR:RPB2:PM DLR:RPB2:BC DLR:RERB:BC FSME:DILR:ILB NAME SFigueroa NLe RFranovich EBenner RTurtil via e-mail DATE 03/18/08 03/18/08 03/21/08 03/20/08 03/19/08 OFFICE RIII OGC nlo DLR:D NAME RLickus via e-mail EWilliams SLee For PTKuo DATE 03/20/08 03/19/08 03/21/08 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Factors for Determining Whether to Invite, Decline or End Cooperating Agency Status
- 1.
Jurisdiction by law (40 CFR § 1508.15) - for example, agencies with the authority to grant permits for implementing the action [federal agencies shall be a cooperating agency (1501.6); non-federal agencies may be invited (40 CFR § 1508.5)]:
Does the agency have the authority to approve a proposal or a portion of a proposal?
Does the agency have the authority to veto a proposal or a portion of a proposal?
Does the agency have the authority to finance a proposal or a portion of a proposal?
- 2.
Special expertise (40 CFR § 1508.26) - cooperating agency status for specific purposes linked to special expertise requires more than an interest in a proposed action [federal and non-federal agencies may be requested (40 CFR §§ 1501.6 & 1508.5)]:
Does the cooperating agency have the expertise needed to help the lead agency meet a statutory responsibility?
Does the cooperating agency have the expertise developed to carry out an agency mission?
Does the cooperating agency have the related program expertise or experience?
Does the cooperating agency have the expertise regarding the proposed actions relationship to the objectives of regional, State and local land use plans, policies and controls (1502.16(c))?
- 3. Do the agencies understand what cooperating agency status means and can they legally enter into an agreement to be a cooperating agency?
- 4. Can the cooperating agency participate during scoping and/or throughout the preparation of the analysis and documentation as necessary and meet milestones established for completing the process?
- 5. Can the cooperating agency, in a timely manner, aid in:
Identifying significant environmental issues [including aspects of the human environment (40 CFR § 1508.14), including natural, social, economic, energy, urban quality, historic and cultural issues (40 CFR § 1502.16)]?
Eliminating minor issues from further study?
Identifying issues previously the subject of environmental review or study?
Identifying the proposed actions relationship to the objectives of regional, State and local land use plans, policies and controls (1502.16(c))?
(40 CFR §§ 1501.1(d) and 1501.7)
- 6.
Can the cooperating agency assist in preparing portions of the review and analysis and resolving significant environmental issues to support scheduling and critical milestones?
ENCLOSURE
- 7.
Can the cooperating agency provide resources to support scheduling and critical milestones such as:
Personnel? Consider all forms of assistance (e.g., data gathering; surveying; compilation; research.
Expertise? This includes technical or subject matter expertise.
Funding? Examples include funding for personnel, travel and studies.
Normally, the cooperating agency will provide the funding; to the extent available funds permit, the lead agency shall fund or include in budget requests funding for an analyses the lead agency requests from cooperating agencies. Alternatives to travel, such as telephonic or video conferencing, should be considered especially when funding constrains participation.
Models and databases? Consider consistency and compatibility with lead and other cooperating agencies methodologies.
Facilities, equipment and other services? This type of support is especially relevant for smaller governmental entities with limited budgets.
- 8.
Does the agency provide adequate lead-time for review and do the other agencies provide adequate time for review of documents, issues and analyses? For example, are either the lead or cooperating agencies unable or unwilling to consistently participate in meetings in a timely fashion after adequate time for review of documents, issues and analyses?
- 9.
Can the cooperating agency(s) accept the lead agencys final decision-making authority regarding the scope of the analysis, including authority to define the purpose and need for the proposed action? For example, is an agency unable or unwilling to develop information/analysis of alternatives they favor and disfavor?
- 10.
Are the agency(s) able and willing to provide data and rationale underlying the analyses or assessment of alternatives?
- 11.
Does the agency release predecisional information (including working drafts) in a manner that undermines or circumvents the agreement to work cooperatively before publishing draft or final analyses and documents? Disagreeing with the published draft or final analysis should not be a ground for ending cooperating status. Agencies must be alert to situations where state law requires release of information.
- 12.
Does the agency consistently misrepresent the process or the findings presented in the analysis and documentation?