ML20246G910
| ML20246G910 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/05/1989 |
| From: | Lambert J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Lanham D NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19316F918 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-52FR47578, RULE-PR-62 AC24-2-01, AC24-2-1, NUDOCS 8905150302 | |
| Download: ML20246G910 (5) | |
Text
{# .m ,
~
. r4 ( 2 4 % 4' 01-
~
j+* ..
%, UNITED STATES
- - g 3 -. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I 8' j ' WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g...../ -l i
NAY g 1999 MEMORANDUM FOR: Don Lanham, Document Control Unit Document Management Branch, IRM ;
FROM: ' Janet Lambert, Project Manager '
Waste Managerpent Branch Division of Engineering, RES
SUBJECT:
TRANSMITTAL 0F REGULATORY HISTORY PACKAGE.FOR THE FINAL RULE - 10 CFR PART 62 - " CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR {
EMERGENCY ACCESS TO NON-FEDERAL AND REGIONAL LOW-LEVEL l WASTE (LLW) DISPOSAL FACILITIES" I Enclosed is the regulatory history package I have compiled for the final new l
10 CFR Part 62. The package contains an index listing the documents !
'(Enclosure 1) and the documents of central relevance to the development of the-rule (Enclosure 2). The history was compiled and processed in accordance with ,
the guidance provided by David Meyer of the Division of Rules and Records. '
If there are any questions about the package, please contset me at x23857. j k 2/u ] k Y M C Janet Lambert Waste Management Branch Division of Engineering, RES
Enclosures:
As stated 8905150302 890505 PDR PR 62 52FR47578 PDR
b e ,
be REGULATORY HISTORY INDEX FOR THE FINAL RULE ~ 10 CFR PART'62 l
1
' 1)
Proposed 10 CFR Part 62~
2)~ Letter from Nuclear Information and Resource Service Requesting an Extension of the public comment period for the proposed rule.
~
- 3) Revisions.to the proposed rule that had to be made to make the text stored on'.the word processor match the text of the actual Proposed 10 CFR Part 62 (3/23/88).:
i
'4) Public comment' letters (Package of 21).
~
I 5) Public comment response development working papers.
~ 6)- 9GC responses to some comments'in.a few of the comment letters.
- 17) First draft of Public Comment Analysis - (4/01/88).
.8) Summary of public comments. ;
l
- 9) First draft of Final Part 62 revised in response to the public comments (4/09/88).
i
- 10) Markup for the.first revision of the Public Comment Analysis (4/15/88).
- 11) Markup for the first revision of the Final 10 CFR Part 62 (4/15/88).
- 12) Draft rulemaking package.with the Public Comment Analysis and proposed changes to the rule - Distributed to 0GC, NMSS, NRR, OSP, and R&R for review and comment (4/19/88).
- 13) Office comments on draft rulemaking package (Item 12 above) a) RES/WM comments b) LLWM/NMSS comments Enetosur< t
_ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ = _ - _
c) GP comments-d)R&Rcomments e) OGC comments f) NRR coments
- 14) Draft rulemaking package (Item 12 above) with revisions based on Office comments (Item 13 above) (5/23/88).
- 15) Explanation of request for 23 month extension for publication of final rule (from 8/88 to 11/15/88).
- 16) First draft of 'the Commission Paper, the Regulatory Analysis, and the Congressional Letters for Part 62 (4/20/88).
- 17) Markup showing revisions made to the draft Public Comment Analysis and the _
draft Final rule (7/12/88).
- 18) Intermediate revisions to the entire draft rulemaking package (7/13/89)
- 19) Mark-up showing next changes to the draft Public Comment Analysis and the draft Final rule (7/15/88).
- 20) Mark-up showing changes to the Comission Paper i.nd the Regulatory Analysis (8/1/88).
- 22) Pre-concurrence office comments on final rulemaking package (Item 21) a) NMSS comments / concurrence (8/31/88) b) ARM comments / concurrence (8/22/88) c) GPA comments / concurrence (8/19/88) d) OGC pre-concurrence comments (8/29/88) e) NRR comments / concurrence (8/17/88)
- 23) Master showing all pre-concurrence changes to final rulemaking package and incorporating all office comments (8/30/88).
- 24) Additional proposed changes to the " Mitigating Alternatives" discussions in the Supplementary Information of the final Part 62, l
- 25) Changes to the final rulemaking package to accommodate concerns raised about reciprocal access by several concerned States. Changes incorporate NMSS and 0GC comments on reciprocal access portions of rule (9/20/88).
t 2
- 26) Further revisions to the final rulemaking package based on 0GC comments on
" Mitigating Alt / *- lves" 9/26/88.
- 27) Public Announcement of issuance of final Part 62 for inclusion in the final rulemaking package from Sue Gagner (GPA) a) Draft b) Final 4
- 28) Regulatory Development Branch /RES required review of the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis:
a) Brian Richter's 7/26 changes b) Brian Richter's 7/29 changes c) Declaration of Sufficiency
b) Information Collection Assessment Form (5/13/88) I c) Memo from Brenda Shelton to Joe Mate with appropriate OMB l Clearance language for Final Part 62 Rule (8/22/88) l 1
- 30) Final Rule Package sent by RES to ED0 (9/29/88).
- 31) SECY-88-298 for 10 CFR Part 62 (Oct. 8, 1988).
- 32) Staff Requirements Memos for 10 CFR Part 62,(SECY 88-298) (12/1/88).
- 33) ARM editorial review of SECY 88-298 (10/28/88).
- 34) Explanation of additional 21 month slip in publication of final rule from !
11/15/88 to 1/31/88 (dated 11/30/88). 1 l
- 35) Negotiations and actions required to arrange for an agreement with DOL,'D0D to provide NRC assistance in making emergency access decisions requested on the basis of a threat to the common defense and security:
l a) Memo from Guy Arlotto (RES) to Mal Knapp (NMSS) requesting guidance on the arrangement desired by NMSS for interacting with I D0D/ DOE on common defense and security determinations pursuant to l Part 62 (9/08/88).
b) Memo from Guy Arlotto to Malcolm Knapp to confirm agreements discussed at meeting regarding the DOE /D0D interactions on common defense and security (9/20/88).
3
e c) Contacts identified at DOE and D0D for negotiations on the desired agreement.
d) Letters from Eric Beckjord (P.ES/NRC) to Troy Wade (DOE) and Robert Barker (D0D) requesting a commitment from each agency to provide assistance to NRC in making in making its common defense & security determinations. (11/14/88) e) Information memo referencing Commission affirmation of the Fi al Part 62 and indicating status of negotiations with DOE /D0D.
f) Information note regarding the status of negotiations with DOE /D0D (12/1/88).
g) Proposed changes to the Final Part 62 text, to accommodate D00/D0E desired arrangement - submitted to NMSS and OGC for approval.
(12/12/88) h) 00E/D00 draft responses to 11/14/88 letters (d above) from contacts Troy Wade (DOE), and Robert Barker (D0D), (12/15/88).
- 1) Note on status of 00E/D0D negotiations including rationale from D00 for their preferred arrangement. (12/12/88) CF ONLY j) Background package with proposed changes to the final rule necessary to accommodate the arrangements agreed to with D0D/ DOE on common defense and security determinations - submitted to the Commission staff for review and approval (12/23/88).
k) Eight pages of miscellaneous notes regarding resolution of DOE /D0D issue. CF ONLY l
- 1) Note identifying primary contacts for NRC's emergency access interactions with D0D/D0E because of common defense and security concerns (2/13/89).
m) Final letters from DOE (12/20/88) and D0D (2/6/89) agreeing to arrangements for NRC consultations on common defense and security determinations. l n) Final Rulemaking Package from Eric Beckjord (RES) to David Meyer (0 ARM) directing publication of Part 62 in FR (Jan. 19,1989).
o) Memo from Victor Stello to the Commissioners notifying the Commission that a written agreement has been reached with D0D and DOE regarding emergency access determinations on the basis of common defense and security concerns (2/27/89).
I
- 36) Copy of FR Notice for final 10 CFR Part 62.
1 4
a2 y 7=%o, e ._
/ .bY .
NuclearinformationandResource' Service
~
1616 P Street, N.W., Suite 160, Washington, D.C. 20036 (202).328-0002 .
February 4, 1988 Janet Lambert US NRC Washington, DC 20555 NL-007
Dear Ms. Lambert:
Nuclear Information and Resource Service is in contact with organizations and state officials across the country on nuclear waste. issues. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposed rule (52PR240:47578, 12/15/87) on emergency access to " low-level" radioactive waste disposal sites is of interest and concern to many of these.
Our organization had been in contact with the NRC regarding the l status of the proposed rule since early summer 1987. Since the l
proposed rule was published just before the holidays it has only come to public attention in the last week or two. The public comment period ends in one week. We are requesting an extension of the public comment period for 60 days .to allow all' those parties who have exprc ssed an interest to. thoro ~ughly review the rule and prepare substantive comments. Some states are currently in the process of appointing and hiring staff to implement the milestones of the 1985 Amendments Act and those staff may desire the opportunity to comment. An extension would provide both state )
aut horities and citizens groups the chance to give imput. '
We understand that the rule is codification of Section 6 of the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act and want to suggest clarifications and interpretations that may not have been foreseen in the drafting of the rule.
We are aware that the NRC would like to have the rule in place well in advance of the January 1, 1989 date when generators may be refused access to the operating sites in Nevada, Washington and South Carolina, but since the rule could have perhaps even greater impact after 1993, citizens and state officials concerned with the compact and " low-level" waste site development processes would like the opportunity to comment now.
Er% O.V b &h !k 20022?T!% Bipp.
l
. 1
~
1 l
.I
'i Thank you for consideration of this e'xtens' ion request to the l proposed rule 10CFR62, Criteria and Procedures for Emergency j Access to Non-Federal and Regional Low-Level Waste Disposal l Facilities.
Sincerely,
?s l
'b1-k_,/.,,jf\l0*#
Diane D ' Arrigo Nuclear Information and Resource Service 1 Lisa Finaldi Clean Water Fund of North Carolina Judith Johnsrud Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Cort Richardson Vermont Public Interest Research Group Minard IIamilton Radioactive Waste Campaign David Kraft Nuclear Energy Information Service I Anne Rabe New York Environmental Institute q Mary Sinclair Great Lakes Energy Alliance l
l l
l
c-i
, I, ' ', '[ i\ l i I .t i i I l*
' l'Il j j i f!l!
l
' k
. '\., . s, l ' i
- l. < ,- i,.t.)i t
l A. 4
(
e..
an N. ,
, !f Q' [ c\
.e 35
- +9bl - -
.J 4 Am ,
.. m .o. rom., ..
. /. :
r q2 .x a N
}. %
i l n W &
$3M-l l
Q i
, t:
L N:
e-6 G s.3 l
] . .- ",?
o .hF.j
.If a c. .
CO ~ .. , i p"-mE-:;
_; ? i:.
. . . e.
' wen f' i
J-l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .