ML20127D898
| ML20127D898 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/10/1984 |
| From: | Browning R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Cunningham R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127D848 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-821 NUDOCS 8506240369 | |
| Download: ML20127D898 (11) | |
Text
U1JlRAUJiIUll.
WM s/f f JAlambert NMSS: r/f ACGiarratand RDMacDougall 100/RDM/84/09/26/ DUP OCT 10 1984 hoYe MKearney DMattson J0 Bunting MEMORANDUM FOR:
Richard E. Cunningham, Director LHigginbotham Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety app
,,ett i
FROM:
Robert E. Browning, Director HMiller Division of Waste Management ning
SUBJECT:
FEDERAL AND NRC REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING HIGH-LEVEL WASTE TRANSPORTATION With the increasing interest in NRC responsibilities for the transportation of spent fuel and high-level waste, it has come to my attention that we may need to settle some basic legal questions before we go much further.
I am currently planning to request a legal opinion from the Office of the Execytive Legal Director (DELD) on these questions, but knowing that you will be questioned by state officials on NRC transportation policies at the upcoming meeting in Keystone, Colorado, I would like to discuss these questions with you before then at your earliest convenience.
First is the question whether NRC has any responsibility at all for the regulation of shipments of HLW or spent fuel to which DOE has taken title under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA.) As you know, Section 302(a)(1) of that Act authorizes DOE to enter contracts with any person who generater or holds title to spent fuel or HLW of domestic origin "for the acceptance t f title, subsequent transportation, and disposal of such waste or spent fuel." Section 9 of NWPA provides that "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect Federal, State, or local laws pertaining to the transportation of spent fuel or high-level radioactive waste." Under existing law, DOE is responsible for safeguarding the shipment of materials under its jurisdiction, and we understand that it does not acknowledge any statutory requirement to ship these materials in NRC-certified casks or comply with any other regulations but its Given this current state of affairs, I believe we need a formal legal own.
opinion on whether Section 9 eliminates any NRC regulation of spent fuel or HLW transportation after DOE takes title.
Even if Section 9 can be so construed, I think we also need to have OELD's legal analysis on whether transportation issues might still have to be addressed by an NRC licensing board, or by the staff in the course of reviewing DOE's environmental impact statement in connection with a Comission decision on repository construction authorization (CA).
If, for example, a potential host state raised questions about the adequacy of the federal emergency response program for transportation accidents enroute to the proposed repository, or if an intervenor made allegations concerning the cumulative radiological hazard of multiple DOE shipments past populations along a FC :WMPC
- WMPC
- WMPC
- WM AME :RMacDougall :JJSurmeier :J0 Bunting
100/RDM/84/09/26/ DUP OCT 10 E64 2-transportation corridor, could the licensing board properly rule out consideration of these issues as not germane to a CA decision?
i If NRC has no regulatory role in the transportation of waste to a repository or a monitored retrievable storage facility, and NRC has no legal responsibility to address transportation-related issues in reaching a CA decision, I believe we should bring this to the Commission's attention and recommend publication of a Federal Register notice to minimize any confusion about NRC's proper role in this area.
If, on the other hand, NRC does have a responsibility to address these issues, I believe we should also have a legal analysis as to whether that l
responsibility is mandated under the Atomic Energy Act, the National i
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), or both.
A number of questions flow from a determination that we do have responsibilities, and some of them depend on the requirements of the law under which each responsibility arises.
I would like to consult with you on these questions and my current plans t' i
deal with them before I proceed. Although OELD may well find that NRC has virtually no regulatory responsibilities for waste transportation once DOE takes title to the waste, I believe that we should also prepare together for the questions we will have to address if OELD reaches a different conclusion.
After a cursory review of Waste Policy Act, a quick survey of the record of past state and tribal concerns, and a look at some dated information materials we found in our files from activist groups, my staff has compiled the enclosed list of transportation-related questions for our common consideration in preparing for future contacts with interested state and tribal officials.
In developing these questions, we tried to identify the most difficult ones NRC would be likely to receive from informed and highly-motivated parties, but we have no doubt that you and your staff can offer additional ones. The spirit of our exercise was to give NMSS staff an opportunity to develop answers to the hardest questions in a setting more conducive to a thoughtful and systematic review of the issues -- that is, before we are confronted in conference romns or under klieg lights.
We are certain that there are answers already available for a number of the questions on our list, and it may be that there currently are no gaps in NRC rules and regulatory guidance for waste transportation under NWPA. At minimum, however, regardless of OELD's conclusions on the extent of NRC's jurisdiction, we believe there is a need for all of the necessary information about NRC authorities, responsibilities, and capabilities in the transportation area to be put into a form that will not only be useful to inquiring citizens and state
- FC
- WMPC
- WMPC
- WMPC
- WM
- AME :RMacDougall :JJSurmeier :J0 Bunting
- REBrowning
- ATE
- 84/09/26 I
100/RDM/84/09/26/ DUP OCT 10 1964 and tribal officials, but will clarify the nature and extent of NRC's responsibilities vis a vis other federal agencies'.
As the waste management program area manager and the program manager for the implementation of NWPA, I expect that I and rqv staff will be called upon to explain NRC's and other federal responsibilities for transportation as our contacts with state and tribal officials increases with the growing momentum of the national program.
Since the Comission has comitted itself to making a CA decision within three years of receiving an application, we will also have to incorporate transportation issues into a staff tracking system for licensing issues if OELD detennines that NRC has any responsibility at all to address transportation questions. These issues are largely outside of our purview, however, and I know you are currently working to reorganize your staff to deal with them. Accordingly, I would also like meet with you to discuss whether you would be willing to take the lead, in coordination with rqy staf.f, the Division of Safeguards, and OELD, to develop a common set of public information materials on NRC rules, policy guidance, and program responsibilities that all NRC officials will be able to use in responding to future questions on this subject.
Please let me know when we can schedule a meeting to discuss the issues I have raised here.
I tmast it would be useful for our discussion to take place before your trip Keystone.
OdginalSigned by Robert E. Browning Robert E. Browning, Director Division of Waste Management
Enclosure:
l WM Staff Questions on l
Transportation Issues
..}'
(
L
,fC :WMPC F ' $, '
f*f r-WMP s:WM
- WM w___:... g.-
___y_.:_
ME :RMadougal JJSurmeier :JO in
_-_:.____..__...:............:__......g
- REBrown ng :
TE :84/09/26 i
i e
1 100/RDM/84/09/26/ ENCL
' l-LIST OF POSSIBLE QUESTIONS f
FROM INTERESTED OUTSIDE PARTIES CONCERNING NRC RESPONSIBILITIES FOR HIGH-LEVEL WASTE TRANSPORTATION A. Questions on Requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and Other Laws
- 1. Section 302(a)(1) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) authorizes DOE to enter contracts with any person who generates or holds title to spent fuel or HLW of domestic origin "for the acceptance of title, subsequent transportation, and disposal of such waste or spent fuel." Section 9 of NWPA provides that "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect 4
Federal, State, or local laws pertaining to the transportation of spent fuel or high-level radioactive waste." Under existing law, DOE is responsible for safeguarding the shipment of materials under its jurisdiction. Does Section 9 thus eliminate any NRC jurisdiction over the safeguarding of spent fuel or HLW transportation after DOE takes title?
If not, has NRC identified all transportation-related regulatory requirements, such as the approval of a physical protection system for transportation under Section 73.25 of NRC safeguards rules, that might affect DOE's contractual obligation for transportation of the waste? Can NRC provide a complete list of these requirements? Will any of these requirements need to be revised to account for DOE's statutory and/or contractual responsibilities for transportation under NWPA? (Seealso Questions 2. through 6. below.) If NRC does have continuing regulatory responsibility over the safeguarding of spent fuel shipments under NWPA, what plans does it have to enable it to handle the significant increase in the number of shipments that will have to be safeguarded when the repository or monitored retrievable storage facility begins accepting waste?
- 2. Section 136(a)(1) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) stipulates that the Federal Government will: "(1) take title at the civilian nuclear power reactor site, to such amounts of spent nuclear fuel from the civilian nuclear power reactor as the Commission determines cannot be stored onsite, (2) transport the spent nuclear fuel to a federally owned and operated interim away-from-reactor storage facility, and (3) store such fuel in the facility pending further processing, storage, or disposal."
Section 137 further provides that " Transportation of spent nuclear fuel under section 136(a) shall be subject to licensing and regulation by the Commission and by the Secretary of Transportation as provided for transportation of spent nuclear fuel under existing law."
)
i i
. =.
5
^~'
^
100/RDM/84/09/26/ ENCL a. Since NRC does not regulate the transportation of materials subject to DOE jurisdiction under existing law, is there a legal basis for an argument that NRC has no licensing or regulatory authority here?
In other words, does Section 9 prevail over Section 1377
- b. Assuming for the moment that Section 137 does control on the question of NRC jurisdiction, a narrow reading of Section 136(a) could lead to the view that NRC's regulation of transportation under Section 137 would extend only from a reactor to a federal interim storage facility, and then only for spent fuel that could not safely be stored at the reactor site.
Can these provisions safely be construed to cover all other transportation of DOE-oned spent fuel from civilian power reactors, including not only the' shipment of spent fuel from a federal interim storage facility to an MRS or repository, but also spent fuel to which DOE takes title after 19987
- b. If NRC does have broader jurisdiction, would its requirements for shipments directly to a repository differ from its requirements for shipments to a storage facility?
If so, in what way?
- c. Section 137 requires that DOE-owned spent fuel be regulated in the same manner as commercial spent fuel. Would this preclude NRC from imposing any additional requirements to address any special conditions arising from DOE transportation of this material? If not, what additional license conditions might NRC impose on the transportation of the material?
- 3. Section 137(a)(2) requires that:
"The Secretary, in providing for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel under this Act, shall utilize by contract private industry to the fullest extent possible in each aspect of such transportation." Would the relationship between DOE and a private contract carrier differ in any way from the relationship between such a carrier and a licensed utility seeking to transport spent fuel?
If so, how would these differences affect the development or enforcement of any transportation-related NRC requirements for DOE-owned spent fuel?
- 4. At what point, and under what conditions, do wastes from DOE defense activities become subject to NRC regulation, if at all? If the transportation of such waste does become subject to NRC regulation, what requirements would NRC impose? How would they differ, if at all, from NRC requirements for the transportation of civilian HLW, and why?
i 100/RDM/84/09/26/ ENCL
- 5. Under Section 60.41(c) of NRC repository licensing rules, the Comission must find that issuance of a license would not be " inimical" to the comon defense and security. DOE may submit a c'ertification that it will provide the same safeguards at the repository operations area as are provided at comparable DOE facilities, and under NRC rules, this certification will constitute a " rebuttable presumption" of "non-inimicality." Given the requirement in Section 9 that existing federal laws on transportation not be disturbed, does NRC have authority to require a similar DOE safeguards certification for transportation of DOE-owned spent fuel and high-level waste to a storage or disposal facility? If so, would NRC have to complete a rulemaking to impose this requirement?
If DOE were to certify that it would use the same transportation safeguards for NWPA activities as for the shipment of comparable non-NWPA materials, could NRC effectively discharge its transportation safeguards responsibilities in this way? Even assuming that a " rebuttable presumption" would make it more difficult to show that transportation to a repository would be inimical to the comon defense and I
security, can this question safely be considered to be outside the scope of a repository licensing proceeding?
- 6. If all safety and environmental issues arising from the construction, operation, and decomissioning of a repository had been settled, but issues concerning the transportation of wastes to the site had not, would the Comission be able to license a repository before these issues were resolved?
If not, what actions does NRC plan to take to assure that all of the issues not directly related to the siting, design, and construction of the proposed repository will be resolved by the appropriate federal agency within the time required under NWPA, that is, within four years of receipt of a CA application? How does NRC propose to address such issues as the DOE modelling, monitoring, and control of anticipated cumulative radiation exposures along transportation corridors, the optimally safest modal split between truck and rail transport, the selection of routes to the proposed repository, the adequacy of federal emergency response l
programs, and other questions arising from the responsibilities of other federal agencies? How would NRC address concerns about the occupational safety of workers involved in the transportation of waste or spent fuel?
How would it address concerns about the payment of cleanup costs of transportation accidents, which are not covered under Price-Anderson but could far exceed property damage liability? Which of these issues, if any, would be addressed in the licensing hearing, and which in the NRC NEPA review? Are there any such non-repository-related questions that would not be addressed under either review?
i l
1
=
100/RDM/84/09/26/ ENCL 7. Assuming for the moment that NRC remains responsible for addressing i
issues under NEPA that it is not required to address under the Atomic Energy Act, how will it address transportation issues in its review of DOE's environmental assessments (EA's) on the sites it nominates for j
characterization? How will NRC assure that DOE properly addresses transportation issues in selecting the three sites it will reconnend to the President for characterization? At what point in the process will the concerns of states along proposed transportation corridors be addressed, and does NRC plan any measures to assure that these concerns are addressed at the most appropriate stage in the siting process?
- 8. Section 114(a)(1) of NWPA provides that: "In making site recommendations and approvals subsequent to the first site reconinendations, the Secretary and the President, respectively, shall also consider the need for regional distribution of repositories and the need to minimize, to the extent practicable, the impacts and cost of transporting spent fuel and solidified high-level radioactive waste." Can this language be construed to insulate NRC from any consideration of transportation questions in its review of DOE's EIS on its reconnendation of a site for the second repository under Section 114(f)?
If so, and if NRC decides to set aside transportation issues in considering adoption "to the extent practicable" under Section 114(f), how and when would NRC make this approach known to states, tribes, and interested parties?
- 9. As noted above, Section 9 of NWPA provides that "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect Federal, State, or local laws pertaining to the transportation of spent fuel or high-level radioactive waste."
If a question concerning authorities asserted under existing law arose between a state and another federal agency, and the question impinged, directly or indirectly, on NRC's ability to execute its regulatory responsibilities for transportation, would NRC automatically defer to the other federal agency's position on the question? Take, for example, a question on state authority to require DOE contract shippers to provide for financial responsibility beyond the federal minimum in the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 for the cleanup of accidents.
How would NRC go about making a policy position on this question?
B. Questions on Current NRC Regulatory Policies
- 1. What is the status of the NRC study on the modelling of spent fuel transportation accidents? Does NRC plan to release any preliminary conclusions from the study? What accident scenarios will NRC examine in assessing the degree of protection to health and safety afforded by its
~
100/RDM/84/09/26/ ENCL existing regulations on the certification of spent fuel transportation casks? Do the accident scenarios in NUREG/CR-3499,.on which we understand the study is based, include possible crushing of a cask between heavily loaded rail cars? Sidewise impacts between a cask and, say, a bridge abutment? Localized high-temperature ftames? Falls from a high bridge or railroad trestle onto a sharp object?
In making any assessment of the adequacy of its certification requirements, will NRC consider the average speeds at which most truck and rail accidents occur, or the highest speeds? The average height of road and/or rail viaducts in urban environments, or the greatest credible heights from which a cask could fall along the most likely routes to a western repository, which include Rocky Mountain crossings? Is NRC planning to consider the highest burn temperature of inflamable materials, such as liquefied propane, that are commonly transported in bulk and could be involved in an eccident with a cask? Or will cask certification be based on average temperatures.
If HRC currently plans to base its assessment of cask certification requirements on average extreme accident conditions, rather than the most stressful recorded or postulated conditions, what is NRC's reasoning for this approach?
- 2. Does NRC plan to conduct actual tests of casks under conditions replicating a typical load of spent fuel in either a statistically comon or postulated extreme accident scenario? If not, why not? If not, does NRC plan any changes in its computerized simulations of accident conditions? What are these changes, if any, likely to be? Are they currently focused on the parts of each cask design most likely to fail in an accident, such as pressure relief valves or welds? By what methodology has NRC identified likely cask failure modes?
- 3. What quality assurance requirements does NRC currently impose on cask manufacturers, and how are these requirements implemented? How often are casks inspected by NRC during fabrication? During transportation? Does NRC have special inspection techniques to assure itself that it is getting a representative sample of the systems or components being tested? What test specifications must a cask fail in order to be rejected for delivery or retired from service? Does the frequency of NRC inspection vary with the age of the cask?
- 4. Has NRC updated the NUREG-194 study of the likely number of deaths from a spent fuel transportation accident? One environmental group alleges that the computer program was adapted from a reactor site (not an urban setting), and that the study assumed that 90 percent of those within ten l
miles of the accident could be evacuated within four hours. What is the i
current basis for NRC calculations of the likely number of deaths from a i
I I
]
j l
100/RDM/84/09/26/ ENCL i
postulated extreme spent fuel transportation accident involving a significant release of radioactive materials?
- 5. What are NRC's responsibilities vis-a-vis the Federal Emergency Management Administration, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other federal agencies concerned with emergency response to spent fuel and HLW transportation accidents? What interagency agreements has NRC concluded in this area, and with whom? Does NRC plan any changes in these existing agreements? Why or why not? What level of effort, if any, is NRC currently planning to budget for spent fuel and HLW transportation emergency response? What efforts, if any, does NRC plan to make in preparing state, tribal, and local governments to cope with such radiological emergencies? What office will be the primary point of NRC contact for these emergencies?
t
- 6. Under the NRC-D0E procedural agreement concluded in Nov' ember,1983, on transportation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, DOE has said that it plans to use NRC-certified packages for spent fuel transportation, and believes that all affected parties should maximize the use of NRC-certified packaging in the connercial related program.
Suppose that DOE re-examines this intent, as it says it might have to under the agreement, and determines that it cannot fulfill its mandate under NWPA using NRC-certified casks. Assuming that many of the non-certified casks will be supplied by the same vendors supplying the certified ones, and that most shipments of connercial spent fuel will take place under DOE jurisdiction, what impact could this arrangement have on the supply of certified casks for transportation under NRC jurisdiction? How would it affect NRC's ability to implement and enforce its certification and related requirements, such as quality assurance, for the next generation of cask designs, especially if DOE decides to go with multiple use casks that could be used for utility transshipments under NRC regulation? How will NRC address concerns that the prospect of DOE use of uncertified packages could have a chilling effect on NRC certification of new designs?
- 7. Assuming for the moment that NRC retains some responsibility for the safeguarding of spent fuel shipments under NWPA, what understandings does NRC have with DOT regarding the relationship between NRC approval of spent l
fuel transportation routes for safeguards purposes, and DOT approval of routes for purposes of regulating hazardous material shipments under HM 164? Which agency should a state seeking federal approval for an alternate transportation route apply to first?
i 9
e PART 2 e RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS ~
(d) The following information shall be Attention: Chief, Rules and Procedures (f) If it is determined by the Eaecu-l deemed to be commercial or financial Branch. A prospective petitioner may also tive Director for Operations that the information within the meaning of telephone the Division of Rules and petition does not include the information
~ g 9.5(aX4) of this chapter and shall be Records on (301)492-7088 to obtain required by paragraph (c) of this section f subject to disclosure only in accordance assistance.
and is incomplete, the petitioner will be with the provisions of i 9.12 of this (c) Each petition filed under this sec.
notified of that determination and the
~
chapter:
tion shall:
respects in which the petition is deficient (1) Correspondence and reports to or (1) Set forth a general solution to the and will be accorded an opportunity to from the NRC which contain information problem or the substance or text of any su bmit additional data. Ordinarily thts
. or records concerning a licensee's oe proposed regulation or amendment, or determination will be made within 30
- applicant'a physical protection oc
- specify the regulation which is to be days from the date of receipt of the
- mateda! control and accounting program
- revoked or amended; petition by the Office of the Secretary of f for special nuclear material not
- the Commission. If the petitioner does (2) State clearly and concisely the
=
o ed a al
[ petitioner's grounds for and interest in j n t submit additional data to correct the 3
(Security Information or Restncted Data. - the action requested;
& eficiency within 90 days from the date d
(3) Include a statement in support of f n tification to the petitioner that the (2) Information submitted in conf.-
the petition which shall set forth the
- petition is incomplete, the petition may dence to the Commissior, by a foreign be retumed to the petitioner without specific issues involved, the petitioner's
- source, 3
v ews or arguments with respect to those prejudice to the r24ht of the petitioner to g
(e) The presiding officer, if any, or issues, relevant technical, scientific or file a new petition.
- the Commission may, with reference t other data involved which is reasonably (s) The Director, Division of Rules
- u. the NRC records and documents made ava lable to the peutioner, and mch other and Records, Office of Administration, or
'" available pursuant to this section, issue perunent information as the petitioner his designee, will prepare on a quarterly orders consistent with the provisions of deems necemry to mppon the aedon basis a summary of petitions for rule jhis section and {. 740(c).
sought. In support of its petition, peti-making pending before the Commission, Subpart H-Rule Making tioner should note any specific cases of including the status thereof. A copy of which petitioner is aware where the cut-the report will be available for public
$ g 2.800 Scope of rule making..
rent rule is untduly burdensome, defi-mspecuon apd copying in the Commis-ei This subpart governs the issuance, cient, or needs to be strengthened.
sion's Public Document Room,1717 H gamendment and repeal of regulations in (d) The petitioner may request the Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20$5 5.
which participation by interested persons g
is prescribed under section 553 cf title 5. any licensing proceeding to which the of the United States Code.
petitioner is a party pending disposition of the petition for rule making.
{ 2.801 Initiation of rule making.
Rule making may be initiated by the
{ 2.803 Decemination of petition.
~
SCommission at its own instance, on the No hearing will be held on the petition f recommendation of ancither agency of unless the Commission deems it advisable.
E the Uruted States, or on the petition of ell t is determ.'ned that the petib.oo If the Commission determmes that suffi-includes the infor:nat2on required by cient reason exists,it will publish a nonce
[any other interested person.
paragraph (c) of this section and la of proposed rule making. In any other complete. the Dtrector. Dmsien of,Rulee case, t w21 deny the petition and will j 2.802 Petition for rule makin!.
and Records, or designee will assign a (a) Any interested person may peti-docket number to the petition. will ca use n t2 y the petitioner with a simple state-tion the Commission to issue, amend or the petiti a to be fomally doclM and ment of the grounds of denial.
will deposit a copy of the docketed
- @ 2.804 Notice of proposed rule making.
(
rescind any regulation. The petition petition in the Commission's Public I
should be addressed to the Secretary,: Document Room. Public comment may f (a) When the Commission proposes to
. U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission," be requested by publication of a notice adopt, arnend, or repeal a regulation it
~
- Washington, D.C.
20555, Attention:= of the docketing of the pet 2tionin the
" will cause to be published in the FED-3 Chief, Docketing and Service Branch.
1 FederalRegister.or.in appropriate ERAl. REGSTER a notice of proposed (b) A prospective petitioner is encour.' cases,may be invited for the first time rule making, unless all persons subject to aged to confer with the staff prior to the upon publication in the Federal Register the notice are named and either are i
filing of a petition for rulemaking. Ques-of a proposed rule developed in Personally served or otherwise have actual f
tions regarding applicable NRC regula-response to the petibon. Publication will notice in accordance with law.
be limited by the requirements of (b) The notice willinclude-
)
tions sought to be amended, the proce-sectionist of the Atornic Energy Act of (1) Either the terms or substance of dures for filing a petition for rulemaking, 1954, as amended, and may be limited or requests for a meeting with the appro-by order of the Commission.
the proposed rule, or a specification of I
priate NRC staff to discuss a petition
~
the subjects and issues involved; should be addressed to the Director, (2) The manner and time within Divssion of Rules and Records, Office of which interested members of the public Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory may comment, and a statement that Commtssion, Wastungton, D.C. 205 55, c pies of comments may be exammed in the Public Document Room; September 1,1982
PART 2 o RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS (3) The autti:rity under which the
{ 2.808 A:thority af the Secretary ta 1954, as amend 2d, and sectirn 203 cf the regulation is proposed; Rule on Procedural Matters.
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as (4) The time, place, and nature of the When briefs, motions 3r oSer papers amended, to provide such procedures in f
public hearing,if any; listed herein are submittsd to the Com.
proceedings subject to this part as will (5) If a hearing is to be held, designa.
mission itself, as opg,ossi to officers who effectively safeguard and prevent disclo-tion of the presiding officer and any have been delegated authority to a:t for sure of Restncted Data and Nations!
special directions for the conduct of the the Commission, the Secretary or the Secunty Information to unarrhonzed hearsar, and Assistant Secretary are authorized to:
penons, with minimum impairment of (6) Such explanatory statement as the (a) Prescribe schedules for the filing procedural rights.
Commasion may consider appropriate-
.of statements, information, briefs, ino-l 2.901 Scope.
(c) The publication or service of no 3 tions, responses or other pleadings where This subpart applies to all proct'edings
~
tice will be made not less than fifteen (15) days pnor to the time fixed for w;such schedules may differ from those subject to subpart G elsewhere prescribed m these rules or
{ 2.902 Definitions.
hearing, if any, unless the Commission for : where these rules do not presenbe a
^ * " * * *"
good cause stated in the nonce provides schedule.
=
othernse-(b) Rule on motions for extensions of 3 (a) vernment agency,, means any
, execunve department, commission, inde-g,,.
(c) Reject motions, bnefs, ple:Jings,", pendent e stabhshment, corporation, and other documents filed with the Com- - wholly or partly owned by the United g 2.805 Participation by interested per.
mission later than the time prescribed by States of America, which is an instrumen-sons.
the Secretary or the Assistant Secretary tality of the United States, or any board, (a) The Commission will afford inter.
or established by an order, rule, or bureau, division, service, office, officer, ested persons an opportunity to partici.
regulation of the Commission unless good authonty, administration, or other estab-hm in the executive branch of the pate in rule making through the submis.
cause is shown for the late filmg;and sion of statements,information, opinions, (d) Prescribe all procedural arrange-and arguments in the manner stated in ments relating to any oral argument to be the notice. The Commission may grant held before the Commission.
which particular Restricted Data' or Na-additional reasonable opportunity for the tional Secunty Information is relevant.
- submission of comments-f t.cos Participation by the Aeviso (b) The Commission may hold m.-
Comen ttee on Reactor Safeguarca. 'Y Normally the interest of a party in an issue may be determined by examination
! formal hearings at which interested per-(a)!n its advisory capacity to the of the notice of hearing, the answers and asons may be heard, adopting procedures Commission. the ACRS may recommend
,,pgi,3,
.which in its judgment will best serve the that the Commission trutiate rulemaking (c) The phrase " introduced into a a particular area.The Commission in,ll respond to such rulemaking purpose of the hearing.
g wi g 2.806 Commission action.
The Commission will incorporate in *i recommendation i'1 writing within 90 incorporation of testimony or documen-days, noting its intent to isnplement, tary matter into any part of the official the notice of adoption of a regulation a % atudy,or defer action on the record of a proceeding subject to this concise general statement of its basis and g recommendation. In the event the part.
purpose, and will cause the notice and. Commission decides not to accept or regulation to be published in the FED.
- decides to defer action on the hC [*'"d*$'
Ih*3 e its reasons ERAL REGISTER or served upon af-
.,p fected persons.
recommendation and the CommissierJs ;:: (d) "Na tional Security Information" response wi!! be placed in the NRC
- means infor=ation that has been Public Document Room following 5 classified pursuant to Executive Order g 2.807 Effective date.
transmittal of the Commission's The notice of adoption of a regulation response to the ACRS.
6 will specify the effective date. Publication Id
"*NDI" "8 ""CN"#
safety matters within the purview of the or service of the notice and regulation.
ACRS is under development by the NRC other than one granting or recognizing Staff, the Staff will ensure that the exemptions or relieving from restrictions, ACRS f a given an opportunity to provide (e) Party,in the case of proceedings win be made not less than thirty (30) advir.e at appropriate stages and to subject to this subpart includes a person days prior to the effective date unless the identify issuca to be considered during admined as a party pursuant to g 2.714 Commission directs otherwise on good,mlemakingbearinga.
cr m interested State admitted pursuant cause found and published in the notice to g 2.715(e).
af rule making.
Subpart I-Special Procedures Applicabl'
{ 2.903 Protection of restricted data and to Adiudicatory Proceedings Involving national security information'.
Restdcted Data and/or National Nothing in this subpart shall relieve Security Inform ation any person from safeguarding Restncted g 2300 PEP"58-Data or National Secunty Inform 2 tion in This subpart is issued pursuant to accordance with the applicable provisions section 181 of the Atomic Energy Act of of laws of the United States and rules, 2 39 December 30,1982 1