ML20137A940

Forwards Regulatory Documents Comprising Regulatory History of Proposed Rules 10CFR150 & 170, Recognition of Agreement State Licenses in Areas Under Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction within Agreement State

ML20137A940
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/13/1997
From:	Haisfield M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML19355E815	List: ML20137A940 ML20138E895
References
FRN-61FR30839, RULE-PR-150, RULE-PR-170 AF49-1-001, AF49-1-1, NUDOCS 9703210122
Download: ML20137A940 (1)

Text

49 "% 'y ll f - J.

[a t UNITED STATES g .

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION T'y f a y WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0C31

%, ...../

yn/77 MEMORANDUM T0: Nuclear Document System (NUDOCS)

FROM: Mark Haisfield, Regulations Development Branch Division of Regulatory Applications Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

REGULATORY HISTORY (61 FR 30839 & 62 FR 1662)

Attached for your processing are the regulatory documents comprising the regulatory history of the Notice of Proposed and Final Rulemaking entitled

" Recognition of Agreement State Licenses in Areas Under Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction Within an Agreement State" which amended 10 CFR Parts 150 and 170 (AF49-2). These notices were published in the Federal Reaister on June 18, 1996 and January 13, 1997 (61 FR 30839 and 62 FR 1652).

If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please call me at 415-6196.

Attachment:

Regulatory History Documents for Proposed-- [4f f f-/)  :

and Final Rule (including this cover memo) l 7

(//ff'l) i 4

l 7 'UL)] 1 ql H D 9703210122 970313 Ph 6 R30839 PDR g _ ([gCjV\Lb']

+H 3Wl ll,Ell@{lllhhl.I!!I.NN

[

e.

__.../

ys .-

u]

j 5 fg o re _

mn .

• I ,..F: 02lst; n

, \...../

October 1, 1993 SECY-93-272 l

POLICY ISSUE 1 (Information) i IE: The Comissioners .

l

! FROM: James M. Taylor

{ Executive Director for Operations l William C. Parler j General Counsel

1 j

SUBJECT:

COMIS-93-013 - IMPROVEMENTS IN NRC'S AGREEMENT STATES PROGRAM

{'

l PURPOSE:

h

, To inform the Commission of the Staff's planned approach to respond to i

C0HIS-93-013. Staff is requested to prepare for Comission consideration .

recommendations to improve NRC's Agreement States Program to assure adequate

)

. protection of the public health and safety. The Comission further directed i

! the Staff to provide a realistic schedule for accomplishing the recomended actions, taking into consideration the current initiatives in this area, such

as the compatibility policy development, and the development of common performance indicators.

DISCUSSION: T-i i In order to achieve the comprehensive review of NRC's Agreement States Program i that the Commission requested, the Staff intends to establish a Programmatic Assessment Group (PAG) headed by the Director of the Office of State Programs

(OSP). The membership of the PAG will consist of a representative from the j following offices

the Office of General Counsel (OGC), the Office of Nuclear l i Regulatory Research (RES), and the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and i j Safeguards (NMSS). To represent both the Regional viewpoint, as well as to i provide the NRC's historical perspective vis-a-vis the Agreement States l Program, an NRC employee with experience as a State Agreements Officer will be

a member of the PAG. In addition, the views of Agreement States will be i 5911 cited at appropriate stages in the PAG analysis and decision making

Contact:

Richard L. Bangart, OSP NOTE: TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 504-3340 IN 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS PAPER Maria Lopez-Otin, OSP 504-2598

!?'C: J o /wa, , L '

") --

a- -

e i- ,

..9g,.gy m p g. .

s w .

i l _ The Comissioners 2 process. Requesting an Agreement States representative to be a member of the l

PAG was also considered. However, given the requirements established by the

. February 10, 1993 Executive Order 12838, " Termination and Limitation of Federal Advisory Committees," this approach was rejected. It was decided -

4 that, on balance, the time required to make the necessary findings under

Executive Order 12838 to create a new committee emder the Federal Advisory

Comittee Act, including approval by the Office of Management and'8udget, j would be better spent establishing the PAG and initiating the review.

L

! Documenting the PAG scope of responsibility for the Office of the Executive j Director (EDO) approval will be the first task for the PAG. None of the i members of the PAG or its support staff, consisting of OSP personnel, will be i full time. Other NRC offices, such as the Office of Enforcement, the Office

{ of Investigations, and the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational i l Data, will be requested to provide support to the PAG on specific issues. If

, appropriate, the PAG will make use of technical assistance contractor support.

The schedule for completion of the actions directed by the Commission in  !

COMIS-93-013 follows: I

1. Improvements in guidance and principles of operation. (4/1/94) 4- )

j It should be noted that with the issuance of COMIS-93-013, staff

has instituted the practice of providing the Comission with the l results of each Agreement State program evaluation for which a i

finding is withheld concerning adequacy or compatibility prior to l issuing a letter to the State.

l 2. Action levels for top management and Comission involvement.

(6/1/94) i

! In advance of the promulgation of the requested directives, staff l

1s currently reviewing with the EDO any Section 274 matters that I

surface in the review of Agreement State programs. As a result of 1

! those reviews, the Comission will be informed of important issues j that are of interest, require Comission decision, or that involve a significant change in staff practice.

3. Reciprocity matters. (9/1/94) 4 ,. Consider the merits of codification of State Agreement practices in a new part of the NRC rules and Regulations to include appropriate matters in the areas identified above and any other appropriate matters pertinent to the program. (10/1/94) _ 1 This item will address Agreement State practices. The due date of 10/1/94 is to recommend to the Comission those practices that should be codified. Rulemaking would follow that date.

5. Reappraisal of the resources and staffing requirements for NRC to implement the proposed changes to be recomended to the Comission. (4/1/95) -

mc  : .

,~

m.ersy,unrswcom.ewmunggypcmy.w;nozzmyngmy mg The Commissioners 3

..~.,.

This scheduled completion date approximately coincides with the l 4 annual budget cycle for the year following next. Any resource and i staffing requirements associated with recommendations completed j before this date will be brought to the Cosuiission's attention as part of the recommendations. OSP has recently initiated efforts to obtain 3.5 FTEs of technical assistance contractor support for each of FYs 94-96, which could be used in part for the PAG.

! It should be noted that given the complexities of the issues to be addressed, l the necessary interactions with the Agreement States, and the limited i l requisite staff resources, the dates provided in the above completion schedule i may be difficult to meet. Management will make every effort to meet the

schedule. If issues arise, however, that will preclude meeting these dates, l

staff will provide the Comission with a status report an1 proposed revision

to the schedule in a timely manner.

The Director, OSP, plans to solicit ideas and recommendations for the PAG from the staff of OSP. The PAG will benefit from the staff experience and this approach will promote ownership of eventual program changes that result from this review. i In addition to the need for the PAG to consider the compatibility policy l development and comon performance indicator initiatives, the PAG will  !

consider commitments that were made by NRC in response to the GA0 report entitled, " NUCLEAR REGULATION: BETTER CRITERIA AND DATA WOULD HELP ENSURE SAFETY OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS."

l The PAG will be expected to identify and evaluate other Agreement State program policies and procedures that are candidates for needed revision, in l addition to the specific areas noted in COMIS-93-013. A summary of the i additional evaluations and resulting recommendations will be reported to the Commission for their consideration.

J e M. Taylor tive Director Ex i for Operations DIsmBMIOm William C. Parler Commissioners General Counsel OGC OCAA OIG OPA OPP EDO SECY

jg w q* w gq=,m m mt w.we /( 2.wgm[ g .er,mp,,w g

-ACTION < Sangart,;SP. W -

• e

,a.

..* - f~ Cys: Taylor

.. - . / p' % UNITED $TATES SnieZek l .P %j i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Thompson .

{ y WASHWGTON,04.20556 Blaha l'h-

.S f .. ... ,. -

August

. M !? F ,1 P u f.: 08- ' 25,.1993 Knubel

'Bernero,.NMSS.

! Beckjord,RES i ""C'""' Murley, NRR lb g Jordan, AEOD

(; (d' Scroggins, OC l MEMORANDUM TO: James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations P[', !.

j u

I William C. Parler (8

[d f General Counsel ,

, h{'

l FROM: Samuel J. Chilk, Secreti .

d h '

y .f. h "

SUBJECT:

COMIS-93-013 - IMPRO , IN NRC'S r' AGREEMENT STATES PROGRAM t i

i As a result of the House Government Operations Committee Hearing 1 of August 2, 1993, the General Accounting Office report, and

, other ongoing reviews of NRC's Agreement States Program, the i commission requests that you review and prepare for the l Commission's consideration recommendations to improve NRC's

] Agreement States-Program to assure adequate protection of the l public health and safety. In this process the Commission

! suggests that you' solicit the opinions of'those with historical

! backgrounds in the Agreement State program and of representatives 4

of the Agreement States. Taking into consideration the current initiatives in this area, such as the compatibility Policy Development, and the development of common performance-l indicators, you should provide a realistic schedule for

accomplishing the actions you recommend.

(BDe/OGC) (SECY Suspense: 10/1/93) 9300143 SP

! The Commission requests focussing on the following areas for this i review: '

i

! 1. Improvements in guidance and principles of operations \ .%

, g'.T..

V-i .

!

• Review of existing policy guidance from the Commission on the implementation of Section 274 contained in " criteria for Guidance of States and NRC in Discontinuance of NRC j- Regulatory Authority and Assumption thereof by States t

,< Through Agreenent", dated 1/23/81, amended 7/16/81 and l 7/23/83, and " Review of Agreement State Radiation Control i

Programs", dated May 28,.1992, to determine whether to

! -i ,

revise or supplement. The review of performance indicators 4 which is already under way, should be factored into this l ( ..b ' review.

i s

e i

g g.J=W W Q WWT!fP %iwg. y s p "f.

. N:q qQggg. ,g e gra e ve % e y].. t(

, p., .

Some areas for particular consideration are:

I Whether two separate policies, one for entering into an agreement and one for evaluation of existing state l programs, are needed.

i t Evaluation of whether a formal transition period should f')- be established during which new Agreement State programs could be phased in gradually.

Reevaluation of the criteria and elements used for 3 adequacy and compatibility reviews so that the less I gt .

significant items are eliminated and the focus is on those things which must be complied with to provide l

l

. reasonable assurance of adequate protection to the l public health and safety.

i

'( 6

'pf;6 Identification of the information which the NRC needs from the Agreement States and establishment of a

! Y requirement for the reporting of such information. In g _ hpp addition, why this information is needed and how it benefits health and safety.

e s 4

/ -

6 Identification of the minimum administrative-type provisions the NRC will consider necessary in assessing l df )', the adequacy and compatibility of Agreement State

,'u*g '

programs. This covers such things as: hearing l * # opportunities, rulemaking procedures, envi~onmental r

(d assessments, the separation of regulatory and promotional responsibilities, investigative capabilities, enforcement policies, criminal sanctions,

~

Jnd other similar provisions.

i -

N i fp i

{ Evaluation of the present practice of placing Agreement State approved devices on the NRC registration list so i

f [ h,Iq that they can be used nationwide. -  %

dM Review and make appropriate recommendations on the adequacy of the documentation and document control y ,N procedures currently being used by the NRC for the

Agreement State program.

Until performance indicators are in place and provide I

beneficial regulatory insight, staff should (keeping in mind the importance of a short turnaround time) provide the Commission with the results of each Agreement State program

evaluation for which a finding is withheld concerning adequacy or compatibility prior to issuing a letter to the state.

o g 7"www$' Q o'b M 6th 0*fi

^

( ,, ,

& r gb gt y p ' p, .e,.r ty~ p '

\

' q' ,4

• e i

4 Y, J BV Propose a method to accelerate the process of issuing ' , * ;, ,

l f letters to States which notify State management of the ,

status of the State program following NRC's formal review. /I'pl{ ..-.

a a

3 fpp/\ Determine criteria for placing (or removing) a State program #

L A> in a status category which would serve to put State "

( j(n officials and the public on notice that their program is failing to fully meet an acceptable norm for public health and safety protection or compatibility.

'I Evaluate and propose internal procedures / guidance on the NRC 4

process to take over when a state agreement is suspended or

[d terminated, suspended. in whole or in part, or is temporarily i

2.

Action levels for top management and commission involvement

+

hy Prepare directives on the Section 274 matters which must be i brought to the commission's attention and those which must i be approved by the Commission, including appropriate action levels for adequacy or compatibility determinations i d.p concerning p W suspensions. state programs and action levels for temporary 1

N

/. Prepare guidance on when the NRC should consider getting l'

[

involved in an Agreement State program in a technical '

assistance capacity. ",i41

.; ' W

+

Prepare guidance on briefings for the Commission by the staff and States appropriate Agreement experiencing difficulties.State officials on Agreement

3. Reciprocity matters:

(q /I[qy) g- Review the effectiveness (including resource requirements 116

• yI and benefits) of current procedures for reciprocity and the Wj NRC/ Agreement State inspection program of the general j 'E6 licensees under reciprocity.

D f (pfg* Clarify and promulgate more definitive requirements on howl p .W J

we handle reciprocity matters for Agreement State licensee 6 ge y

{ p@# activities in areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction [and 91 improve the system for determination of jurisdiction. 1

,~

AC' ' 4.

Consider the merits of codification of state agreement ,' O

[ . M practices in a new part of the NRC Rules and Regulations to/p"#d (gi)hyincludeappropriatemattersintheareasidentifiedabove E(

W '

/5, y

and any other appropriate matters pertinent to the program.k ,,rs' 5.

Reappraise the resources and staffing requirements for NRC to implement the proposed changes to be recommended to the

, Commission. 7/#

Ll g

/

v a

- a-. -A s > --* e #= ss m n .a -- 4 ^..seem m. >M--k x.m---.

MM A 1

. . _ _...w. . . .

a i , M , * #,1 T ,*. E' . .,

we } f, ' . , ' ** .

. .~. . n, ,. . . - . .. . .- ,. J . . >s .

3m ... . "

. R , D:? '] *^'

..sf,g -,. .. b j

i fyJlj . .

2 e N

W j ,

i l

+

1 cc: The chairman

! Commissioner Rogers I l Commissioner Remick j Commissioner de Planque OGC OCA OIG 6

W t

4 i

I i

+

1' ,

1 4

l 4

i 1

i I

e 4

4 1

4 s

i I

/

d J

d 1

i w

? }fy94 i ise o

pm REO<fg RULEMAKING ISSUE (NEGATIVE CONSENT)

December 28, 1995 SECY-95-310 FOR: The Commissioners

• ffLOM: James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

CHANGES TO' 10 CFR 150.20, RECOGNITION OF AGREEMENT STATE LICENSES PURPOSE:

To inform the Commission that the EDO intends to sign.the Rulemaking Plan to amend 10 CFR 150.20, Recognition of Agreement State licenses.

BACKGROUND:

This Rulemaking Plan is consistent with an SRM dated March 28, 1995, in which the Commission approved a staff recommendation to develop a rule which addresses how the NRC will retain authority in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction within Agreement States.

DISCUSSION:

The attached Rulemaking Plan would amend Section 150.20 to correct some omissions that have created confusion for Agreement State licensees. The changes would include provisions to allow Agreement State licensees to qualify for an NRC general license when operating in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction within Agreement States. It has, however, been the practice of the staff to permit Agreement State licensees to work in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction as long as such licensees submit an NRC Form 241.

Section 150.20 would also be amended to clearly reference all applicable NRC regulations.

The Rulemaking Plan was placed at FedWorld to allow for Agreement State and public input. No significant comments were made expressing disagreement with CONTACT: NOTE: TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE IN 5 Mark Haisfield, RES WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS PAPER 415-6196

% C ','O 3 : % '/A = yV MMMMMWMmmmm/ u // H H u~-

j ..

2 The Commissioners 2 I

RECOMMENDATION:

Note that it is my intention to approve the Rulemaking Plan within 10 days from the date of this paper unless otherwise directed by the Commission.

l COORDINATION:

)

The Office of the General Counsel concurs with the Rulemaking Plan.  !

.(

a%s M. Tay1

[

Exehtive Director ,

for Operations 1 1

Attachment:

Rulemaking Plan SECY NOTE: In the absence of instructions to the contrary, SECY will notify the. staff on January 16, 1996 that the Commission, by negative consent, assents to the action proposed in this paper.

DISTRIBUTION:

Commissioners OGC OCAA

-01G OPA OCA ACNW ASLBP REGIONAL OFFICES EDO SECY j

~

d

)

I RULEMAKING PLAN FOR CHANGES TO 10 CFR 150.20, RECOGNITION OF AGREEMENT STATE LICENSES i

l I

Lead Office: Office of Nuclear. Regulatory Research Staff

Contact:

-Mark Haisfield, RDB Concurrences: fJ' DVMorrison, RESU Date f b C Paptfielyo, NMSS

& Nl27 Cats ff Mnae ia/w  !

R. Bangart, OSP Datd i

. l

$/t?al J. L4eberman, OE f////tf Date get psme ff /,";11tWn f

,)McA'f ) /3 $' he>< h aufd/2//f'

<M "E15ct6 OGC / Da'te i

Approval:

J. Taylor Date Attachment i

i 4 J

i Rulemaking Plan

! CHANGES TO 10 CFR 150.20, RECOGNITION OF AGREEMENT STATE LICENSES i

!- Reaulatory Problem and Issues to be Rescived.

There are several problems with the current rule in 10 CFR 150.20 that >

- necessitate a rulemaking at this time. First of all, the rule does not i include provisions to allow Agreement State licensees to qualify for an NRC general license when operating in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction within Agreement States. It has, however, been the practice of the staff to j permit Agreement State licensees to work in areas of exclusive Federal

jurisdiction as long as such licensees submit an NRC Form 241. Second, the j lack of all applicable references in i 150.20. has caused some confusion. For i

example, i 150.20 should reference the appropriate fee requirements needed to '

! file an NRC Form 241.

1 This rulemaking plan is consistent with an SRM dated March 28, 1995, in which the Commission approved a staff recommendation to develop a rule which addresses how the NRC will retain authority in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction.

l I

Current Rule Reauirements, i

i 4

Any person who holds a specific license from an Agreement State may ,

conduct activities permitted by that license in non-Agreement States and  !

I offshore _ waters using an NRC general license. The general license is granted )

! under the authority contained in 10 CFR 150.20. To meet the requirements of l

! I 150.20, and to obtain an NRC general license, licensees must submit an NRC. 'j i Form 241 at.least 3 days before engaging in the activities. _The NRC grants <

reciprocity to a licensee following submission of an acceptable NRC Form 241.

If an Agreement State licensee does not qualify for a general license under 10 CFR 150.20, the licensee would need to go through the more time consuming and costly process to obtain a specific license to work in areas of NRC

jurisdiction.

i j Reaulatory Problems to be Resolved.

1. Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction.

The current wording of the rule has created confusion for Agreement State licensees operating in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction within

. Agreement States. An area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction is an area over which the Federal Government exercises legal control without interference from the jurisdiction and administration of State law. Areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction exist in both Agreement and non-Agreement. States. Because the Federal Government has sole authority over areas of exclusive Federal

. jurisdiction in Agreement States, the NRC has jurisdiction over Atomic Energy 4- Act activities conducted therein. Section 150.20 contains the notification 7

i

,l i

l 2 4 l

g l

' procedures (use of NRC Form 241) regarding general licenses for Agreement State licensees seeking to operate in non-Agreement States and offshore waters. 1 Section 150.20 contains no specific provision which indicates that NRC I may grant reciprocity to Agreement State licensees to conduct activities in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction. The current regulation only 1

authorizes a general license for activities conducted in non-Agreement States and offshore waters. Despite the omission in the regulation, the staff, under i current practice, permits an Agreement State licensee to operate in an area of l exclusive Federal jurisdiction within the Agreement State if the licensee submits an NRC Form 241.

I The lack of a specific reference to areas of exclusive Federal i jurisdiction has caused confusion for licensees, Agreement States, and, occasionally, the staff in interpreting the coverage of the reciprocity provisions-in i 150.20. The Office of the General Counsel has indicated that l it frequently receives inquiries regarding the proper coverage of the rule. i An amendment to 10 CFR 150.20, which provides a specific reference to areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction would alleviate this confusion.

2. Regulatory Requirements f.pplicable to 10 CFR 150.20 Licensees.

The specific referencing to other NRC regulatory requirements in .

I 150.20 is also a source of confusion. Paragraph (b) of i 150.20 specifies l that persons operating under the general license must comply with a variety of i NRC regulatory requirements. However, not all applicable references have been  !

included in i 150.20. Accordingly, to alleviate confusion, 10 CFR 150.20 would be amended to add appropriate references and to clearly indicate that licensees must comply with all applicable NRC regulations.

For example, i 150.20 should reference the appropriate fee requirements in 10 CFR Part 170. Also, the fee schedule in Part 170 has been updated to l indicate that there will be a charge for licensee revisions to NRC Form 241,.

in addition to the initial filing fee. A clarification to NRC Form 241 does not require a fee. Specific definitions for what constitutes a revision, i versus a clarification, will be provided in the instructions for NRC Form 241.  !

Assessment of likely Imoacts on Licensees and Cost Effectiveness. 4 The rulemaking will add language to i 150.20 to explicitly st ste that an Agreement State licensee operating in an area of exclusive Federal 'i jurisdiction within an Agreement State, may obtain an NRC general license under the provisions of i 150.20. Language will also be added to more clearly reference applicable NRC regulations.

The rulemaking will not-impose any new requirements or additional costs to NRC or Agreement State licensees since the rulemaking will be codifying l current practice which allows- Agreement State licensees to work under an NRC  !

general license. Due to the fact that the rulemaking will improve the clarity  ;

i u

)

6

)

and consistency of NRC's regulations, it could benefit Agreement State licensees operating in. areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction. No backfit analysis is needed.since the rulemaking will not impact reactor licensees.

Implementation of this rule should result in a minor reduction in continual NRC resources (estimated to be one sixth FTE per year) being expended to' explain our fee schedule and to clarify for licensees and Agreement States the conditions under which an Agreement State licensee can operate within an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction. Since NRC resources to amend 10 CFR 150.20 are estimated to be about one half of a staff year, this is a cost effective one time use of resources.

OGC Analysis.-

In a memo from Stuart Treby to OSP and NMSS on September 10, 1992, 0GC  :

-suggests amending 10 CFR 150.20 to correct the omission in the current  !

regulation regarding granting reciprocity to Agreement State licensees to i conduct activities'in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction within Agreement '

States. OGC continues to believe that a rulemaking is necessary to address the omission and alleviate confusion of the existing regulations.

. The proposed rulemaking would involve several clarifications to f 150.20 in order to ensure that the rule accurately reflects NRC's current authority '

and those regulatory requirements applicable to reciprocity licenses. No  !

significant legal' impediments to promulgation of a rule drafted along the  ;

lines discussed :in this plan are anticipated. 0GC has not identified any l environmental or-Paper Work Reduction Act issues that would present  !

significant difficulties in pursuing the proposed course of action. .

Aareement State Imolementation Issues.

This rulemaking is important to the Agreement States as it directly  ;

involves _their licensees. The rulemaking is likely to be beneficial to the i States and their licensees because.it will provide more clarity for Agreement l State licensees operating under reciprocity. The rulemaking will not require '

any- change to the scope of equivalent Agreement State rules and _ policies in the area of reciprocity. In addition to this rulemaking, there are '

complementary efforts' underway.  ;

To provide additional guidance on implementation of f 150.20, the staff (

sent a letter to all Agreement State radiation control program directors for ,

I their review and comment. Draft guidance enclosed with the letter included a procedure, suggested information notice and suggested language that would be ,

-included in specific Agreement State licenses. This language would remind l Agreement State licensees, by incorporation of a' license condition, that NRC i e

retains regulatory authority in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction within  !

l_ Agreement States. The procedure describes the process to be followed by i l licensees to obtain a jurisdictional determination from the Federal agency t that controls the land or facility. A listing of Federal and Agreement State  ;

i '3 o

[

l

! i l

0 4

[ agency contacts was also developed to provide an authoritative response to

. questions.

In accordance with direction from the Commission, the staff plans to continue with the development of this guidance whether or not 10 CFR 150.20 is amended. However, the staff believes that it can more effectively provide clear guidance to the Agreement States, pa"ricularly relating to areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, if this rulemaking is completed.

Supportina Documents.

This rulemaking will require a simple Regulatory Impact Analysis that l will show no impact to licensees. The regulations will be amended to be consistent with existing practice and other regulations. No backfit analysis or 0MB paperwork analysis will be needed. No Environmental Assessment will be needed since amendments involving 10 CFR Part 150 are categorical exclusions under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1).

1 Resources.

, The estimated resources to complete this rulemaking would be about one half of a staff year. Approximately 40 percent of this effort would come from RES and about 60 percent divided among NMSS, OSP, and OGC.

No contractor support dollars will be expended.

i l

Lead Office Staff and Staff From Supportina Offices.

J ead Office - Pro.iect Manaaement Concurrina Official RES - Mark Haisfield Bill Morris l

Technical Support Offices l NMSS - Patricia Santiago & Susan Greene Donald Cool OSP - Lloyd Bolling Richard Bangart OGC - Hampton Newsome Francis X. Cameron Steerina Group.

No steering group will be used on this rulemaking. The working group is identified above.

Enhanced Public Participation.  !

This rulemaking will use the NRC electronic bulletir board at FedWorld.

The bulletin board was used, and will be used, as a mechanism to (.nhance 1

4 l l

i

..--n...-.-..-._,_~-

o .

O public- and Agreement State dialogue prior to submittal of documents to the ED0 for approval. FedWorld allows users to review comments and questions ,

submitted by others and also provides a mechanism for NRC to respond  !

electronically, where appropriate.- This rulemaking plan was placed at  !

FedWorld at the time it was sent out for office level concurrence. The plan  !

originally allowed for 30 days to comment, and at the request of the OSP, was -

extended an additional 30 days to allow for additional Agreement State input.

This plan has been modified as a result of Agreement State coments. The .

draft proposed rule will also be placed on FedWorld to enhance input from the l public and Agreement States.

1 EDO or Commission Issuance.  !

It is recommended that the EDO issue the proposed and final rule. The  !

Commission has directed the staff to clarify and promulgate more definitive requirements on the handling of reciprocity matters for Agreement State '

licensee activities in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction. This action implements the Commission's request, does not constitute a significant question of policy, and falls within the ED0's authority. If significant i policy issues are raised during the public comment period, a SECY Paper will  :

be prepared for the final rule.

Schedules.

Approval by the EDO of the Rulemaking Plan to initiate rulemaking (includes Agreement State and other i input via Bulletin Board) February 1996  ;

Proposed rulemaking package for Office concurrence  ;

(Agreement States will get via Bulletin Board) April 1996 l Proposed rulemaking package to the EDO June 1996 Proposed rule published (60 day comment period) July 1996 Final rule published December 1996 5

i

_ Action: Morrison, RES f#g, no"%:N UNITED STATES Cys: Taylor ~

8" U

'n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Milhoan Thompson WASHIN GTON,0.C. 20555

'i ' *E Blaha e 8 Paperiello, NMSS 4 ,***** p February 9, 1996 Bangart, SP crrice or THe Lieberman, OE SECRETARY Haisfield, RES MEMORANDUM TO: James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations FROM: ( o n C. Hoyle, Secretary

SUBJECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-95-310 - CHANGES TO 10 CFR 150.20, RECOGNITION OF AGREEMENT STATE LICENSES This is to advise you that the Commission (Chairman Jackson, exercising delegated authority pursuant to a delegation from the Commis sion* , in accordance with NRC Reorganization Plan No . 1 of 1980) has not objected to the Rulemaking Plan to amend 10 CFR 150.20. (RES) 9500039 cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers OGC OCA OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)

This decision was made after consultation with Commissioner Rogers, who has not indicated an objection to this negative consent item.

SECY NOTE: THIS SRM AND SECY-95-310 WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 5 WORKIFG DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.

. .-,? ~ , ,,

~

~ Llf ' (f J L/ '

w