ML20202D802

Ack Receipt of Expressing Interest in Us NRC Continued Improvement in Efficiency of Nuclear Licensing Process.Response to Questions Listed

ML20202D802
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/06/1998
From:	Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Murkowski F SENATE, ENERGY & NATURAL RESOURCES
Shared Package
ML20202D808	List: ML20202D802
References
NUDOCS 9802180010
Download: ML20202D802 (26)

Text

.- . .- - .. _ . -. - . - _ . . - -- -- - - - . . -

~) M j I' p*

[*% t UNITED STATES NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION  :

l$

g

. } WASHINGTON, o.C. 20%s-0001 '

/ February 6,1998 cHAmAN The Honorable Frank H. Murkowski, Chairman Committee on Energy and Natural Resources United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510-6150

Dear Senator Murkowski:

Thank you for your letter of December 18,1997, in which you expressed interest in the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) continued improvement in the efficiency of the nue, ear licensing procese . You indicated particular interest in the license renewal process for nuclear power reactor facilities and proceedings hsld before the NRC Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board (ASLB or Board). I hope the following information satisfactorily addresses your questions.

As you know, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), provides an opportunity for hearing on specified licensing and enforcement actions to protect the interests of persons affected by those actions and to ensure sound resolution of contested issues bearing on public health and safety Over the years, the Commission has affirmed its commitment to a fair, efficient, and expeditious hearing process on a number of occasions. Sea, e.g.,46 Fed.

Reg. 30,328 (June 8,1981); 37 Fed. Reg.15,127 (July 28,1972); 35 Fea. Reg. 5,317 (March 31,1970). As set forth in the " Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings,' CLI-81-8,13 NRC 452 (1981), the Commission has a long standing policy to seek to avoid or reduce delays in the NRC's review and hearing processes whenever measures are available that do not compromise the Commission's fundamental commitment to a fair hearing process. In the Statement, the Commission clearly recognized the need for the balanced and efficient conduct of all phases of the hearing process. The Commission also emphasized that, in expediting hearings, the Board should ensure that the hearings produce a record which leads to high quality decisions that are consonant with the NRC's responsibility to protect public health and safety and the environment.  ;

In keeping with the foregoing policy, the Commission has, froin time to time, promulgated rules -

directed, at least in part, toward ensuring the effectiveness of the hearing process. For example, in 1989, the Commiscion revised its contention rule in 10 C.F.R. S 2.714 to raise the threshold for the admission of contentions and the eby ensure that hearings focus on those >

matters conceming which the intervenor has shown a genuine dispute of fact or law regarding a materialissue. 54 Fed. Reg. 33,168 (Aug.11,1989). Moreover, the Commission reorganized its adjudicatory process in 1991 by abolishing the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel and assumed direct Commission oversight of the hearing process. 56 Fed. Reg. 29,403 (June 27,1991). A listing and summary of several more significant instances, in the context of ongoing licensing adjudications during the period 1..m 1992 through 1997, in which the Commission pmvided guidance to an ASLB or was otherwise involved in ensuring the timely 7"**!828748!'

J CORRESPONDENCE PDR flilllllllllill'lllLill-

• • • a a c b U4&

Qm tI D

o 2-dispatch of the proceeding is provided in Enclosure 1, in three of these instances, the Commission set a schedule for Board action. Of course, in the sense of providing procedent, virtually all Commission decisions in adjudication provide " guidance

• to the Board and the NRC staff. The answorn to your specific questions regarding the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panol(ASLBP) are set forth in Enclosure 2. On the whole, the Commission has attempted to ensure that tha proceedings before the ASLBs have been resolved expeditiously.

Examples of other rules directed toward improving the licensing process for particular types cf actions include: (1) 10 C.F.R. Part 52, which provides for the resolution of safety issues via rule making covering standardized designs (thus resolving the issues within the scope of a certifiestion for purposes of a licensing proceeding involving the des's) and otherwise resolves safety issues prior to construction,54 Fed. Reg.15,372 (Apr.18,1989), amended by 57 Fed.

Reg. 60,975 (Dec. 231992); (2) 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart L, which provides for informal hearing procedures for adjudications in materials and operator licensing proceedings,54 Fed.

Reg. 8,276 (Feb. 28,1989); (3) 10 C.F.R. Par 12, Subpart K, which provides for hybrid hearing procedures for expansion of spent fuel storage capacity at nuclear power reactors; (4)10 C.F.R.

S 50.82 (the decommissioning rule), which clarified ambiguities in the previouc rule and codified procedures Intended to reduce the regulatory burden and provide greater flexibility in the decommissioning process,61 Fed. Reg. 39,278 (July 29,1996); and (5) 10 C.F.R. Part 54, which, as you know, is intended to define an efficient, focused process for renewing operating licenses for nuclear power plants,60 Fed. Reg. 22,461 (May 8,1995).

I With regard to license renewal, the Commisalon is taking particular care to ensure that the review of license renewal applications is confined to those matters relevant to the extended i period of operrt.::>n requested by the applicant. Part 54 focuses the renewal review on plant I

systems, structures, and components for which current activities and requirements may not be sufficient to manage the effects of aging in tha period of extended operation. /d. at 22,469.

This review, described in 10 C.F.R. $$ 54.21(a) and (c), involves structures and components that will require an aging management review for the period of extended operation or are subject to an evaluation of time-limited aging analyses. The matters in controversy that may be raised by the parties and decided by the ASLB in a hearing on an application for license renewal would be limited to these technical issues. 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,481-82.

The Commission has also amended 10 C.F.R. Part 51 to eliminate unnecessary plant specific environmental evaluations by licensees applying for license renewal. 61 Fed. Reg. 28,467 (June 5,1996), amended by 61 Fed. Reg. 66,537 (Dec.18,1996). This rule amendment implement ed the determination, set forth in NUREG-1437, " Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants," May 1996, that 68 of 92 environmental issues relating to license renewal had been adequately addressed on a generic basis and that additional plant specific assessments were not required of an applicant for license renewal. In addition, the Commission is currently considering an amendment to Part 51 that would dealwith the transportation of high level waste in the vicinity of a waste repository on a generic basis, so that individual applicants for license renewal would not have to include that issue in the environmental report prepared to support the application.

3-In addition to the above efferts, we may be able to modify certain internal NRC procedures in a way that would increase the efficiency of the license renewal process. The Office of the General Counsel very recently reviewed the adjudicatory procedures in 10 C.F.R. Part 2 in order to determine whether the adjudicatory process could be exped!!ed, within the context of the current rules, for license renewal and license transfer proceedings. After considering the results of that review, the Commission may be able to establish further direction that will increase the efficiency and effect!ve,iess of the adjudicatory process. We will, of course, also consider what improvements might be made after we gain experience in license renewal proceedirigs.

The other background information you requested, regardinD various kinds of licensing actions and any hearings regarding these actions, is provided below. You requested a tabulation, by category, of licensing actions issued by the NRC from 1992 through 1997, which is included in Enclosure 3. Please note that during this period, the NRC issued to licensees of operating nuclear power reactors, including some preparing for deccmmissioning, a total of 2 operating licenses and 6,073 amendments, including 8 extensions of operating licenses to recapture construction time, and approved 40 license transfers. We have also issued the first two design certifications under the rule making process specified in Part 52. There were requesis for hearing regarding only 3 of these licanse transfers and 11 of these amendments, including 3 amendments for reactors in decommissioning. There was also a request for hearing regarding l one construction permit amendment. The number of these amendments resulting in a proceeding before an ASLB is thus a very small fraction of the amendments processed by the NRC. Moreover, even when hearings are requested, licensing actions often take effect in the meantime. For example, the Sholly process in 10 C.F.R. $$ 50.91 and 50.92 allows many j

reactor license amendments to become effective prior to completion of any requested hearing.

Also, license tiansfers standing alone do not require pre-effectiveness hearings. Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLl 92-4,35 NRC 69,76 77 (1992).

The number of proceedings referred to the ASLBP is broken down by category in Enclosure 4. l l

The completed licens'ng actions include 300 that were addressed in the NRC's Cost Beneficial <

Licensing Action (CBLA) Program, which was established in 1994 to reduce or eliminate requirements that had an incrementally small effect on safety but were of high economic burden. Licensees estimate that savings resulting from these actions exceed $799 million over the life of the facilities. As the staff's review of actione submitted under the CBLA program was cornpleted, the licensees and staff shifted to implementing the Technical Specification improvement Program (TSIP). The TSIP provides for licensees to convert their existing technical specifications to the latest Improved Standard Technical Specifications (ISTS) for their particular plant design. While the NRC developed the ISTS with the primary goal of enhancing safety, many opportunities for licensee burden reduction, without compromising safety, were also identified. The ISTS have been crafted to take advantage of these opportunities for burden reduction.

The NRC has also undertaken a number of initiatives to improve or streamline the processes for addressing technicalissues. Examples of these initiatives include: (1) establishment of a formt.1 process to work with the Regulatory Response Group from each reactor owner's group

.a.

on p4tential near term, generic, significant safety concerns; (2) the complete revision of the Standard Review Plans (SRPs), which provide guidance to the staff, to reflect changes in licensing requirements implemented since 1981, and the development of new SRPs, including those covering license renewal and environmental reviews; and (3) issuance of a revision of ,

Generic Letter 91 18, regarding resolution of degraded and non conforming conditions, dated )

October 18,1997, to clarify the relationship of such conGtions to the requirements of 10 C.F.R.

$ 50.59, which authorizes licensees to make changes to their facilities without prior NRC approval under certain conditions, in the materials area, the data are similar to the data regarding reactor licensees. During the period from 1992 through 1997, there were requests for hearing involving only 19 out of a total of 28,947 licensing actions involving materiallicensees. There were also requests for hearing regarding 2 out of 18 actions involving fuel storage licensees. The NRC's hearing procedures in 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart L, permit many materials licensing actions to become effective pr'or to any requested hearing, in addition, the NRC has reduced the number of licensing actions pending for byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials licensees from 3,633 at the beginning of FY 1992 to 723 at the end of FY 1997. On a one-time basis, the NRC added five years to the duration of licenses in most categories of materials licensees in 1996. 61 Fed.

Reg.1,109 (Jan.16,1996). This will result in reduced NRC workloads from FY 1997 through FY 2000, and should also result in considerable resource savings for afiected NRC licenseec.

The NRC has also changed its prior policy of issuing most materials licenses for a duration of five years such that most categories of materials licenses will now be issued for a term of ten years. 62 Fed. Reg. 5,656 (Feb. 6,1997).

Other NRC actions to improve the efficiency of the licensing process in the materials area include the ongoing revision of 10 C.F.R. Part 35, which governs the medical use of byproduct material, and the issuance of guidance in specific areas. Regarding the former effo,1, we expect that regulatory oversight will be reduced for low risk mediccl procedures. We intend to issue SRP guldance in connection with the ongoing revisions to 10 C.F.R. Part 70, which involves domestic licensing of special nuclear material, and 10 C.F.R. Part 73, which concerns physical protection of plants and materials. Existing fuel cycle licensing regulatory puides are being reviewed to determine whether they should be retired, revised, or replaced and the NRC has issued three SRPs related to spent fuel storage and transportation.

In summary, the specific rules and policies directed toward ensuring timely action on licensing dech.lons identified above address your last specific question. Key elements of the Commission's recently published Strategic Plan emphasize that the NRC will give priority to reviewing applications fer license renewals, se well as standard and advanced reactor designs, -

early site approvals and new reactor licenses. Further, it is the Commission's policy to strive for regulatory excellence,'vhich includes both regulatory effectiveness and efficiency.

Efficiency connotes a regulatory framework that is cost effective for both the NRC and its licensees. As stated in the NRC's " Principles of Good Regulation," the American taxpayer, the rate-paying consumer, and licensees are all entitled to the best possible management and administration of regulatory activities.

5-i do appreciate your interest in the remarks I made to INPO. I trust the above information addresses your conooms. If you would like to discuss the above or any additional lnformation, please es,il me to schedule a meeting.

Sincerely, l

Shirley Ann Jackson l

Enclosu,es:

1. - Commission Guidance to ASLBs

2. Answers to Specific Questions

3. Licensing Actions Processed 19921997 4 Proceedings Go - ed to the ASLBP cc: Senator Dale Bumpers i

= _ , _ == . g 4

ENCLOSURE 1 INSTANCES FROM 1992'lHROUGH 5997 IN WHICH THE COMMISSION PROVIDED GUIDANCE TO AN ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD OR WAS OTHERWIST INVOLVED IN ENSURING TPc. TIMELY DISPATCri OF A LICENSING ACTION

1. Loulslena Energy Services, L.P., (Ciniborne Entishment Center), CLl 9711, 45 NRC 1997 NRC LEXIS 43 it *5 (Sept. 3,1997). The Commission set a schedule f >r the Board to Cecide a remanded issue, and directed the Board to advise the Commission and the parties of an alternative, reasonable schedule if the Board could

! not resolve the matter b/ the specified date.

2. Cleveland Electric illuminating Co. (f erry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), CLI 96-13, 44 NRC 315 (1996). This case arose from Cleveland Electric's request for a license amendment. Id. at 316. The Commission reversed and vacated an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's (ASLB) decision in which the ASLB concluded that any change to the Perry Nuclear Power Plant's withe awal schedule for reactor vessel material specimens must be trrsated as a license amendment. Id. at 315. Contrary to the ASLB's decision, the Commission found that not all agency approvals granted to li.:ensees constitute license amendments. /d.

3. Yankee Atomic Electric Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI 96-7,43 NRC ,

235(1096). This case stems from Petitioners' appeal and request in reverse LBP 96 2, 43 NRC 61 (1996), in which the Board granted standing to two Petitioners but declined to a dmit any of their contentions, denied their request for a hearing, and terminated the preceeding. Id. a,235, in addition, Petitioners challenged for a third time certain guidance provided to the Board by the Commission in CLI 961,43 NRC 1 (1996)

(Petitioners had previously sought reconsideration and partial rescission of CLI 961 on January 26 and March 7,1996). Id. at 241. See Number 3 below. The Commission granted in part and denied in part Petitioners' appeal, rejected Yankee Atomic Electric Company's (YAEC's) arguments regarding standing, and remanded the case to the Licensing Board for further consideration of the following two questions: (1) whether Petitioners' new dose argument satisfied the

• late-filing' standards in 10 C.F.R.

$ 2.714(a) and (2) whether it provides a sufficient basis for an ALARA or NEPA challenge to YAEC's choice of a decommissioning attemative. Id. at 277. Further the Commission stated that if a final decision on remand could not be reached by July 31, 1996, the Board should establish an expedited schedule and submit it to the Commission for its approval. Id.

4. Yankee Atomic Electric Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-961,43 NRC 1, 5 9 (1996). The Commisslun referred to an ASLB pleading filed regarding Petitioners' (Citizens Awareness Network ('CAN') and New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution

(*NECNP")) request for intervention in a proceeding to consider approval of a plan to decommission the Yankee Nuclear Power Station. The Commission provided guidance to the ASLB on several novelissues presented in this case and proposed .i detailed i

hearing schedule in order to expedite and avoid future delay in the proceedings. On the issue of standing and contentions, the Commission stated that 'once a party demonstrates it has standing, that party may then raise any contention that, if proved, will afford the party relief from the injury it relies upon for standing' and that an Intervenor's contentions may be limited to those that will afford it relief from the injuries asserted as a basis for standing. /d. at 6. The Commission discussed in detail an

• NRC Peview of the Choice of Decommissioning Option." Id. at 7 9. It made regulatory interpretations and policy judgments, and tentative observations conceming dose estimates. Concerning a decommissioning cost update, the Commission determined that the essential purpose of 10 C.F.R. 9 50.82 is to provide

• reasonable assurance

• of adequate funding for decommissioning. Id. at 9. Therefore, the Commission determined that " petitioner needs to show not only that a licensee's decommissioning cost estimate is in error, but that there is not reasonable assurance that the correct amount will be paid." Id. In response to petitioner's contention alleging ' illegal' past conduct in vlotation of NRC regulations, the Commission held such allegations are more properly the subject of a separate enforcement acuon. Id. at 9. The focus of this proceeding Ic *the future decommit,sioning of the remainder of the facility under the proposed decommissioning plan.* /d.

5. Georpla institute of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), CLI 9510,42 NRC 1 (1995). This proceeding involved a license renewal application filed by the Georgia institute of Technology. The Commission reviewed an ASLB decision which admitted two contentions, one challenging the physical security at the Georgia Tech Research Reactor (GTRR), and the other alleging problems in the GTRR's management. /d. at 1. Based on new facts, the Commission vacated the ASLB's original decision on the admissibility of the security contention and remanded it to the ASLB for reconsideration. Id. The Commission set forth three inqui.-les which it determined were relevant to the ASLB's reconsideration. Id. at 2-3. Further, the Commission mentioned that t1e ASLB was free to consider additional matters or to pose additional questions it thought relevant. Id.

6. The Curators of the University of Afissourl. CLI 951. 41 NRC 1 (1995). This was a lengthy and complex materials license proceeding involving two materials license amendment applications filed by the University of Missouriin which the Commission considered appeals from the Initial Decision and a Reconsideration Order issued by the Presiding Officer in this Subpart L proceeding. Id. at 7172. On July 10,1991, the Presiding Officer issued a Final Initial Decision in which he determined that the University's possession and use of the radioactive elements (as authorized by the amendments) were consistent with the public health and safety, did not harm the common defense and security, and therefore satisfied the requirements set forth in the AEA. Id. at 87 However, the Presiding Officer imposed several additional safety cond9 ions on the Licensee in order to decrease further risks associated with such possession and use. Id. Essentially the Commission reached the same conclusions as the Presiding Officer, but in some instances it followed a different line of reasoning. Id.

at 71. The Commission held that the Presiding Officer had jurisdiction to issue the order on reconsideration (LBP 9134,34 NRC 29 (1991)); it affirmed the Presiding Officer's conclusions concoming all procedural issues raised on appeal in addition to the

3 Presiding Omoer's decision to esclude three areas of concem; it concluded that the risk of dispersion of radioactive matadal from the TRUMP S experiments was acceptably small; and it modified and supplemented the fire safety conditions that the Presiding Omoor imposed upon the University. Id. at 87.

The guidance provided by the Commission to the Board in this case stems from the Commission's detailed discussions and analysis regarding the Presiding Officer's jurisdiction and rulings. Id. at 93168.

7. Vermont Yankee Nuclear r,mer Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station),  !

CL193 20,38 NRC 83 (1994). This case arises from the termination of a license '

amendment proceeding on March 25,1993, in which an ASLB held that termination resulted due to the NRC Staff's approval of the Licensee's withdrawal of the subject application on that date. Id. at 84. The ASLB indicated that since no Notice of Hearing  !

was issued by the date on which the Licensee had withdrawn its application,- the Commission (or the Staff acting for the Commission) rather than the ASLB had jurisdiction to address that withdrawal. The Commission determined that, ordinarily, it would romand the case to the ASLB to issue an appropriate order. However, the case was so clearly moot that the Commission dismissed the proceeding in the interest of efficiency. Id. at 83. The Commission stated that,"whenever a future ' .asing hard or presiding officer is faced whh procedural circumstances similar to those in tiw instant case, it should issue an order indicating both that the Commission (or its Staff) has previously approved the withdrawal of en application and that the proceeding is being terminated, therefore, on grounds of mootness." Id. at 85.

8. Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station),

CLl 93-19,38 NRC 81 (1993). The Commission provided guidance to an ASLB in order to clarify the effect of its decisions in CLl 93 3,37 NRC 135, and CLI 93-12,37 NRC 355 (1993). The following guidance was provided by the Commission regarding one aspect of Environmental and Resources Contervation Organization's (ECO's) environmental contention which ths Commission admitted in CLl 93-3:. (a) A party may seek summary disposition in accordance with 10 C.F.Ri $ 2.749 where it believes no genuine issue remains regarding a contention; (b) ECO's ar. o ' ment based on the newly provided analysis given to ECO by SMUD is not subjee the late filed criteria contained in 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(a). However, any such anent.,6.ent is subject to the admissib;;ity criteria set forth in 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(b); (c) Any new issues raised due to ECO's amended contention which were not dependent on the newly provided analysis .

are subject to +.he late-filed criteria in 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(a)(l)-(v) and the admissibility criteria in 10 C.F.R. $$ 2.714(b) and 2.714(d). CL19319 at 82.

9. Safety Light Corp., et. al. (Bloomsburg Site Decontamination and License Renewal Denials), CL1-9213,38 NRC 79 (1992). In orrier to expedite tne resolution of the, proceedings, the Commission granted review of LBF 92-13A,35 NRC 20G (1992),

which consolidated an informal proceeding under Subpart L of 10 C.F.R. Part 2 with a

_ formal proceeding under Subpan G. Id. at 85. The Commission, like the Licensing Board and Presiding Officer, authorized the consolidation of the proceeding based on

'the potential commonolity of issues in the various Safety L/ght proceedings." Id.

4 at 89 91. In addition, the Commission based its decision on additional complications which might arise if it insisted 'that the issues be resolved on two different procedural tracks? /d. at 90. Howe cr,it determined that the Licensing Board and the Presiding Officer exceeded their authority by not seeking prior Commission approval for consolidation pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.1209(k)(1992) (requiring Commission approval of application of attemative hearing procedures for Subpart L proceedings). Id. at 87.

10. Loulslana Energy services, L.P., (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CLl 92 7, 35 NRC 93 (1993). This case stems from a request to reconsider the Commission's hearing order which set forth standards by whicta LES'ilconse application to construct and operate a uranium enrichment facility wot.ld be judged. Id. at 93. In its 1991 notice of hearing on the application, the Commission provided explici* guidance for the conduct of this unique proceeding. 56 Fed. Reg. 23,310 (May 21,1991). The Commission provided the following guidance and denied all other requests for reconsideration:

(1) 10 C.F.R. Part 140 should be applied to the license application solely as guidance; (2) the final Commission rule on material control and accounting for enrichment facilities should be applied instead of the proposed rule; and (3) the hearing shall proceed as d:rected in the order. /d.

ENCLOSURE 2 ANSWERS TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ATOMIC SA:ETY AND LICENS;NG BOARD PANEL QUESTION 1. What are the necessary qualifications for serving on Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards?

ANSWER.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel administrative judges must be senior lawyers or technical experts with acknowledged expertise. They usually are nationally or internationally known authorities in their field. Currently, the Panelis comprised of 32 administrative judges (12 full time and 20 part time). By profession they include 7 lawyers,6 environmental scientists, 5 nuclear physicists,6 nuclear engineers,1 electrical engineer,1 health physicist,2 marine biologists,1 oceanographer, and 3 medical doctors. Judges are assigned to individuallicensing boards or as presiding officers in one judge proceedings where their professional expertise will assist in resolving the technical and legal matters likely to be raised. (See attachment for a list of names, disciplines, education, and experience of Panel members.)

Candidates must have substantial experience in their field of expertise. Additional essential qualifications for all judges include the ability to: conduct sound analyses; write cleaily and organize properly; control proceedings in a firm but fair manner; and communicate orally.

Candidates should have at least 7 to 10 years of work experience in fields that can be applied directly to the adjudicatory work of the Panel. All but three of the technicaljudgeu hold doctoral degrees in their fields.

QUESTION 1. (cor,tinued) 2 Similarly, part time administrative judges are recognized authorities in their field, and several have been heads of departments at major universities or nationallaboratories. :As a condition of appointment, part time j'.idges are, as is the case with full time judges, subject to all applicable laws and regulations regarding employen ethics and conflict of interest. This includes agreeing to forego any cansulting work in the nuclear industry to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

To assure available expertise in the wide range of disciplines required for Panel hearings, the Panel keeps an up-to-date register of legal and technicaljudge applicants. When new judges are needed, their applications are evaluatea. by a Review Committee consisting of the Chief Administrative Judge (acting as chair), the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, and a representative of the Office of General Counsel appointed by the General Counsel Whenever possible, the Review Committee presents for Commission consideration at least two candidates for each appointment to the Panel, Generally, candidates are interviewed by the Committee.

The Commission, and not the Panel, selects and hires alljudges.

a V t '

QUESTION 2. What is the length of a licensing board member's term? i ANSWER.

Fulltime administrative judges receive regular, permanent appointments and are subject to the same tenure requirements as other federal employees with such appointments.

Judges other than thoce who are full-time, permanent employees are appointed as special govemment employees who serve' on an intermittent, as needed, basis. They receive one year I

temporary appointments renewable annually and may not work more than 130 days in any calendar year.

QUESTION 3 What is the process for evaluating the performance of Licensing Boards?

ANS. WEB.

In order to further their adjudicatory independence, the Commission as a matter of practice does not rate the performance of NRC administrative judges. Although present NRC administrative judges are not statutory administrative law judges (as used in many other agencles), this practice of not rating judges is consistent with the practice for administrative law judges ;n the Federal government. Soo 5 C.F.R. 930.211. Nevertheless, their adjudicatory work product is constantly reviewed. The Commission reviews findings of fact and conclusions of law in most licensing board and presiding officer decisions whether or not these decisions are appealed. If a board or presiding officer's findings or conclusions are incorrect or incomplete, the case is reversed and/or remanded to the Panel. Another layer of review results if board determinations are appealed to one of the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals.

Panel administrative judges may be removed or sanctioned for good cause if their work or conduct is not satisfactory, in addition each Prcsiding Officer files a monthly progress report for each case. The report lists the schedule milestones for each case (e.g., dates for prehearing conferences, discovery, the commencement of hearings, etc.) and requires a listing of all schedule slippages and an explanation for these slippages. The Chief Judge receives these monthly reports and monitors the progress of each case. These status reports are periodically sent to the Commissioners' offices as are monthly activity reports from the Panet listing the number of cases en the docket and significant activities for each case.

O

. QUESTION 4. How are licensing board members paid?

0:

@- AhlSWER.

5, 1 -

The Commission approves the pay system and pay rates of full-time administrative Juc'ges. It

, also establishes the pay of part-time administrat' .e judges based on recommendations of the Chief Administrative Judge and the Director, Office of Human Resources.

Pay for non-supervisory full-tirte judges is divided lato thiee levels: (1 ) Level A is a pay range that extends from ES-1 to ES-3 in the SES schedule; (2) Level B is a flat rate identic< 1 te. the ES-3 rate in the SES schedule; and (3) Level C is a flat rate identical to the RS-4 ri h in the SES schedule. The Deputy Administrative Judge and the Chief Administrative Judge are in the

_ SES and hav9 pay rs;es of ES-5 cnd ES-6 respectively.

E Part-time administrative judges are paid on an hourly basis which is curreatly equivalent to the I hourly rate of Executive LevelIV. Although part-time judges may not oe paid for more than 130 days each year, in fact, thay have sat on cases an average of only 10 days per year for the last 10 years. They also attend a week long meeting on current legal and techn!:al issues and

$ developments. They are a valuable, cost effective resource.

Pursuant to NRC policy designed to preserve their adjudicatory !ndepenaence, neither part-time nor full-time Paneljudges are eligib!e for any kind of performance-bseed awards, recruitment or relocation bonuses, retention allowances, or ume-off incentive awards for superior performance.

QUESTION 5. Does the remuneration policy create incentives or disincentives for the time:/ conclusion of licensing requests?

ANSWER.

l As with all judges, the remuneration policy for Panel judges is latended to e eate neither incentives nor disincentives. Full-time judges are paid an annual salary so there is no monetary I

reward if the duration of a case is extended or shortened, in addition, they are prohibited from j- receiving any kind of bonuses or awr.rds for the cases upon which they serve.

Part-time judges are paid solely for eacli hour workad, are also ineligible for any kind of award, and are routinely assigned to cases expected to be of shoit duration.

Attachment:

Biographical Sketenes of Panel Members

J. ,

.; r i

.=

ATTACHMENT TO ENCLOSURE 2 h

i BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF PANEL MEMBERS .!

e

= ANDERSON, GEORGE C. B.S., University of British Columbia (1947); M.A., University of [

! British Columbia (1949); Ph.D., University of Washington (1954). Dr. Anderson, currently >

ti Professor Emeritus at the School of Oceanography, University of Washington, has been a part t time member of the Panel since 1973. In addition to authoring over 40 publications in the fields of limno Ny and oceanography, Dr. Anderson has held numerous teaching, research, and -

i administrative positions during his career of over 40 years the University of Washington, the

, Atomic Energy Commission and the National Science Foundation. He ws? Director of the School of Oosanography at the University of Washington for several years -

4 BECHHOEFER, CHARLES. A.B., magna cum laude, Harvard College (1955); LL.B., Harvard  !

La School (1958). Judge Bechhoefer has been a full-time icgal member of the Panel since

-1978, Gefore his appointment to the Panel, his Federal service included positions as Counsel

[ to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, attomey with the Office of the General 1 Counsel of the Atomic Energy Commission, and attorney-adviserin the Office of the General 1

Counsel, U.S. Housing and Hcme Finance Agency. He is a former editor of the AdministrafIve b Judiciary News and Joumaland a past mem'oer of the Executive Committee of the National

. Conference of Administrative Law Judges. l b has a!so held severalleadershb oositions within -

. the Section of Administrative Law of the American Bar Association.

BLOCH, PETER B. B.S., Tufts University (1962); LL.D Harvard Law School (1965); LL.M., >

l' Harvard Law School (1967). Judge Bloch has been a full-time member of the Panel since '

1981. His prior positions include

Assistant Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals, .

U.S. Department of Energy; attomey-advisor, Office d Opinions and Review, FERC; Executive l Director of the Commission on Law and the Economy of the'American Bar Association; Senior-i Research Associate and Project Manager, the Urban Institute; and attumey-advise U.S. Secu-

. rities and Exchange Commission. - Judge Bloch has published beveral artic;es on the conduct '

L and management of criminalinvestigations.

c BOLLWERK, G. PAUL, Ill. B.A., University of Notre Dame (1975); J.D., Georgetown University i Law Center (1978) Judge Bollwerk has been a full-timo legal member of the Panel since July

1991. Liefore being appointed to the Panel, Judge Bollwerk served as an administrative judge L _ on the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel, c senior attomey on the staff of the NRC

Off;ce of the General Counsel, a S.weial Assistant U.S. Attciney with the Department of p Justice, and an associate attomey in the law firm of Gardner, Carton & Douglas in Washington, p - D.C. After graduating from law school, he clerked for a Fedeial district evurt judge and a State

' supreme court judge.

I CALLlHAN, A. DIXON. A.B., Marshall University (1928); M.A., Duke University (1931); Ph.D.,

i- New York University (1933); D.Sc. (Hon.), Marshall University (1961). - Dr. Callihan has been a

part-time member of the Panel since 1963. Ir, is 60-year career, he has held positions ss a

[ physicist with the Union Carbide Corporation and Columbia University, and as assistant professor at the College of the City oi New York. Dr. Callihan is currently the chairman or

- - ' member of several committees conceming nuclear reactor 7erations for the United States A"my and the American Nuclear Society. In 1988, he received the American National

[ - Standards Institute's Meritorious Service Award.  !

I

1 s  ;

I L ______ _ __ ___ .-_ _ _ _ _ _ ___ , . _ __ _

+j c 2

CARPENTER, JAMES H, B.A., University of Virginia (1949); M.A., Johns Hopkins University

'(1951); Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University (1957). Dr. Carpenter has been a member of the Panel since 1981. In addition to numerous publications in the fields of marine science and 4 environmental chemistry and research activities for the Chesapeake Bay Institute,-

Dr. Carpenter has held teaching and administrative positions with Johns Hopkins University and the U_niversity of Miaml (Coral Gables). During his 36-year career, Dr. Carpenter has been on - 1 lthe editorial boards of several national joumals, held senior positions in several professiona! -

associations, and chaired or participated in numerous professional ccmmittees on environrmn- -

talissues, particularly the marine environment. Dr. Carpenter was a member of the committee that issued the BEIR I report (Committee on the Biological Effects of lonizing Radiatiori).

COLE, RICHARD F. B.S.C.E., Drexel University (1959); k,.S.S.E., Massachusetts institute of Technology (1961); Ph.D., University of North Carolina (1968). Dr. Cole has been a full-time:

l me_mber of the Panel since 1973. In addition to publishing numerous articles on water, i:

wastewater treatment, and intomational training of environmenta! engineering, Dr. Cole has

- held teaching, administrative, and engineering positions in the United States and Guatemala with the University of North Carolina, Pennsylvania State University, and the State of Pennsylvania.- He has held several leadership positions and committee assignments with numerous professional associations, and is a Diplomate of the American Academy of Environmental Engineers.

COTTER, B. PAUL, JR. A.B., Princeton University (1959); J.D., Georgetown University (1968).

Appointed Chief Administrative Judge November 1980. Previously served as a member and -

then Chief Administrative Judge of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Board of Contract Appeals, a trial attomey with the U.S. Department of Transportation, and in private practice for 6 years.- He is on the faculty of the National Judicial College, is a member of the American Law Institute, and is a recognized leader in the use of computers in managing '-

complex cases. He has also served as a trustee of the American Inns of Court Foundation; Chair of the Board of Directors of the Supreme Court Opinion Network; Vice Chair of the .

Judiciary Leadership Development Council; Founder of the Worldwide Common Law Judiciary-Conference,' and has held several leadership positions with the American and Federal Bar Associations. He has written extensively in the field of administrative law ar.3 legal technology.

' ELLEMAN, THOMAS S. B.SJ. Denison University _(1953); Ph.D., Iowa State University (1957).

Dr. Elleman was appointed to the Panel as a part-time member in 1990. Over the course of his--

J 40-year career, Dr. Elleman has conducted research in private industry, laciuding Carolina Power & Light Co.- and General Atomics, and at North Carolina State University where he is currently a professor of nuclear engineei..ig, a department he headed from 1974 to 1979. He has published more than 60 articles in the field of nuclear chemistry. Dr. Eileman is also an Amstican Board of Heakh Physics. Board Certified Health Physicist.

FERGUSON, GEORGE A. B.S., V wr1 University (1947); M.S., Howard University (1948);

Ph.D., Catholic University (1965). L.. ^erguson has been a part time member of the Pael since 1972. During his 46-year career, he has held teaching, administrative, and research positions with Howard University, the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, the University of Pennsylvania, and Clark College (where he was Chairman of the Physics Department). Dr.

Ferguson is a member of the American Physical Society and several teaching associations.

gy , o

s 3

FOREMAN, HARRY. B.S., Antioch College (1938); Ph.D.- Ohio State University (1942); M.D., ,

University of Calnomia (1947). Dr. Foreman has been a part-time member of the Panel since 1971, Dr. Foreman's career spans 52 years in three professional fields. In addition to publishing numerous professional papers in the biological and chemical fields, Dr. Foreman has held teaching, administrative, and research positiors with the Univat 'ty of Minnesota and the - i UniverA if Califomia, the lettor involving work in the area of radiation and biomedical re -- l

- search at Los Alamos.

FOSTER, RICHARD F. B.S., University of Washington (1938); Ph.D., University of Washington j

-(1948)._ Dr. Foster has been a part-time member of the Panel since 1981. Dr. Foster is the author of numercas professional papers on the discharge of heat and radionuclides into water 6

- pathways, and has headed or participated on several panels snd committees on radiation and the environment for, among others, the U.S. Public Health Service, the National Academy of Sciences, the Intemational Atomic Energy Agency, and the NRC Advisory Committee on Re-actor Safeguards. During his 52 year career, Dr. Foster has also held research and manage-ment positions with the State of Washington, the University of Washington, and numerous lab-oratories and companies at the Hanford, Washington facility.

GLEASON, JAMES P. B S.C., Georgetown University (1948); L'. Georgetown University (1950). Judge Gleason has been a part-time member of the Pane'. mnce 1980 and held a similar appointment from 1967-1970. In 1992, he became a full-time Panel member. During his 43-year career, Judge Gleason has held numerous elective and appointive offices at the - _

L county, State, and Federallevel; taught at the University of Maryland and Harvard University; maintained a private law and consultant practice; and served as an aide to two U.S, Senators.

HETRICK, DAVID L,~ B.S., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1947); M.S., Rensselaer Poly-technic Institute (1950); Ph.D., University of Califomia, Los Angeles (1954). Dr. Hetrick became a part-time Panel member in 1972. During his career as a physicist, Dr. Hetrick has worked as a private consultant to General Atomics, Hughes Research Laboratories, the Marquardt Corporation, and Brookhaven National Laboratory. He has taught physics at Califomia State

- Univeruity at Northridge, the University of Bologna in Italy, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and

- at the University of Arizona. Dr. Hetrick has also worked on nuclear projects at the United -

Kingdom Atomic Energy Agency in Aldermaston, England, the Intemational Atomic Energy

~ Agency in Cuemavaca, Mexico, and at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

- HILL, ERNEST E. B.S.. 'Jniversity of California, Berkeley (1943); M.S., University of Califomia, Berkeiey (1959). Judge Hill has been a part-time member of the Panel since 1972. Currently the president of H!'l Associates, a nuclear engineering consulting company, Judge Hill has held numerous nuclear engineering and management positions in the private sector, with the Atomic .

Energy Commission, and at the Lawrence 'Livermore National Laboratory.

HOOPER, FRANK F. B.A., University of Califomia (1939); Ph.D., University of Minnesota (1948). Dr. Hooper has been a part-time member of the Panel since 1973. - Currently a Pro-fessor Emeritus at the University of Michigan, Dr. Hooper has held teaching and administrative positions at the University of Michigan, the Institute for Fisheries Research, and the University

4 of Minnesota, in 1962-63 and again in 1966, Dr. Hooper was an aquatic ecologist with the

- Atomic Energy Commission, l~ rom 1979 to 1988, he was chairman of the Ecology, Fisheries and Wildlife Program in the School of Natural Resourcss at the University of Michigan.

IKELBER,' CHARLF,S N. B.A., University of Minneapolis (1947); Ph.D. University of Minnesota ,

- (1951). Before joining the Panel as a full-time member in 1990, Dr. Kolber was the Panel's 2

Senior Technical Advisor from 1988 to 1990. He also served in various senior technical '

positions in the Division of Nuclear Regulatory Research at the Atomic Energy Commission and  ;

at the NRC Before joining the Commission in 1973, Dr. Kolber was a senior scientist at Argonne National Laboratory for 18 years. He is a Fellow of the American Nuclear Society and the American Physical Society.-

. KLINE, JERRY .9. B.S., University of Minnesota (1957); M.S., University of Minnesota (1960);

ll Ph.D., University of Minnesota (1964). Dr. Kline has been a full-time member of the Panel since 1980. Before he was appointed to the Panel, Dr. Klins held various research and management positions with the Puerto Rico Nuclear Center, the Argonne National Laboratory, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the NRC. He is the author of numerous scientific papers and reports in the fields of radioecology and soil science.

LAM, PETER S. B.S., Ore 9on Stuie University (1967); M.S., Stanford UniversPy (1968); Ph.D.,

Stanford University (1971). Dr. Lam was appointed to the Panel as a full-time judge in 1990, i

He joined the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a reactor systems engineer in 1983 and benme Chief of the Reactor Systerns Section of the NRC Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, h 1986. Before coming to the Commisslors Dr. Lam held various positions--

with General Electric and the Argonne National Laboratory. He has taught engineering courses

at San Jose State University and George Washington University.

LAMB, JAMES C.,'111. B.S.C.E., Virginia Military Institute (1947); M.S., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1952); Sc.G., NIsssachusetts Institute of Technology (1953). Dr. Lamb has been a part-time member of the Panel since 1974. Currenty a distinguished visiting professor of civil engineering at George Washington University and professor of sanitary engineering at the University of North Carolina. Dr. Lamb has also held teaching, engineering, manage' ment, and research positions in private industry, at Newark College of Engineering, University of North Carolina, and Massachusetts Institute of Technologyc

' LITTLE, LINDA W. B.A., University of North Carolina, (1958); M.S.P.H., University of North Carolina (1962);. Ph.D., University of North Carolina (1968). Dr. Little first joined the Panel as a part-time member in 1974, serving uatil 1989 and then rejoining in 1096; During her career, she has held teaching positions with East Carolina University and the University of North Carolina.- She has also worked as a biologist and an environmental counsultant, and has served the State of North Carolina's as a Director in its Office of Environmental Education and as Executive Director for its Waste Management Board. Dr. Little is a member of North carolina

- Academy of Sciences, Water Environment Federation, Beta Beta Beta (Biology), Phi Beta -

Kappa, Sigma XI, and Delta Omega. She has authored numerous publications in the fields of environmental biology and wastewater treatment.

m _ _

1 5

LUEBKE, EMMETH A. B.A., Ripon College (1936); Ph.D., University of Illinois (1941)._ Dr.-

Luebke became a part-time member of the Panelin 1987 following 15 years of service as a full-

_time member. A Fellow of the American Nuclear Society and recipient of a Presidential LCortificate of Merit for Microwave Radar Rescarch, Dr. Luebke spent 27 years in private indus-

try involved in the design, testing, and opwation of nuclear power plants for submarines.

Befo,,, that, he taught at the tJniversity of Illinois and was a research leader at Massachusetts ,

Institute of Technology.- ,

McCOLLOM[KENNETH A. B.G., Oklahoma State University (1948); M.S., University of Illinois ,

- (1949); Ph.D., Iowa State University (1964). Dr. McCollom has.been a part-time member of the Panel since 1972. He is currently Dean and Professor Emeritus of the College of Engineering,-

Architecture and Technology, Oklahoma State University. During his 44-year career, he has -

p

- held teaching, research, and administrative positions with Oklahoma State University, Iowa l State Urtiversity, and the Atomic Energy Division of P5iFps Petroleum Company. In addition, l

. he has held numerous leadership positions with several professional associations and the Oklahoma Board of Registration for Engineers and Land Surveyors.

. MILLER, MARSHALL E. A.B. with honors, University of Ilknois (1935); LL.B., University of -

Illinois (1937). Judge Miller was a full-time member of the Panel (1974-1985) and has been a part-time member since 1985. Judge Miller was un Adm!nistrative Law Judge for the_U.S.

Department of Labor for 11 years and previously a partner for 15 years in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Danzansky & Dickey. He is the author of several books on legal practice -

MOORE, THOMAS S. B A., Miami University (Ohio) (1968); J.D., Ohio State University.(1972).

Judge Moore was appointed to the ASLBP in 1991 after a distinguished 10-year career as an administrative judge on the Commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board. Judge Moore was in' private practice in the firm of V >lo', Boskey and Lyons, worked in the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, served as administrative ast!stant to the Govemor of Oblo, and cierked for Judge Miller on the Sixth Circuit before joining the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1980.

I MORRIS, PETER A.' B.A., Swarthmore College (1943); Ph.D., University of Virginia (1951).

Dr. Morris served as a full-time administrative judge with the Panel from 1981 to 1987. He was appointed as a part-time judge in 1991, Before serving on the Panel, Judge Morris worked as Operational Physics Supervisor with E.1. duPont de Nemours and Co. from 1951 to 1957, and ,

served the Nuclear Regulatory Commission es Director, Office of Operations, and Director, Division of Reactor Licensing.

MURPHY. THOMAS D. B.S., Union College (1956); M.S., University of Rochester (1957);

M.S., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1972). Prior to his appointment as a full-time member of the Panelin 1992,-Judge Murphy held various management positions with the Department of

' the Navy, the private sector, and on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff. He is a member of the Health Physics Society, the American Nuclear Society, and is certified by the American Board of Health Physics.

REIN, HARRY B.S., New York University (1953); M.D., State University of New York (1957);

- J.D., Univesity of Florida (1982). Dr. Rein was appointed to the Panel as a part-time

~

W -

6 administrative judge in 1990. Dr. Rein is an active trial lawyer and has 23 years of active _-

clinical medical experience. ' Currently, Dr. Rein's trial work is limited to medically related cases.

Dr. Rein has published several medical papers and texts, including two on medical malpractice.

He has also conducted seminars and courses for lawyers across the United States pertaining to -

- the discovery and trial processes related to cases involving medical _ questions.

RUBENSTEIN, LESTER S. B.S., University of Arizona (1953); M.S., Camogie Institute of Technology (1962). Judge Rubenstein was appointed to the Panel as a part-tima member in 1990. _Before joining the Panel, he served in various leadership capacitles with the Nuclear l Regulatory Commission, including Assistant Director for Region IV Reactors, NRR; Director, Systems Division and Standardization, NRR; and Assistant Director, Division of Systems -

Integration, NRR. Before joining the' Atomic Energy Commission in 1967, he worked for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as a researcher and for the TRW and Westinghouse corporations. Judge Rubenstein has written several articles and papers and lectured on the policies and licensing procedures of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

SCHINK, DAVID R. B.A., Pomona College (1952); M.S., University of CJfomia, Los Angeles

. (1953); M.C . Stanford University (1958); Ph.D., University of Califomia, San Diego (1962).

L Dr. Schink has been a part-time member of the Panel since 1974. Currently a prc'!essor of oceanography and formerly the Associate Dean of the College of Geosciences at Texas A&M -

i University, Dr. Schink has written monographs and professional papers on marine .

geochemistry, silicon, radium, radon, and early digenesis; Dr. Schink has also held teaching and research positions at the Palo Alto Laboratory, Teledyne isotopes, the University of Rhode Island, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, and Stanford University. In addition, Dr. Schink has served on several advisory panels for the National Science Foundation and the United Nations. .

SHON, FREDERICK J. B.S., Columbia University. Judge Shon has been a full-time member.

of the Panel since 1972 and currently serves as its Deputy Chief Administrative Judge (Technical). ' Before nis appointment to the Panel, Judge Shon held management positiuns with -

the Atomic Energy Commission, and worked as a physicist with the_ Lawrence Radiation Lab-oratory and several corporations within the nuclear industry.- Judge Shon has also served as a consultant.on reactor safety to the Spanish and Danish Atomic Energy Commissions, and '

taught nuclear engineering at the University of Califomia at Berkeley.

TIDEY,- GEORGE FRANCIS, B.A., University of Virginia (1980); M.D., University of Virginia (1984). Dr. Tidey was apoointed to the Panel as a pan-time m6mber in 1990. He is currently an assistant professor in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Texas Medical School.

He taught in the same field at George Washington University and is engaged in a private practice in these areas. Dr. Tidcy has co-authored several articles on female fertility. He is a member of tha American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the American Fertility Society, and the American Medical Association.

9 ENCLOSURE 3 LICENSING ACTIONS PROCESSED BY THE NRC DURING THE YEARS 1992 THROUGH 1997 LICENSING ACTIONS PROCESSED BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (Tabulation of licensing actions for powe, reactor licensees from 1992 through 1997)*

FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 l Amendments. 995 925 1,146 1,301 903 793 Renewals 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recaptures 1 2 4 1 0 0' Transfers 2 3 4 2 8 21

Operating Licenses 0 1 0 0 1 0 TOTAL 998 931 1,154 1,304 912 814

• It should be noted that in other contexts, NRR has defined " Licensing Actions" rnore broadly to include any issues that must be revieweo' and approved by the NRC before they can -

be imp;emented by the licensee. Besides the type of actions listed above, the NRC also approves licensee requests for relief pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 50.55a, exemptions, and other similar ac3as. These data do not include data for non-power and accommissioned reactors.

LICENSING ACTIONS PR CESSED BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS

'l TABLE 1 (Actions for Material Licenses)

FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 New Applications - _467 366 348 293- 289 -304 Amendments 4381 3217 3359 2880 -3043 2961-

, Renewals 925 1088 1110 1054 1009 153-Sealed Source

3. Device Reviews' 358 372 185 401 238 140 i-

-TOTAL 6131 5043 5002 4628 4579 , .%64 End of Year Pending 2480 2218 1952-- 16?1 "Se -723 TABLE 2 (Actions for Decommissioning Materials Licenses)

FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 Amendments - 1 1 1 8 10- 7 o

" Sealed source and device reviews not involving a licensing action do not give rise to an opportunity for a hearing. Thus, some actions in this category may not be subject to hearing.

2

~ ,

TABLE 3 (Actions for Spent Fuel Storage Licenses)

FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 New Applications 1- 1 0 0 0 0

- Amendments 1 2 4 3 5 1 TABLE 4 l (Actions for Fuel Cycle Licenses)

FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 Amendments 26 50 67 72 50 49 Renewals 2  ; 5 4 3 -' 5 Terminated 0 3 8 1 0 0 TOTAL 28 58 80 77 53 54 q

3 1

p TABLE 5 (Actions for Uranium Recovery Licenses)

FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97

-f New Licenses na na 1 0 0 0 License Renewals na na na 2 0 3 Amendments na na na 64 103 85 l

u Long Term Care

' icenses 0 0 6 1 4 6 Altemative Concentration Limit Amendments 0 0 0 0 1 1 Reclamation Plans na na 0 0 1 0 1 TOTAL na na na 67 109 95 na -Information not available r 4 J

. ~ . _. - . . - - . . .

ENCLOSURE 4 HEARING REQUESTS REFERRED TOTHE

. . ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL  ;

i l

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 TOTAL Tvos of Action Reactors

Amendments 4 2 1 1 1 0 9 Transfers 1 1 0 0 0 1 3

Decommissioning 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 Licensed Opetator 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 Matadala Licenses 2 0 6 1 0 5 14 Decommissioning 3 1 1 0 0 0 5.

Fuel Storage - 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Enforcement Actions 6 6 11 2 4 5 34 Program Fraud 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 4

i

+

4 i

I t

. - _ .-