Text

NRC Regulatory Agenda.Quarterly Report,April-June 1982
	ML20062N096
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/31/1982
From:	; NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	;
References
	NUREG-0936, NUREG-0936-V01-N02, NUREG-936, NUREG-936-V1-N2, NUDOCS 8208230002
	Download: ML20062N096 (197)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:, NUREG-0936 Vol.1, No. 2 l l NRC Regulatory Agenda l l Quarterly Report l April-June 1982 1 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration ,p%,, Y l 82o8gggo2 820731 ~~ p 0936 R PDR

NOTICE Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources:

1. The NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20555

2. The NRC/GPO Sales Program, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555

3. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications, it is not intended to be exhaustive.

Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Docu-l ment Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC rnemoranda; N RC Office of Inspection and Enforcement bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation notices; Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and licensee documents and correspondence. The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the NRC/GPO Sales Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceedings, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances. Documents available from the National Technical Information Service include NUREG series reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federal and state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries. Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations,and non-NRC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsor %g the publication cited. Single copies of NRC draft reports are available free upon written request to the Division of Tech-nical information and Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, and are available there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the American National Standards Institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018. GPO Printed c.opy price: $7.50 i.

i l NUREG-0936 Vol.1, No. 2 i NRC Regulatory Agenda I Quarterly Report l April-June 1982 _ L:_ __ L - ~~ Manuscript Completed: July 1982 Date Published: July 1982 l Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington, D.C. 20555 p ~ ~,,, [ ?{.,f' % [!

$s,,;,, /

NRC Regulatory Agenda - July 1982 The Nuclear Regulatory Comission is issuing the July edition of the Regulatory Agenda. The Regulatory Agenda is a compilation of all rules on which the NRC has proposed or is considering action and all petitions for rulemaking which 4 have been received by the Comission and are pending disposition by the Comission. The Regulatory Agenda is updated and issued each quarter, but, unlike the agenda for April, this edition will not be published in the Federal Register. However, a notice of availability will be published in the Federal Register. The agenda consists of two sections. Section I entitled " Rules" includes: (A) Rules on which final action has been taken since April 9, 1982, the cutoff date of the last Regulatory Agenda, (B) Rules published previously as proposed rules and on which the Lommission has not taken final action, (C) Rules pub-lished as advance notices of proposed rulemaking and for which neither a proposed nor final rule has been issued; and (D) Unpublished rules on which the NRC expects to take action. Section II entitled " Petitions for Rulemaking" includes: (A) Petitions incor-porated into final rules or petitions denied since April 9,1982, (B) Petitions incorporated into proposed rules, (C) Petitions pending staff review, and (D) Petitions with deferred action. In Section I of the Agenda, the rules are ordered from lowest to highest 10 CFR part, and when more than~one rule appears under the same part, the rules are arranged within the part by date of most-recent publication. If a rule contains changes to multiple parts, the rule is listed under the lowest' affected part. In Section II of the Agenda, the petitions are, ordered from lowest to

). highest CFR part and are identified with a petition for rulemaking (PRM) number. When more than one petition appears under the same CFR part, the petitions are arranged by PRM numbers in consecutive order within the CFR part. The status and information included in Sections I and II of this agenda have been updated through June 30, 1982. The date, included under the heading " timetable," for scheduled action by the Commission or the Executive Director for Operations (E00) on particular rules or petitions are considered tentative and are not binding on the Commission or its staff and are included for planning purposes only. This Regulatory Agenda is intended to provide increased notice and public participation in the rulemaking proceedings included on the Agenda. The NRC may, however, consider or act on any rulemaking proceeding even if it is not included in this Regulatory Agenda. Those rulemaking entries in Section I of the Agenda which may have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), are indicated by an asterisk (*)- by the title of the rule. The-Regulatory Flexibility Act was enacted to encourage Federal agencies to consider, consistent with their enabling.legisla-tion, regulatory and informational requirements appropriate to the sizes of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regula-tions. In the case of the NRC, for example, the Act requires the NRC to consider modifying or tiering those rules which have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities in a way which considers the particular needs of small businesses or other small entities,~ while at.the same time assuring that the public health and safety and the coninon defense and security are adequately protected. The Act requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any proposed rule issued after January 1,1981

! (or final rule for which a proposed rule was issued after January 1,1981) if the rule will have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of \\ small entities. If the rule will not have this impact, the head of the agency must certify in the rule that the analysis need n'ot be prepared. Section I of the Agenda contains six rules completed during the previous quarter; fifteen rules that appear on the agenda for the first time that are identified by the symbol " + " at the end of the title; eight rules that may have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354) that are identified l by an asterisk (*); and no major rules as defined in Section 1(b) of Executive Order 12291, 1 Comments on any rule in the agenda may be sent to the Secretary of the Comission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. Coments may also be hand delivered to Room 1131, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC between 8:15 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. Comments received on rules for which the comment period has closed will be considered if it is practihal to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before the closure-dates specified in the agenda. The agenaa and any comments received.on any rule listed on the' agenda are available for public inspection, and copying at a cost of five cents pe,r page, at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC.

i l i For further information concerning NRC rulemaking procedures or the status of any rule listed in this agenda, contact John D. Philips, Chief, Rules and Procedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone (301) 492-7086, persons outside the Washington, DC metropolitan area may call toll-free: 800-368-5642. For further information on the substantive content of any rule listed in the agenda, contact the individual listed under the heading " contact" for that rule. \\ j I 1 s.

r.

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I - RULES (A) - Action Completed Rules Page Number 1. Codification of Regulatory Guide 8.15 (Part 20). 2. Regional Licensing Program (Part 30).t 3. Group Licensing for Certain Medical Uses; Succimer (Part 35).t 4. Emergency Planning for Research and Test Reactors (Part 50). 5. Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electric Equipment; Interim Final Rule (Part 50), t 6. Physical Protection of In-transit Special Nuclear Material of Moderate Strategic Significance (Part 73). (B) - Proposed Rules 7. Ex Parte Communications and Separation of Adjudicatory and Non-Adjudicatory Funct. ions (Part 0). 8. Procedures Involving the Equal Access to Justice Act: Implementation (Part 1). 9 Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions (Part 2) 10. Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures for Environmental Protection; Alternative Site Reviews (Part 2).

11. Possible Amendments to the "Immediate Effectiveness" Rt:le in Construction Permit Proceedings (Part 2).

12. Modifications to the NRC Hearing Process (Limited Interrogatories and Factual Basis for Contentions) (Part 2).

13. Age Ciscrimination (Part 4).

14. Criteria and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access-to Restricted Data or National Security Information (Part 10). 15. Lower Radiation Exposure Levels for Fertile Women (Part.19). 16. Changes in Radiation Dose-Limiting Standards (Part 19), i

Page Number 17. Protection of Employees Who Provide Information (Part 19).

18. Transuranic Waste Disposal (Part 20).

19. Irretrievable Well-Logging Sources (Part 30). 20. Exemption of Technetium 99 and Low-Enriched Uranium as Residual Contamination in Smelted Alloys (Part 30). 21. Institutional Radiation Safety Committee (Part 35). 22. Patient Dosage Measurement (Part 35). 23. Physician's Use of Radioactive Drugs (Part 35). +

24. Teletherapy Room Radiation Monitors (Part 35).

25. General Design Criteria for Fuel Reprocessing Plants (Part 50).

26. Fracture Toughness Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors (Part 50). TMI-Related Licensing) Requirements for Pending Operating License 27. Applications (Part 50. 28. Reporting of Changes to the Quality Assurance Program (Part 50).

29. Safeguards Requirements for Nonpower Reactor Facilities Authorized to Possess Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material (Part 50).

30. Anticipated Transients Without Scram (ATWS) (Part 50). 31. Low-Power Emergercy Planning and Preparedness (Part 50). 32. Emergency Planning and Preparedness; Exercises Required for Low-Power Operation (Part 50). 33. Immediate Notification Requirement for Operating Nuclear Reactors l (Part 50). l 34 Interiin Requirements Related to Hydrogen Control (Part 50), l l 35. Env f ronmental Qualification of Electric Equipment for Nuclear Power Plants (Part 50). 36. Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (Summer 1981) (Part 50). i i ii

Page Number

37. Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Reactors (Part 50).

38. Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (Part 50).t 39. Licensee Event Report System (Part 50). 40. Explanation to Table S-3 Uranium Fuel Cycle, Environmental Data (Part 51). 41. Disposal of High-level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories (Part 60). 42. Licensin Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste * (Part 61.

43. Transportation of Radioactive Material - Compatibility with IAEA Regulations (Part 71).

44. Packaging of Radioactive Material for Transport and Transportation of Radioactive Material Under Certain Conditions (Part 71). 45. General License for Shipment in Packages Approved for Use by Another Person (Part 71).

46. Miscellaneous Amendments Concerning Physical Protection of Nuclear Power Plants (Part of Insider Rule Package) (Part 73).

47. Searches of Individuals at Power Reactor Facilities (Part of Insider Rule Package) (Part 73).

(C) - Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking 48. Standards for Protection Against Radiation * (Part 20). 49. Performance Testing of Personnel Dosimetry (Part 20). 50. Decommbsioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities * (Part 30).

51. Upgraded Emer5ency Preparedness Proceduros for Certain Fuel Cycle and Materials Licensees * (Part 30).

52. Design of Radiographic Exposure Devices (Part 34). 53. Certification of Industrial Radiographers (Part 34).

54. Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants (Part 50).

55. Mandatory P.*operty Insurance for Decontaminatinn of Nuclear Facilities (Part 50). +

iii

J Page Number 56. Storage and Disposal of Nuclear Waste (Part 50). 57 Modification of the Policy and Regulatory Practice Governing the Siting of Nuclear Power Reactors (Part 50).

58. Severe Accident Design Criteria (Part 50).

59. Design and Other Changes in Nuclear Power Plant Facilities After Issuance of Construction Permit (Part 50).

60. Material Control and Accounting Requirements for Faciliti3s Possessing Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material (Part 70).

61. Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants (Part 100). (D) - Unpublished Rules 62. Reassignment of Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances Preparation Responsibility (Part 1).+ 63. Jurisdiction of Adjudicatory Boards (Part 1). 64 Rules of Practice - Appeals from Intervention Rulings and Objections to Special Prehearing Conference Orders (Part 2).

65. Management of Discovery (Part 2).

66. Commission Review Procedures for Power Reactor Operating Licenses; Immediate Effectiveness Rule (Part 2), t ~

67. Authority to Issue Notices of Violation to Non Licensees and Delegation of Authority to Regional Administrators (Part 2), t 68.

Executive Order 12356, " National Security Information", Impicmentation (Part 2). + 69. Criteria for Notice and Public Comment and Procedures for State Consultation on License Amendments Involving No Significant Hazards Consideration (Part' 2). /0. Standards for Determining Whether License Amendments Involve No Significant Hazards Consideration (Part 2). 71. Interim Operating Licenses (Part 2). 72. Clarification of Inspection Procedures (Part 19). iv

Page Number 73. Reports of Theft or Loss of Licensed Material (Part 20). 74 Occupational ALARA Rule (Part 20).

75. Monitoring of Packages Containing Radioactive Materials Upon Receipt by Licensees (Part 20).

~' 76. Radiation Protection Instrument Test and Calibration (Part 20). 77. Performance Testing for Health Physics Survey Instruments * (Part 20). 78. Performance Testing for Bioassay I. abs (Part 20). 79. Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance * (Part 21).

80. Access to and Protection of National Security Information and Restricted Data (Part 25).

81. Clarified Requirements for Terminating a License (Part 30). ~ 82. Periodic and Systematic Reevaluation of Parts 30 and 32 (Part 30). 83. Consumer Products Containing Small Quantities of Radioactive Material; Modified Approval Transfer Reporting Requirements (Part 32).+

84. Medical Licenses for Human Use of Byproduct Material (Part 35).

85. Misadministration of Radioactive Material; Proposed Removal of Reporting Requirements (Part 35).

86. Applicability of Technical Facility License Conditions and Specifications in an Emergency (Part 50).

87 Fitness for Duty of Personnel with Unescorted Access to Vital or Protected Areas of Nucicar Power Plants (Part 50). 88. Filing of Controlled Copies of Emergency Plans (Part 50). 89. Laboratory Accreditation Program * (Part 50).

90. Applicability of Appendix B to Appendix A (Part 50).

91. Fire Protection for Future Plants (Part 50). 92. Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors (Part 50), v 1

Page Number

93. Shift Staffing at Nuclear Power Plants (Part 50).

94. Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (Winter 1981)

(Part 50).

95. Extension of Criminal Penalties (Part 50).+

96. Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (Summer 1982)

(Part 50). 97. Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (Winter 1982) (Part 50). 98. Emergency Preparedness Reporting Requirements (Part 50). 99 Reportin of Significant Design and Construction Deficiencies (Part 50. 100. List of Required Emergency Response Facilities and Associated Implementation Dates (Part 50). 101. Licensing Requirements for Pending Operating License Applications; Clarification of and Supplement to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Part 50). 102. Radon Emissions Estimate for Table S-3 (Part 50). 103 Operator Qualification and Licensing (Part 50). 104. Regional Licensing Reviews (Part 50). + 105. Personnel Access Authorization Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants (Part 50). 106. Qualification of Mechanical Equipment (Part 50). 107. Material Control and Accounting Requirements for Low Enriched Uranium Fuel Cycle Facilities (Part 70). 108. Safeguards Requirements for Licensees Authorized to Possess SNM of Moderate or Low Strategic Significance (Part 70). 109. Medical Standards for Employment of Security Personnel (Part 73). 110. Advance Notification of SNM Shipments (Part 73). 111. Patents (Part 81). vi

Page Number 112. Export of Australian Origin-Nuclear Material and Equipment (Part 110).+ 113. Export / Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material (Part 110). 114. Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements (Part 140), 115. Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (Part 140), 116. Changes in Nuclear Energy Liability Insurance Policies (Part 140).+ 117. Revision of License Fee Schedules (Part 170).* SECTION II - PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING (A) - Petitions incorporated into final rules or petitions denied since April 9,1982 118. Registration, Licensing, and Control of Individual Radiographers (PRM-34-2). (B) - Petitions incorporated into proposed rules 119. Shallow Land Disposal of low-level Radioactive Waste (PRM-20-7). 120. Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-50-22). 121. Anticipated Transients Without Scram (ATWS) (PRM-50-29). 122. Exemption of " Low Specific Activity Material" from the Requirements of Part 71 (PRM-71-1, PRM-71-2, PRM-71-4). 123. Addition of Lead-201 to Transport Group IV (PRM-71-3). (C) - Petitions pending staff review 124. Radiation Standards for Uses of Byproduct Material (PRM-30-55). 125. Radioactive Material From Environmental Sources (PRM-30-58). 125. Physician's Use of Radioactive Drugs (PRM-35-1). 127. Licensing the Possession of Uranium Mill Tailings at Inactive Storage Sites (PRM-40-23). 128. Safety and Licensing Requirements (PRM-50-10). vii

Page Number 129. Plant Security Information (PRM-50-21). 130. Objects Falling From Earth Orbit (PRM-50-24). 131. Extension of Construction Completion Date (PRM-50-25, PRM-50-25A). 132. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for High Burnup Nuclear Fuel (PRM-51-6). 133. Exemption of Radiographers from Documentation Requirements for Delivering Licensed Material (PRM-71-8). 134. Modification of Qualifications for Security Personnel of Nuclear Power Plants and Other Special Nuclear Material Licensees (PRM-73-6). 135. Elimination of Required Log Out of Personnel from Vital Areas of Nuclear Power Reactors (PRM-73-7). 136. Elimination of Required Search of Hand-Carried Packages of Personnel at Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-73-8). 137. Modification of Classification Guide for Safeguards Information ( PRM-95-1 ). 138. Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (PRM-140-1). (D) - Petitions with deferred action 139. Separate Operating License Hearings for Indivdual Reactor Units at Multi-Unit Sites (PRM-2-ll). 140. Radiation Protection Standards (PRM-20-6). 141. Standards for Protection Against Radiation (PRM-20-6A). 142. Certification of-Health Physics Personnel (PRM-20-13). 143. Intervals Between Required Dosimetry System Calibrations -(PRM-35-2). 144. No Significant Hazards Consideration (PRM-50-17). 145. Reactor Safety Measures -(PRM-50-20). l 146. Emergency Preparedness (PRM-50-31). viii 1

Pags Number 147. Protection Against the Effects of Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) (PRM-50-32). 148. Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle (PRM-51-1). 149. Air Transport of Plutonium (PRM-70-6). 150. Emergency Planning and Response for Transportat, ion Accidents Involving Radioactive Materials (PRM-71-6). 151. Elimination of " Pat Down" Physical Searches of Individuals at Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-73-2). 152. Physical Security Requirements at Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-73-3), 153. Population Density Criteria Near Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-100-2). iX-

SECTION I - RULES (A) - Action Completed Rules

PART: 20 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): fione FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: April 15,1982 (47 FR 16162)

Description. The final rule provides an extension of time for licensees authorized to operate a research or test reactor to submit emergency plans to the NRC for approval. The compliance period was extended because of time required to reconcile inconsistencies between the regulation and published guidance. Objective. To provide affected licensees with an extension of time for submitting emergency. plans that meet emergency planning and preparedness requirements. Background. The proposed rule was published December 31, 1981 (46 FR 63315). The comment period closed ~ February 1,1982. The Commission upgraded emergency planning regulations in a final rule on August 19,1980 (45 FR 55402). The criter.ia contained in Regulatory Guide 2.6, which was referenced 'in the final rule as guidance criteria for research'and test licensees to use in establishing adequate emergency' plans, was not consistent with the requirements of the final ' rule. The date for compliance with the emergency planning rule was extended to allow additional tiac for licensees to submit emergency pians that meet the requirements of the rule. Regulatory Guide 2.6 is also being revised to conform to the requirements of the rule. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2233, 5842, 5846. TIMETABLE: Action completed. CONTACT: Kenneth E. Perkins Office of Inspection and: Enforcement (301) 492-7361 a PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: June 30,1982 (47 FR 28363)

SUBJECT:

Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electric t Equipment; Interim Final Rule

Description. The proposed rule would provide procedures and performance criteria for reviewing alternative sites for nuclear power plants under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The proposal is intended to stabilize alternative site reviews of a license application by codification of the lessons learned in past and recent reviews of nuclear power plant sites into an environmentally sensitive rule. The proposed rule would focus on six major issues associated with alternative site selection: (1) information requirements, ('2) timing, (3) region of interest, (4) selection of candidate sites, (5) comparison of the proposed site with alternate sites, and (6) reopening of the alternative site decision. The proposal is intended to be a comprehensive rule that will promote public understanding of and participation in the alternative site review process. Objective. To develop understandable written NRC review and decision-making criteria that provide necessary protection. of important environmental qualities while reasonably restricting the consideration of alternatives to permit a rational and timely decision concerning the sufficiency of the alternative site analysis. Background. The comment period closed June 9,1980. The majority of the 27 comment letters supported the rulemaking but suggested improvements in the form of clarification or minor substantive-changes. On May 28,1981 (46 FR 28631), the Commission published a final rule on the issue of reopening the alternative site question after a favorable decision at construction permit or early site review stages. The staff is ~ i developing the remainder of the rule. Comments and suggestions received in response to Supplement No. I to NUREG-0499 and a Commission Workshop on alternative siting were considered in-developing.the proposed rule. NEPA requires the study and de.velopment of alternatives to any major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of-the human environment. Until recently the NRC did not initiate:an extensive review of the applicant's site selection process unless substantial inadequacies were ident.ified at the proposed site. The proposed rule reflects.NRC's expanded review of the applicant's site-- selection process and the detailed investigation of alternative'. sites. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2201, 4332, 5841. _10_-

TZMETABLE: Commission action on the final rule is scheduled for August 1982. CONTACT: William Ott clear Regulatory Research (301) 427-4078 l i -10a-

PART: 2 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): 50 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: May 22,1980 (45 FR 34279)

SUBJECT:

Possible Amendments to the "Immediate Effectiveness" Rule in Construction Permit Proceedings

SUMMARY

Description. The proposed rule indicates that the Commission is considering alternative amendments to the "immediate effectiveness" rule for construction permit proceedings and is also considering retaining this rule unchanged. Under the "immediate effectiveness" rule, construction of a nuclear power plant could begin on the basis of an initial decision by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) even though that decision is subject to further review by the Commission. The Commission is concerned that the rule often prevented it from reviewing a case until construction was well underway and that this might have adversely affect either the quality of the decision-making process or the public perception of it. Objective. To determine, through rulemaking, if NRC should permit construction on a nuclear power plant to begin on the basis of an initial decision by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) even though that decision is subject to further review within the Commission. Background. The comment period closed July 7,1980. A majority of the 15 comments received favor retaining the rule with little or no change. NUREG-0646 presented a. study of the effects of construction during adjudication. The staff is developing a final rule. The rule is presently suspended to allow for Commission review of construction permits prior to issuance. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2201, 5841. l TIMETABLE: Commission action on the final rule is scheduled for j August 1982. l CONTACT: Richard Parrish Office of the General Counsel (202) 634-3224 PART: 2 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: June 8,1981 (46 FR 30349)

SUBJECT:

Modifications to the NRC Hearing Process (Limited Interrogatories and Factual Basis for Contentions)

SUMMARY

Description. The proposed rule would facilitate expedited conduct of NRC adjudicatory proceedings by requiring intervenors in formal NRC hearings to set forth the facts on which contentions d

Description. The proposed rule would eliminate the accumulated dose averaging formula and the associated Form NRC-4, Exposure History, and impose annual dose-limiting standards while retaining quarterly standards. The proposed rule was published because of the desire of the Commission to reduce the risks of occupational radiation doses in Commission-licensed activities, the Commission's continuing systematic assessment of exposure patterns, and new recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection for controlling radiation dose. In preparing the proposed rule, the Commission has also taken into account recently published interpretations of epidemiological data and associated recommendations for lower dose standards as well as petitions for rulemaking to lower dose standards, PRM-20-6 and PRM-20-6A ('see Agenda Item Nos.140 and141.J. Objective. The Commission believes'that the changes contained in the proposed rule would benefit workers by increasing radiation protection for them. These changes should also encourage some NRC licensees to take further action to reduce occupational radiation doses. In addition to the imposition of annual dose-limiting standards, the proposed rule contains provisions which would express, in terms of new annual standards, the standard for dose to minors, the requirement for provision of personnel monitoring equipment, and the requirement for control of total dose to all workers including transient and moonlighting workers. Background. The comment period closed April 23, 1979. Eighty-three comments were received. Forty-seven of the comments opposed the rule on the grounds that the Commission should permit doses greater than 5 rem /yr under unusual circumstances. A final rule will be developed after joint EPA /0SHA/NRC hearings on Federal guidance for occupational radiation protection, and l as part of the comprehensive revision of 10 CFR Part 20 (see Agenda Item No. 48 ). Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2111, 2201. TIMETABLE: This rule will be incorporated into the comprehensive revision to 10 CFR Par't 20, scheduled to be issut i as a proposed rule in December 1982. CONTACT: Walter S. Cool Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 427-4579 PART: 19 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): 30, 40, 50, 70, 71, 150 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: March 10,1980 (45 FR 15184)

SUBJECT:

Protection of Employees Who Provide Information

SUMMARY

Description. The proposed rule would clarify the protection given to employees of licensees, permittees, applicants, and their contractors and subcontractors who provide information to the NRC. This proposed rule is in response to section 10 of Public Law 95-601, which amended the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 by adding a new 5210, " Employee Protection." This new section identifies specific acts of employees as protected activities and prohibits employers from discriminating against employees who engage in these activities, provides the Department of Labor with new authority to investigate an alleged act of discrimination, and provides a remedy to the discrimination by means of an administrative proceeding in the Department of Labor. The proposed rule would (1) change the types of information to include not only information on radiological working conditions but also information on antitrust, safety, and security matters, (2) make the employee protection provisions applicable not only to licensees but also to permittees, applicants, and their contractors and subcontractors, (3J make employers aware that discrimination against employees who provide this information to the NRC is prohibited, (4) make employees aware that if this discrimination is believed to have occurred, a recourse for remedy is available through the Department of Labor, and (5) require posting on premises of licensees, permittees, and l

Teletherapy Room Radiation Monitors

SUMMARY

Description. The proposed rule would codify existing licensing orders and conditions that require installation of radiation monitors in licensed teletherapy rooms, the use of portable survey meters when monitors are inoperable, and the performance of inspection and servicing of safety related teletherapy components. ' The proposed rule would provide warning of potential teletherapy unit malfunctions and resultant patient / operator overexposures. Further, the proposed rule would replace repetitive individual license conditions with a single regulation. Finally, inspection and servicing requirements would be required of teletherapy licensecs. Objective. To make less likely, and provide warning of, teletherapy unit malfunctions which could result in unshielded sources. 'To further prevent potentially serious patic rt and operator overexposures. Background. The comment period closed June 28, 1982. Teletherapy is the use of gamma radiation, usually from cobalt sources in large doses, to treat diseases. The NRC became aware of several teletherapy unit malfunctions that had the potential of causing serious overexposures through reports from the Bureau of Radiological Health and voluntary reports from licensees. In May.1980, the NRC issued an order amending all teletherapy licenses to require the installation of radiation monitors. The initial draft of the proposed rule and the accompanying value/ impact statement was completed September 1981. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 5841. i i TIMETABLE: Commission action on the final is scheduled for September 1982. CONTACT: Alan K. Roecklein Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-5970 1 1 ! l

l l PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: July 18,1974 (39 FR 26293) SU3 JECT: General Design Criteria for Fuel Reprocessing Plants

SUMMARY

Description. The proposed rule would astablish general criteria for designing fuel reprocessing plant:. The general criteria contains the minimum requirements that an applicant must use in the selection of a principal design criteria for a fuel reprocessing plant. The principal criteria would establish design fabrication, construction, testing, and performance requirements for struct en, systems, and components important to the safety of the facili.f. Objective. To provide reasonable assurance that fuel reprocessing plants can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. Background. This proposed rule was indefinitely deferred based on the Carter administration's policy that commercial reactor fuel will not be reprocessed. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2233. TIMETABLE: Commission action on this proposed rule is unscheduled. CONTACT: Charles W. Nilsen Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-5910.

PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGIS1ER CITATION: November 14, 1980 (45 FR 75536)

SUBJECT:

Fracture Toughness Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors

SUMMARY

Descriptien. The proposed rule would update existing fracture toughness requirements for the reactor coolant pressure boundary of light-water nuclear power reactors. The proposed rule is needed to clarify the applicability of the fracture toughness requirements to old and new plants, modify certain requirements of Appendices G and H to 10 CFR Part 50, and simplify these regulations by replacing technical detail with references to appropriate ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code provisions. Objective. To update existing requirements to be more consistent with current technology and pertinent national standards (ASME Code). Background. The comment period closed January 13, 1981. Thirteen comments were received. Several comments received from utilities sought more clarification or relief from the proposed requirements. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201, 5841. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the final rule is scheduled for July 1982. CONTACT: Neil Randall Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-5904 1 PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: May 13,1981 (46 FR 26491)

SUBJECT:

TMI-Related Licensing Requirements for Pending Operating License Applications 1

SUMMARY

Description. The proposed rule would add new requirements to power reactor safety regulations applicable only to operating license applications.

The proposed rule, as part of NRC's efforts to apply the lessons learned from the accident at Three Mile Island to power plant ifcensing, would add the i basic requirements contained in NUREG-0737 which address the problems of design deficiencies, equipment failure, and human error. Objective. To codify the requirements of-NUREG-0737 " Clarification of TMI-Action Plan Requirements" into the Commission's regulations applicable to operating license applications. Background. The original comment period closed August 12, 1981. Most of the 50 comments received opposed the proposed rule. The proposed rule advised the public that the Commission was considering the issuance of a similar rule that would incorporate NUREG-0737 requirements into its regulations- ^ applicable to operating reactors. However, at a meeting held August 12, 1981, the Commission determined that a proposed rule for operating reactors should not be issued, and requested instead an approach with a substantially reduced ~ scope that would increase flexibility and permit more detailed consideration. On November 2,1981, the Commission published a notice in the. Federal Register (46 FR 54378) which extended'the comment-period on the proposed rule to November'30,1981 .Two additional ~ comments were received. These comments and the comments made by the ACRS during the October 27, 1981 briefing have been considered in the development of the' draft final rule. The draft final rule will be reviewed by the CRGR and -the ACRS l in July 1982. l Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2233, 5842, j 5846. TIMETABLE: Commission action on a draft final rule is scheduled for-- Aug.st 1982. CONTACT: David M. Verrelli Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (301) 492-8434 j -

i PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: July 2,1981 (46 FR 34595)

SUBJECT:

Reporting of Changes to the Quality Assurance Program

SUMMARY

Description.

The proposed rule would require holders of nuclear power plant construction permits and operating licenses to implement their approved quality assurance programs. The proposal would also require the permit holders and licensees to inform the Commission in writing within 30 days of certain program changes which affect the description of the quality assurance program included in their Safety Analysis Report and accepted by the Commission. Because existing regulations do not require that changes to the accepted quality assurance program be reported to the Commission, some licensees have changed their quality assurance' programs without informing the Commission. Objective. To ensure that quality assurance programs which are approved by the Commission do not have their effectiveness reduced by subsequent changes thereby increasing the risk to ~ public health and safety. Background. The comment period closed September 8,1981. Thirty-one comments were received. The comments were equally divided in their opposition to and support of the proposal. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201, 5841. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the final rule is scheduled-for July 1982. CONTACT: William Belke Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-5942

l f

PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): 70, 73 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: September 18, 1981 (46 FR 46333)

SUBJECT:

Safeguards Requirements for Nonpower Reactor Facilities Authorized to Possess Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material

SUMMARY

Description.

The proposed rule would (stablish additional physical security requirements for nonpower reactor licensees who possess five formula kilograms or more of strategic special nuclear material (primarily uranium-235 contained in high-enriched uranium (HEU)). The staff is considering a performance-oriented regulatory approach which would give affected licensees flexibility in designing cost-effective measures for implementing the requirments of the final rule. The staff believes that performance-oriented criteria would allow licensees to take advantage of existing facility design features. The proposed amendments would replace the currently effective interim requirements in 573.60 of 10 CFR Part 70 which were published in the Federal Register on November 28,1979 (44 FR 68199). Objective. To provide protection for nonpower reactor licensees authorized to possess formula quantities of SSNM against an insider threat and to require a response by local law enforcement agencies in time to prevent a theft of a formula quantity of SSNM. Background. The comment period closed on February 15, 1982. Twelve comments were received. Eleven of the comments were from industry and raised questions on several aspects of '.he rule. One public interest commenter felt the proposed ru'ie was too weak. The rule is.being revised based on the comments. 2 Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2133, 2134, 2152, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2273, 5841, 5842, 5846. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the final rule is scheduled for January 1983. CONTACT: Robert J. Dube Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards I (301) 427-4040 - _ _ _

PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: November 24, 1981 (46 FR 57521)

SUBJECT:

Anticipated Transients Without Scram (ATWS) SUtdARY: Description. The proposed rule presents two of three alternative regulatory programs designed to reduce the risk posed by accidents involving anticipated transients without scram (ATWS) events under consideration by the Commission. The third alternative is set out in a petition for rulemaking (see Agenda Item No.121) filed by twenty utilities (Electric Utilities Petition, PRil-50-29, published November'4,1980; 45 FR 73080, and a supplement to.the petition published' February 3,1981; 46 FR 10501). An ATWS event occurs when'a nuclear ~ rector's shut down (" scram") system fails to function following a fault (transient event) in the reactor's normal heat dissipation function. A possible outcome of some ATWS accident sequences is the development of a mismatch between the power generated in the reactor and the controlled dissipation of that powe.r. This power mismatch can threaten the integrity of the barriers that confine the fission products. A core meltdown accident, in some cases accompanied by a failure of containment and a very large release of radioactivity, is a possible outcome of some ATWS accident scenarios. Thus, the Commission has determined that the consequences of some postulated ATWS accidents are unacceptable and has developed this proposed rule to address this important safety issue through rulemaking. Objective. To limit the likelihood and severity of a release = of radioactivity to the environment as a result of an anticipated transient without scram event. Background. The Commission believes that the likelihood of severe consequences arising from an ATWS event during the two to four. year period required to implement a rule is' acceptably small. This judgme'nt is based on.(a) the favorable ' experience with operating reactors, (b) the limited number of operating nuclear power reactors, (c) the inherent capability of some operating Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs J~ to ' parti 111y or fully mitigate the consequences of ATWS events, (~ T the partial d capability of the recirculation pump trip @ feature-that has been added to all Boiling Water' Reactors' WRsJ of high power level to mitigate ATWS events, and (eJ'the' interim steps taken to develop procedures and train-operators to further reduce the risk from some ATWS events. The implementation schedule contained in the proposed rule balances the need for careful analysis and plant modifications with-the desire to carry out-the objectives of.the rule as soon as possible.. Lecal Basis.

42. U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232', 2233, 5842, 5846..

g.___.-_._. i TIMETABLE: The final rule is scheduled for Commission action in' I late 1983. i CONTACT: David Pyatt Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research i (301) 443-5960 3 4 } 4 i l ) i I i 9 s i i t i 1 I i t i i t 4 I I i I 30a-4 J ,~,.--_--.,,,,w e m._,-m.m.--.%_ .-.m., ..-I~. + ~

PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: December 15,1981 (46 FR 61132)

SUBJECT:

Low-Power Emergency Planning and Preparedness

SUMMARY

Description.

The proposed rule would provide that for the issuance of an operating license authorizing only fuel loading and low-power operation (up to 5% of rated power), findings and determinations on the state of off-site emergency preparedness will not be necessary beyond an assessment of those aspects of an applicant's emergency plan which involve off-site elements. Objective. To clarify and codify the Commission's position that the emergency preparedness requirements for a_ low-power license need not be as extensive as those requirements for a full-power operating license. Background. The comment period closed February 12, 1982. The rule would amend the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 to reflect the NRC's position as established in informal staff practice applied in low-power licensing reviews. On the basis of the experience gained in emergency preparedness reviews over the last year, the Commission believes that evaluations of the adequacy of off-site emergency preparedness and the capability of off-site response me'chanisms (as measured by the requirements of 5 50.47(a) and (b) and Appendix E of 10 CFR Part 50) are not necessary prior to issuing a low-power license. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2239. TIMETABLE: Commission approved the final rule on June 11, 1982. CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-5942 2 i PART: 50 t OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None i FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: December 15, 1981 (46 FR 61134)

SUBJECT:

Emergency Planning and Preparedness; Exercises Required for low-Power Operation l

SUMMARY

Description. The proposed rule would clarify that full-scale l emergency preparedness exercises are part*of the operational inspection process and are required prior to operation above l 5% of rated power but not for a Licensing Board, Appeal Board, or Commission licensing decision. However, the proposed rule would provide that prior to license issuance a finding must still be made that there is reasonable assurance that the l emergency plans can be implemented. Objective. To clarify the role which the actual conduct of i emergency preparedness exercises or the actual state of emergency preparedness would play in initial licensing decisions. Background.. The original comment period closed January 4, 1982. In response to requests, the comment period was ext. ended to January 28, 1982. The Commission is considering adoption - of the proposed rule for two reasons. First, making the conduct of a full-scale exercise, which includes participation by several Federal, State, and local. agencies as well as the applicant, a prerequisite to license issuance would require that, as a practical matter, the exercises be conducted some months before license issuance so that the exercise results can be factored into the informal prelicensing review process and any pending adjudicatory hearings which are considering relevant emergency planning issues. Recent experience indicates that this could result in the conduct of premature exercises that do not accurately reflect the abilities of the affected i agencies. If the exercises are segregated from the prelicensin'g review, then they can be conducted at a later. time duri.ng the early phase of operation when equipment and procedures 'are fully in place and the exercise will more accurately reflect emergency planning capabilities. Second, the actual state of implementation of emergency plans or state-of emergency preparedness is something that can vary throughout the term of. the license. The nature of HRC's regulatory oversight should be more or less constant throughout the license term, and there should be no special significance attached to the' actual state of implementation j l or preparedness at the time just prior to license. issuance. The important point is that. exercises'should take place early in the plant's lifetime and continue periodicallf during plant operation. ~ l l. l l

Legal Basis: 42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2239, 5842, 5846. TIMETABLE: Commission approved the final rule on June 11,1982. CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-5942 -32a-

1 l PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): fione FEDERAL REGISTER CITATI0ft: December 21, 1981 (46 FR 61894)

SUBJECT:

Immediate fictification Requirement for Operating fluclear Reactors

SUMMARY

Description. The proposed rule would require that every operating license for a nuclear power reactor contain a condition that would require the licensee to notify the Commission as soon as possible and in all cases within one hcur of any significant event; that is, an event that could pose a threat to public health and safety. The proposed rule would also clarify the list of reportable significant events contained in the regulations. The current regulations require licensees to notify f;RC of certain "significant events". The proposed rule responds to the intent of Congress expressed in Section 201 of the fluclear Regulatory Commission Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1980 (Pub. L. 96-295) that the Commission establish specific guidelines for identifying accidents which could result in an unplanned release of radioactivity in excess of allowable limits and require immediate notification of these incidents. Objective. To require that utilization facility licensees immediately notify the Commission of events that could result in an unplanned release of quantities of fission products in excess of allowable limits and to clarify further the types of significant events that must be immediately reported to the flRC. Background. The comment period closed on February 12, 1982. On August 19,1930 (45 FR 55402), f1RC published a final rule on emergency planning that required, among other things, procedures for immediate notification of flRC, state, and local emergency response personnel in certain situations. These situations were discussed in Revision 1 to f;UREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 issued flovember,1980. fiRC experience and 15 comments on the rule establishing the events that must be repprted (issued February 29,1980; 45 FR 13435) indicate that the notification rule requires clarification. The proposed rule responds to the mandate of Section 201 of the Authorization Act and provides the needed clarification. The proposed requirements would provide increased confidence that the public health and safety would be protected in a radiological emergency. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C.~ 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232', 2233, 2239, 5842, 5846. .-u y-w-r.,.%.,_- w,eh4,M 4-.s#. 6 z_a. s--en

E

+e44-4M-2-kgm+-+ kr 4.=44..e-J h+ I mam 2 E4 4ma.4 mh45_-mWma

1dssa,

=,.mur#-AA.r-i]L--.M,.sh--._2-iL .-a :.Ge O bew - = J 4i-- 4 k i I i f ) 4 4e r 1 it. t s t I i. 4 a f i s a 1 bi 4 + N j ) 1 4 4 i,

(

b A -a,. . _. -;~... ,_1..'m, 1-.,.

Description. The proposed rule would reference additional provisions of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code including sections that provide rules for the construction of certain safety systems and it would clarify existing regulations by removing obsolete provisions. The ASME Code sections proposed for incorporation by reference include the requirements for Class 2 Components, which are found in Subsections NC and NCA of the Code, and the requirements for Class 3 Components, which are found in Subsections ND and NCA of the Code.

Description.

Description. The proposed rule would require nuclear power plant licensees to conduct searches of individuals at the entry portals to protected areas of power reactor facilities. The currently effective regulations require, in part, that physical (" pat-down") searches be conducted by licensees of their employees and other persons before their entry into a protected area of a power reactor facility. However, the NRC has extended relief to licensees from the requirement to conduct the physical scarch of regular employees of power reactor facilities while this rulemaking is proceeding. The most recent notice granting a continuation of this relief was published on December 1, 1980 (45 FR 79410). This proposed rule would require searches similar to those used on an interim basis at power reactors prior to November 1,1980. The searches would include the mandatory use of search equipment for all persons and the use of pat-down searches of visitors. Pat-down searches of employees would be required in certain situations. Objective. To standardize the search procedures at the entry portals to protected areas of power reactor facilities. Background. The comment period closed on January 15, 1981. Approximately 30 comments were received, and they were about evenly divided in their support for or opposition to the proposed rule. The staff is considering changes to the proposed rule which, in the final rule, would require utility employees and contractors who have been successfully screened in accordance with the requirements included in the proposed rule entitled " Access Controls to Nuclear Power Plant Vital Areas," published on March 12,1980 (45 FR 15937), to be subject only to random searches using search equipment. All unscreened individuals will be required to be searched using search equipment. Physical (" pat-down") searches would be required only when search equipment is not working properly or when the licensee ' suspects that an individual is attempting to carry into the plant prohibited devices or material. A petition for rulemaking (PRM-73-2) from Wisconsin Electric Power Company, et al., (see Agenda Item No.151), is being held in abeyance pending action on this rule and the ' proposed rule entitled " Miscellaneous Amendments Concerning Physical Protection of Nuclear Power Plants" (see Agenda. Item.No. 46). Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2201, 5841. T f METAb'.E: Commission action on the final rule is scheduled for August 1982. CONTACT: Tom R. Allen Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (301) 427-4010 -47a-

(C) - Advance tiotices of Proposed Rulemaking i

l PART: 20 i OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None J FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: March 20,1980 (45 FR 18023)

SUBJECT:

Standards for Protection Against Radiation *

SUMMARY

Description. The advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeks comments on a proposal to completely revise NRC's standards for protection against radiation (Part 20). This regulation applies to all NRC licensees and establishes standards for protection against radiation hazards under licenses issued by the NRC. The proposed revision reflects a comprehensive and 1 systematic review of Part 20 and incorporates current standards for radiation protection into the revised regulation. Objective. To incorporate developments in radiation protection that have occurred since NRC radiation protection standards were issued in their present form. Background. The comment period on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking closed June 18, 1980. Seventy-one comments were received. Although approximately 90 percent favored the proposal, industry comments generally reflect the view that current radiation protection standards are adequate. The staff is developing a proposed revision of Part 20..Two petitions for rulemaking, PRM-20-6 and PRM-20-6A, addressed issues pertaining to occupational dose li6its. Responses to these petitions will be prepared following Commission action on this revised Part 20 rule (see Agenda Item Nos.140 and 141). Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2201, 2273, 5841, 5842. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the proposed rule is scheduled for December 1982. CONTACT: Robert E. Baker i Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 427-4570 i l

PART: 20 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDE1AL REGISTER CITATION: Marc h 28,1980 (45 FR 20493)

SUMMARY

Description. The advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeks comments on a proposal that would strengthen emergency preparedness requirements for fuel cycle and materials licensees with the potential for accidents involving radioactive materials harmful to public health and safety. This is necessary to ensure that emergency preparedness planning and coordination is sufficient to minimize the danger to public health and safety. Objective. To minimize the danger to public health and safety following an accident involving radioactive materials held by l certain fuel cycle and materials licensees. l Background. One of the lessons learned from the accident at Three Mile Island was that improvements in emergency preparedness planning and coordination for some NRC licensed activities was necessary. Having strengthened requirements for nuclear power reactors, NRC is considering strengthening emergency preparedness s requirements for certain fuel cycle and materials licensees. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2201, 5841. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the proposed rule is scheduled for December 1982. CONTACT: Michael Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (3 01 ) 443-5942 -s1-v r e m-w n--

PART: 34 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Mirch 27,1978 (43 FR 12718)

SUBJECT:

Design of Radiographic Exposure Devices

SUMMARY

Description. The advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeks comment on NRC's undertaking the development of safety design requirements for radiation exposure devices.

The proposed amendments would establish safety requirements for radiographic equipment. Objective. To reduce routine radiation exposures to radiographers and to reduce the number of overexposures to radiography operators and others caused by equipment failure. Background. The comment period closed May 26, 1978. A public hearing was held April 18, 1978. Thirty-three comments were received generally favoring some type of equipment standard. Most users favored the proposal with little reservation.. Manufacturers expressed no consensus on the particular features of radiographic exposure devices that should be regulated. This action will be reassessed in light of parallel efforts aimed at radiographer training and certification. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2201. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the proposed rule is scheduled for December 1982. CONTACT: Donovan A. Smith Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-5825 4 1 Y b

2 PART: 34 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: May 4,1982 (47 FR 19152)

SUBJECT:

Certification of Industrial Radiographers

SUMMARY

Description.

The advance notice of proposed rulemaking would require all individuals who use byproduct material in the conduct of industrial radiography to be certified by a third i party. Radiography licensees account for over 60 percent of the reported overexposures greater than five rems to the whole body. NRC regulations permit industrial radiographers to perform radiography independently. The NRC grants radiography licensees the authority to train and designate individuals competent to act as radiographers. The advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeks comment on a proposal that would enable NRC to verify the effecti:feness of this training, Objective. To assure that all radiographers possess adequate training and experience te operate radiographic equipment safely. Background. The comment period closes September 3,1982. A series of public meetings on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking was announced May 11, 1982 (47 FR 20149) and is now in progress. Notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking on the subject of licensing radiographers was published August 4,1978 (43 FR 34563) (see Agenda Item No. ll8 ). The comment period closed October 3,1978. Eleven comments were received on the petition. The comments generally opposed a licensing program. The petitioner withdrew the' petition 1for rulemaking by letter dated May 10, 1982. The advance notice of proposed rulemaking has been developed to elicit a wider range of response on the proposed action. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093, 2095, ' 2111, 2133, 2134 2201, 2273, 5841, 5842. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the proposed rule is scheduled' for December 1982. CONTACT: James A. Jones Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-5970 4 '

PART: 50 4 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: December 6,1978 (43 FR 57157)

SUBJECT:

Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants

l

SUMMARY

Description.

The advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeks comment on several questions concerning the acceptance criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) in light-water-cooled nuclear power plants. Specifically, some of the questions I to be commented on are: (1) under what circumstances should corrections to ECCS models be used during licensing reviews without necessitating complete reanalysis of a given plant or l an entire group of plants; (2) what would be the impact of the proposed procedure-oriented and certain specific technical rule changes; and (3) how should safety margins be quantified s l and how can acceptable safety margins be specified. The Commission is considering changing certain technical and nontechnical requirements within the existing ECCS rule. The changes would provide improvements to the ECCS rule which would eliminate previous difficulties encountered in applying a l the rule and improve licensing evaluation in the light of i present knowledge while preserving a level of conservatism consistent with that knowledge. Objective. To modify the existing ECCS rule with technical and nontechnical changes. The technical changes would include consideration of new research information. The nontechnical changes would be procedure-oriented and would, among other things, allow for corrections to be made to vendor ECCS analysis codes during the construction review and during construction 4 of the plant. Background. The comment period closed March 5,1979. Twenty-nine comments were received. A majority of the comments favored the rule. Work on the rule has been deferred pending an assessment of the Three Mile Island accident and its impact-on ECCS criteria. In June 1981, representatives of the. General Electric Corporation met with the NRC staff to discuss proposed changes to the rule. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2233. TIMETABLE: Commission action'on the proposed rule is. scheduled for July 1982. CONTACT: Mort Fleishman Office of. Nuclear Regulatory Ressarch (301) 443-5981 i i

l PART: 50 i OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: June 24,1982 (47 FR 27371)

SUBJECT:

Mandatory Property Insurance for Decontamination of Nuclear Facilities +

SUMMARY

Description.

The advance notice of proposed rulemaking requests comments on the Long Report (NUREG-0891) entitled " Nuclear Property Insurance: Status and Outlook." The Commission seeks comments on the issues raised by the Long Report and other issues relating to property insurance for nuclear utilities. Objective. To determine the adequacy of the NRC's property insurance requirements and to seek comments on the feasibility of NRC participation in the regulation of replacement power insurance programs. Background. On March 31, 1982, the NRC published in the Federal Register (47 FR 13750) an interim final rule requiring utility licensees to purchase on-site property insurance to be used for decontamination expenses arising from an accident. The NRC subsequently published a report on property insurance (NUREG-0891) that was prepared by Dr. John D. Long, Professor of Insurance at Indiana University. This report was written as an outgrowth of the Three Mile Island-2 accident after it became apparent that nuclear utilities may need more property insurance than has previously been required. The NRC staff asked Dr. Long to write the report, in part, to answer six pertinent questions regarding nuclear property insurance. The advance notice of proposed rulemaking is seeking a broad range of comments 'from the public. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2201. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the proposed rule is scheduled for December 1982. CONTACT: Robert S. Wood' Office of State Programs (301) 492-9885-

t o

t

SUBJECT:

Design and Other Changes in Nuclear Power Plant Facilities After Issuance of Construction Permit

SUMMARY

Description.

The advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeks comments on a proposal that would define more clearly the limitations on the changes a construction permit holder may make in a facility during construction. The proposal is intended to improve the present licensing process and develop specific descriptions of essential facility features to which a construction permit holder is bound. Objective. To make the procedure for facility licensing more predictable by specifying the information to which a construction permit holder should be bound and controlling the ways a construction permit holder implements NRC criteria. Background. The comment period on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking closed February 9,1981. A majority of the 24 comments received were filed by industry, opposed the proposal, and recommended maintaining current procedures. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2201. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the proposed rule is scheduled for August 1982. CONTACT: G. K. Tomlin Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-5860 o s I 7 4 si

g X g"" i \\.'3 ( '(' 4 A 's ,l g g. y I .) 1 ' '(( ) a 4 k \\ 8 e J, OTh'ER AFFECTED PART(S)': None .t s. ,,g t'MEDEhAtREGISTERCITATION: Septembe/ 10, 1951' (46 FR 45144) I ' ' j 's [ / / 511BJE(.Tp% Material Control and Accourtinp9equirements for Facilities y ?3 h Poss'essing Formula Quantitiepof Strat69 c Special Nuclear 1 -/ Material / 4,i J ,j 3 [>oN

SUMMARY

Descri ption.

The advance notice of prorosed "rulemaking would -- - devise the material control and taccoun. ting (MCLA) regulations i o, p- ',t / that apply to both existing and new fuel processing and fabrication

A_

facilities possessing formula quantities of" strategic special j nucitar material (SSNM). These proposed regulations are / N* j current!hbeing considered for application to' future spent / s fuel resdocessing plants. These amendmen'ts would not apply to V waite dirposal operations, nuclear reactors, or to users of 4' mileb n,ateria'l as sealed sources. Five basic options are pie 55dted 'in thd arivance notice of proposed rulemaking. These -intbode tws/that gmphasize existing inventory control requirements, ,.anQtTree that re,qt(ire material controls wtth a more timely ' i rcgdency for detection and resolution 'df postible material f t l o',ies. The latter three options.also redica a number of-the existing requirements which the staff believes may not be g .*s , cost-effective. 't.:# a ermit (.1) timely detectkoi of the possible I f fObjective. To ' loss of strategic quantities of,weapor@.gcade nuclear material, (2) rapid determination of whetherJ.trJactual loss of strategic Y < T," guantities occurred, (3) facilitatin9 recovery of the lost 4 i 3: .haterial by providing evidenc2 regarding the source of the 9 ' loss,$if an acth.h Tots occurred, aiid (4)glong-term assurance - Bi ;.' thht hot signific' ant To':s pas occurred. g, ,.;) ^ Backgraund. The. Omen,t period closed' February 9,1982. Foupm comments weie received with,ter; of1the commenters fddabjiin.clined'tofards the options designed to achieve mec$.turjT'y/ detection'(options 3 - 5).<f The other commenters 73 (1 favoh[ qtaining current procedures.

4 t

Legab Basis ( 74.2 U..Sq. 2201, 5841. } 3 3 ~ I " TIMETABLE: Commissionactionohtheproposedfuleisscheduled for April i983. W,. I ~ CONTACT: Robert J. Dube s' i"

A Office of Wdlear Materialiafety and Safeguards (301) 427-4040 ?

PART: 2 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Not yet published

SUBJECT:

Rules of Practice - Appeals from Intervention Rulings and Objections to Special Prehearing Conference Orders i

Description. The proposed rule would specify criteria for providing or dispensing with prior notice and public comment on determinaticns about whether amendments to operating licenses or to construction permits for certain facilities involve no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the proposed rule would specify procedures for consultation on these determinations with the State in which the facility of the licensee requesting the amendment is located. Objective. To specify the procedures for prior notice and public comment and for consultation with States when the Commission acts on proposed amendments to operating licenses and construction permits involving a "no significant hazards consideration" for a nuclear power plant. The proposed rule would permit the Commission to act expeditiously, if circumstances surrounding a request for amendment of an operating license require a prompt response. Background. Pub. L. 97-xxx (now pending with Congressional action expected late in 1982) contains the requirement that the Commission promulgate regulations to provide criteria for prior notice and public comment and procedures for consultation-with States on the issue of "no significant hazards consideration." (see Agenda Item No.144). Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2201; Pub. L. 97-xxx. i l TIMETABLE: Congressional action on pending legislation is expected late in 1982, with Commission action to follow immediately thereafter. The legislation is now reported in NRC FY-82 Authorization Bills as S.1207 and H. R. 4255. t CONTACT: Thomas F. Dorian Office of the Executive Legal Director (301) 492-8690 PART: 2 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): 50 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Not yet published

SUBJECT:

Standards for Determining Whether_ License Amendments Involve No Significant Hazards Consideration

SUMMARY

Description. The final rule would specify standards for the NRC staff to use in determining whether amendments to operating licenses or construction permits for certain facilities involve no significant hazards consideration. The Commission has incorporated provisions into the final rule which are substantially identical to those in the proposed rule published in Federal 4 Register March 28,1980 (45 FR 20491). Objective. To improve the licensing process by amending the Commissien's regulations to incorporate standards for the staff to apply in making a determination as to whether a proposed amendment to an operating license or to a construction permit for certain facilities involves no significant hazards consideration. Background. This final rule would complete the Commission's actions on this subject. The proposed rule was published in response to petition for rulemaking PRM-50-17 (see Agenda Iteni No. 14 4). The comment period for the proposed rule closed May 27, 1980. Ten comments were received. A majority of the comments opposed the rule as proposed. A court decision in Sholly v. NRC, 651 F.2d 780 (1980), rehearing denied 651 F.2d 792 (1980) and legislation pending in Congress have influenced this rulemaking. Lecal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2201; Pub. L. 97-xxx. TIMETABLE: Congressional action on pending legislation is expected late in 1982, with Commission action to follow immediately thereafter. The legislation is now reported in NRC FY-82 Authorization Bills as S.1207 and H. R. 4255. CONTACT: Thomas F. Dorian Office of the Executive Legal Director (301) 492-8690 i i

PART: 2 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): 50 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Not yet published

SUBJECT:

Interim Operating Licenses

SUMMARY

Description. The final rule would permit the Commission to issue an interim operating license for a nuclear power plant authorizing fuel loading, low-power operation, and testing. This interim operating license would be issued in advance of the conduct or completion of an on-the-record evidentiary hearing on contested issues relating to the final operating license. Objective. To speed the licensing process by authorizing utilities which have built and applied for licenses to operate nuclear power plants to load fuel and conduct low-power operation and testing on the basis of previously submitted and approved safety and environmental evaluations. Prior to enactment of Pub. L. 97-XXX, the Commission lacked the authority to authorize fuel loading and low power operation and testing on the basis of safety and environmental evaluations; instead, this authorization was possible only after the~ hearing process was complete. Background. Estimates of the cost to utilities and their customers for this type of licensing delay, even if limited to the cost of replacement power, range to tens of millions of dollars per month for each completed plant. To relieve the burden of these delays, the Commission, on March 18, 1981, submitted a legislative proposal to amend the Atomic Energy Act to provide for an interim operating license authorizing fuel loading and low-power operating and testing as described above. Pub. L. 97-XXX and these regulations are the results of this action. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2201; Pub. L. 97-xxx. TIMETABLE: Congressional action on pending legislation is expected late in 1982, with Commission action to follow. The authority.is included in the NRC FY-83 Authorization Bills, H.R. 2330 as passed by the House on November 5,1981, and S.1207, as reported. CONTACT: Thomas F. Dorian Office of the Executive Legal Director (301) 492-8690 -

Description.

The proposed rule would require NRC licensees to develop and use means to achieve and control occupational radiation dosages that are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). This requirement would become part of the Radiation Protection Programs of licensees required to provide personnel monitoring, perform bioassays, or to measure concentrations of radioactivity in the air. The proposed rule was developed in order to promulgate a regulation which would express the Commission's belief that radiation doses received by workers in licensed activities can and should be reduced and to strengthen efforts to maintain occupational doses of ionizing radiation ALARA. Objective. To further control occupational radiation exposures by requiring them to be maintained ALARA using means.that are subject to NRC inspection and enforcement. The amendment under consideration would require licensees ~who are required by the NRC to monitor personnel radiation exposures, radioactive materials in air, or radioactive materials in the body or excreted from the body to develop and implement, as part of individual radiation protection programs, means for maintaining occupational radiation doses ALARA and, thereby, establish a regulatory base for reducing worker radiation doses. Background. The Commission believes that a reduction in the occupational collective (man-rem) dose received in connection with NRC licensed activities can be effected without unreasonable costs to licensees. Further, the Commission believes that this reduction can be achieved through the implementation of amendments to NRC regulations that would place greater emphasis on the ALARA concept as applied to workers in restricted areas, with the objective of elevating the radiation protection performance of less safety conscious licensees and applicants to the level currently achieved by the better performers. With this objective, it is feasible to adopt as performance l criteria radiation protection techniques which have been shown j by experience to be both effective and practical. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C; 2071, 2073, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2201. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the proposed rule is scheduled for August 1982. i CONTACT: Jack M. Bell Office of Nuclear Regulatory Researcit j (301) 443-5970 PART: 20 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Not yet published

SUBJECT:

Monitoring of Packages Containing Radioactive Materials Upon Receipt by Licensees

SUMMARY

Description.

The proposed rule would (1.) extend current requirements for the receipt and monitoring by licensees of packages containing an excess of Type A quantities of nuclear material to include additionally those packages (r.ot transported by exclusive use vehicles) containing more than one-third of a Type A quantity of nuclear material (~a quantity of nuclear material, the total radioactivity of which does not exceed the values specified in 71.14(~q)), which, if damaged, would not disperse but could pose a radiological threat; (2)~ remove the existing requirement to report excessive external radiation levels at the package surface to avoid increased ^ occupational radiation exposure to the worker; and (3)~ add a general package monitoring requirement for pacRages which do not require direct monitoring under existing NRC regulations in 20.205. Objective. To provide increased radiological protection for transportation workers and the general public by broadening the requirements for monitoring packages used to transport radioactive material. Background. In May 1979, the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report entitled " Federal Actions are Needed to Improve Safety and Security of Nuclear Material Transportation" (EMD-79-18) which recommended that the NRC modify 20.205 to broaden its requirements for the monitoring of external radiation levels of packages not covered by the existing regulations. In NRC's response to this report, NRC stated that the requirements in 20.205 would be reexamined and that other portions of l NRC's regulations which may require modification would also be examined. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2201, 5842. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the proposed rule is scheduled-for September 1982. CONTACT: Steven Bernstein Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-5825 - -

2 PART: 20 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Not yet published

SUBJECT:

Radiation Protection Instrument Test and Calibration

SUMMARY

Description. The proposed rule would require any licensee, other than radiographers, who use portable survey instruments to test the instrument prior to use to determine its operability and to calibrate it when necessary. The proposed rule would establish criteria for licensees to apply to their licensed activities and would place compliance on an enforceable, regulatory basis. Objective. To improve the accuracy of measurements made with hand-neld radiation survey meters, thereby improving worker protection against radiation. Background. The staff is in the process of developing a draft of the proposed rule. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2111, 2201. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the proposed rule is scheduled for May 1983. CONTACT: Robert B. Neel Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-5970 l i

PART: 20 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None i FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Not yet published

SUl@1ARY:

Description. The proposed rule would revise a substantial portion of Part 21 of the Commission's regulations to permit more effective reporting of defects and

noncompliance and to improve NRC's inspection and enforcement actions.

Part 21 requires any individual, director, or responsible officer of a firm which constructs, owns, operates, or supplies the components of any facility or activity which is licensed or otherwise regulated by the NRC to notify the fiRC immediately of the failure, or the potential for failure, of any facility, activity, or basic component supplied to a facility. This rule is in response to Task II.2.4. of the Tiil Action Plan, which identified the need for improved identification of safety-related problems at licensed facilities. Objective. To obtain more uniform reporting and earlier identification and correction of safety problems at NRC-licensed facilities and in NRC-licensed activities. Background. NRC experience in inspecting licensed facilities and activities indicates that many problems exist in implementing the requirement that defects and noncompliance be reported to the NRC. This problem exists particularly with programs and activities involving non-licensed personnel. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2201, 5846. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the proposed rule is scheduled for December 1982. CONTACT: Francis X. Cameron Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-5981 l

PART: 25 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): 95 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Not yet published

SUBJECT:

Access to and Protection of National Security Information and Restricted Data SUMMAP.Y: Description. The proposed rule would (1) modify the requirements for requesting access authorizations for individuals who possessed authorizations on the effective date of Part 25, (2) establish a requirement to maintain records concerning visits to and from affected licensed facilities involving classified information, (3) provide additional guidance to affected licensees for handling classified drafts of documents and working papers as well as guidance for obtaining approvals for the security of telecommunications and ADP systems where classified information is involved, and (4) address the requirements for classifying, declassifying and safeguarding National Security Information as set forth in the new E.0 12356 and Implementing Directive. These proposed amendments are necessary to incorporate experience gained under the current regulations, comply with the requirements of the new Executive Order 12356,. and prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of National Security 1 Information and Restricted Data. Objective. To eliminate any possible misinterpretation or misunderstanding regarding information and forms required for access authorization requests, maintain adequate visit records, and assure proper. protection of information determined to be National Security Information or Restricted Data based on NRC's " Classification Guide for Safeguards Information." Background. The final rule establishing procedures for access to and protection of National Security Information and Restricted Data (Parts 25 and 95) was published March 5, 1980 (45 FR 14476). These proposed amendments will further clarify and update. the final rule, bringing it into conformance with E.0. 12356. Legal Basis: 42 U.S.C. 2165, 2201, 5841, E.0 10865 and E.O. 12356. TIMETABLE: EDO action on the proposed rule is scheduled for July 1982. CONTACT: Raymond J.-Brady Office of Administration (301) 427-4472 _80_ f

PART: 30 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): 40, 70 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Not yet published

SUBJECT:

Clarified Requirements for Terminating a License

SUMMARY

Description. The proposed regulation w'ould clarify a licensee's authority and responsibility for nuclear materials and specify procedures that would allow for orderly license termination. Each licensee who decides to discontinue operations permanently would be required to submit form NRC-314. This form contains information describing disposal of nuclear materials. Except for licensees with only sealed sources, each licensee would submit a final radiation survey report. If there is no residual radioactive contamination above background, the Commission may terminate the license. If there is residual radioactive contamination, the licensee would be required to decontaminate the nuclear facility before the Commission would terminate the 1 licensee's responsibility under its license. Objective. To ensure that licensed materials are properly disposed of and facilities and sites are properly decontaminated before a licensee's responsibility is terminated. . Background. Current regulations are not specific concerning licensee responsibility for nuclear materials. A licensee could dispose of nuclear materials, notify the Commission of its intent to discontinue operations, and vacate the premises before the NRC staff could verify residual radioactive contamination levels. This situation has the potential for adverse public health and safety effects. The proposed rule-is necessary to protect public health and safety by establishing clear procedures for the termination of a license. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2092, 2093, ' 2094, 2095, 2111, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282, 5842, 5846. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the proposed rule is _ scheduled for July 1982. CONTACT: William R. Pearson Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-5910 - i

i PART: 30 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): 32 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Not yet published

SUBJECT:

Periodic and Systematic Reevaluation of Parts 30 and 32

SUMMARY

Description. The proposed rule would be.an editorial revision of the regulations governing the domestic licensing of byproduct material and the exemptions from domestic licensing requirements. The proposed rule would reflect the application of good regulatory drafting practices and is intended to help the reader find significant material within the regulation. Objective. To simplify and clarify the format of the present regulations so that persons subject to byproduct material regulations can conveniently use and understand them. Background. On January 23,1981 (46 FR 7388), the NRC published in the FEDERAL REGISTER a notice of comprehensive review of its regulations (10 CFR Chapter I) and attached.to the notice a preliminary schedule for conducting the review over the following five years. This proposed rule is in response to Commission approval of Task IV.G.2. of the TMI Action Plan. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 5846. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the proposed rule is scheduled for January 1983. CONTACT: James J. Henry Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research .(301) 443-5981 e i -= PART: 32 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Not yet published

SUBJECT:

Consumer Products Containing Small Quantities of Radioactive Material; Modified Approval Transfer Reporting Requirements +

SUMMARY

Description.

The proposed rule would mmiify the annual reporting requirements imposed on persons specifically licensed to distribute products containing small quantities of byproduct material. The proposed rule establishes a threshold for submitting a report so that a licensee need not submit a report if the licensee distributes less than 1,000 products a year. Objective. To reduce the administrative and paperwork burden for the licensee and the NRC without significantly changing the value of the reports to the regulatory program monitoring the use of radioactive materials in consumer products. Background. The regulations required licensees distributi.ng products containing exempt quantities of radioactive material to submit annual reports on the type and number of products distributed. A negative report was required if nothing was distributed during a reporting period. NRC uses these reports to estimate exposure of the general public to widely used consumer radioactice products. A licensee's questions concerning the significance of the reports has led to a review of the reporting requirement. The NRC reviewed 1500 reports submitted during the last 10 years and determined that if a 1,000 item threshold had been in effect, there would have been a 1/3 reduction in the number of reports submitted and less than a 1/10 reduction in the number of units transferred which reports were prepared for. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 5841. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the proposed rule is scheduled for August 1982. CONTACT: Donovan A. Smith Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-5825 PART: 35 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Not yet published

SUBJECT:

Medical Licenses for Human Use of Byproduct Material

SUMMARY

Description. The proposed rule would completely revise Part 35. This part contains the requirement.s and procedures applicable to a physician or medical institution that seeks to obtain a license authorizing the human use of byproduct material. The proposed rule would simplify the medical licensing process by adopting a " performance standard" approach to medical licensing. The proposed rule would set out all the requirements a licensee must meet yet allow the licensee flexibility in meeting the requirements. The proposed rule would be consistent with regulatory reform objectives while maintaining the current level of protection to the health and safety of the medical worker and the general public. Objective. To simplify the medical licensing process and . reduce the administrative burden on the licensee and the NRC by (1) including all the requirements a medical licensee must meet in the regulations; (2) eliminating or modifying administrative requirements not essential to safety; (3)^ simplifying the application form which, together with an automated licensing system, will create a more efficient licensing process; and (4) reducing the paperwork burden for the licensee and the NRC. Background. The medical use of byproduct material has increased substantially over the past 30 years in terms of the number and types of procedures performed. To keep pace with radiation safety in a rapidly changing field, many requirements were imposed as license conditions or implied in regulatory guides. In addition, current practices require that each new and renewal application be complete without reference to any previous submittal. Over the past few years, the practice of nuclear medicine has become more sophisticated and radiation safety methodology and procedures have become more uniform. This permits NRC to propose simplifying the licensing process by codifying all requirements into a simple set of requirements contained in the proposed regulation and simplify 'the license application form to eliminate a detailed explanation of the procedures involved. An earlier rule on which the NRC was considering action that would clarify the responsibilities of various echelons of nuclear medicine personnel has been incorporated into this proposed revision of Part 35. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233. 4. 1. e TIMETABLE: Commission action on the proposed rule is scheduled for August 1982. . g ,,j i c 4 e CONTACT: William J. Walker L ' <// c' i / / 'l Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards ,, ;/. '), (301) 427-4232 ^ 9 j,. i. ,f', l J ,/ {! l 1 i i l i r 1 4 i r p .A 1 i s 1 .i j ./ s ( r 4 e 1 1 t l y cr

i?

^ I -1: ~ t ^ ' 4 , h 1 [.j.i ' i t. 7 7(4h 1( ; N, '}' \\;, ^' r ); f [i,r 1[ o n; (~ \\ f ! l t,i. i < <h, ? - f 9-4- s' s .-O: 1, 1 i '< > . u;; <n t. ~ + 't/. ..r. g, '56 5

I'ih: t p o

H }:l' '.. - 1 u 4 G. ;1[i P f. k ] b y.c i-sy-i 1 *. E{ } f(;. !f g -{ d v,~(4 .y o w c, 3 m)/ 4,; j ~ wi. h { -84a- =. - :!l. i t ' , El f NI l ~ *];(,[' ' 'y. l N{ W36 't

i
9-B l. g kig

, _ f.. ;., ' a Zy 1. .0

/.J.

st t 1-a i .1 . s. w' s.. yo. , a,. 4 1, a q a;.5 : wp ~ t g,,Wp/' W ;. . 1, 'J %, ~ 6 w ei .FN q f %r 2 <f q~ x,.

PART: ?35 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Not yet published Mikadministration of Radioactive Material;

SUBJECT:

I,, Proposed Removal.of Reporting Requirements

SUMMARY

Description. The proposed rule would remove the requirement that NRC's medical licensees report certain misadministrations of radioactive material to the NRC, to th. patient's referring physician, and to the patient. The NRC is considering the removal of the misadministration reporting requirements because an analysis of the first year's reports has not revealed errors that can be corrected through regulations and because of the continued controversy raised by the' requirements in the medical community. Objective. io reduce the regulatory burden on medical licensees and the administrative burden ~on NRC staff by removing a reporting requirement that, in the opinion of the staff, has ? largely achieved its primary purpose, which was.to detect trends that could be corrected'through regulation. [ Background. ~ 7he Commission published the final rule requiring NRC's medical if censes to report misadministrations of radioactive 1 material.on May 14,1980 (45; fR 31701). The rule'was intended tp detect common conditions.that lead to misadministrations. The Commission would then correct these conditions through regulations and. license' conditions. At the time the rule was issued,4the Commission indicated that it would reevaluate the merits of continuing the regulation after three years. In a memorandum 'dattd June.30,1981, the Commission directed the staff to conduct an analysis of the first year's reports. This ana7ysis indicated that the primary causes leading to misadministration are attributable to human error. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2111', 2201, 2232, 2233, 5841. ,, v TIMETABmE: Commission action on th'e p'roposed rule is scheduled for July 1982. 'i \\ CONTACT: Lidia L,.Rcche 1 Office of 4 Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (301).427-4211. (j. o y I, i,. k, 6 u, /. ' 'l ! c .i ^,: c. { l e 'Ni ,g h l{[ '/t t q g I) / 1, 'i, t' ,,n t, z.

-j l ),' ' y'- PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S[: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Not yet published ?

SUBJECT:

Applicability of Technical Facility License Conditions and Specifications in aa pergency l

SUMMARY

De cription'. The pr,'oposed rule would add a specific provision to the Commission's regulations to clarify that licensee technical specifications are not intended to restrict or prohibit theolicensee from undertaking, during the course of t.nanticipated emergencf conditions, any action necessary to ytotect public health and safety. Objective. The rule would clarify the responsibility of t licensees to take actions necessary to protect public health and safety during emergencies even though the action necessary may not be in full accord With certain provisions of the tec-h at. specifications.'The staff believes that in emergency sit o: !og it is very important to assure that licensees: have the a0111ty to respond,prenptly using their best engineering jugent. Background. Technical specifications contain a wide range of operating limitations an6* specifications concerning actions required to respond to certain systems failures and to other 4 specified operating events. Technical specifications also require the employment of a wide' range of operating procedures to be taken in the course of operation to maintain facility .,,) safety. These specifications are based on the various conditions - )_ normal transient and accident coriditions - analyzed as part of the licensing process. The Comission believes, however, that ' ~ ' there are unanticipated circumstaices which could occur during the course of response to an emergency condition. The proposed rule would permit licensees to respond promptly to these 4 events. 7 Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 21)3, ~2134, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2239, e u ] 5842, 5846. TIMETABLE': [ Commission action on the proposed rule is scheduled i " for July 1982. 9 CONTACT:.Charle.S M. Trammell ./ ~ Offi.ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (3017492-7389 f. (' y A/ ,E f l' - 4 l e

,,o is s.

f ~

3 PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Not yet published

SUBJECT:

Fitness for Duty of Personnel with Unescorted Access to Vital or Protected Areas of Nuclear Power Plants

SUMMARY

Description. The proposed rule w)uld require licensees to establish and implement controls to assure that personnel with unescorted access to vital or protected areas are fit for duty. Objective. To protect the public health cnd safety by requiring personnel with unescorted access to vital or protected areas be fit for duty. Background. The Commission initiated the proposed rule in response to concern by members of the public that nuclear power plant operators, like airline pilots, should not be permitted to perform activities that could impair the public health and safety while unfit for duty as a result of actions such as the consumption of alcoholic beverages. 1 Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2236, 2237 TIMETABLE: Commission appr'oved the proposed rule on June 24, 1982. CONTACT: Ellis Merschoff Office of Nuclear Regulatory 9esearch (301) 443-5942

PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Not Yet Published

SUBJECT:

Filing of Controlled Copies of Emergency Plans

SUMMARY

Description.

The proposed rule would require certain licensees to provide controlled copies of emergency plans and implementing procedures and changes to these plans and procedures to the appropriate NRC regional office and to NRC headquarters. Each of the controlled copies delivered to NRC would have a receipt attached. The receipt would be signed and returned to the licensee by the NRC employee who is responsible for receiving and maintaining the controlled copies. The NRC employee would certify that the plan was received and filed or that the changes were received and incorporated into the appropriate emergency plan. Objective. Adoption of the proposed rule would ensure that the NRC has the latest updated plan to use in the event of a radiological incident or accident. The proposed rule would also reduce the number of copies that a licensee must submit to the NRC from 13 to 3 thus lessening the regulatory burden on affected licensees. Background. On August 19, 1980, the NRC published a revised emergency planning regulation which became effective on November 3, 1980. That rule requires that three copies of an emergency plan and implementing procedures and three ccpies of each change to the plan or the procedures be sent to NRC regional office directors alonc with an additional ten copies of each to be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. The proposed rule would require a licensee to submit one controlled copy to the regional administrator and two controlled copies to NRC Headquarters. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2239, 5842, 5846. TIMETABLE: ED0 action on the proposed rule is scheduled for August 1982. CONTACT: Steve L. Ramos Office of Inspection and Enforcement (301 ) 492-9602 I

PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Not yet published

SUBJECT:

Laboratory Accreditation Program *

SUMMARY

Description. The proposed rule would require that qualification testing of nuclear plant equipment necessary to demonstrate the capability of that equipment to perform its function in i i accordance with design and functional specification under i normal and postulated accident conditions be performed in i laboratories that have been accredited in accordance with procedures administered by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). 'The proposed rule, as part of the increased emphasis on equipment qualification, would improve the reliability and accuracy of qualification testing performed by accredited laboratories. Objective. To ensure that equipment qualification testing performed by a laboratory meets established standards and. thereby provides greater assurance of protecting the public health and safety. Background. A notice of the NRC and IEEE agreement addressing i the laboratory accreditation program was published in the Federal Register on November 20,1981 (46 FR 57206). Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2201. 4 TIMETABLE: Commission action on the proposed rule is scheduled for July 1982. CONTACT: Steven D. Richardson Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-5942 PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Not yet published

SUBJECT:

Applicability of Appendix B to Appendix A

SUMMARY

Description. The proposed rule would clarify the quality assurance program requirements for thos,e structures, systems, j and components of nuclear power plants which are important to sa fety. The proposed rule would also eliminate any possible confusion over the definition of the terms "important to safety" and " safety-related" and provide a clear statement in the Commission's regulations concerning the applicability of the quality assurance criteria (in 10 CFR Part 50) of Appendix B to the structures, systems, and components covered in Appendix A. The proposed rule could expand the extent of the review applied to nuclear power plant structures, systems, and components, and thus, it could help ensure the appropriate application of quality assurance program requirements during the construction of nuclear power plants. Objective. To assure that the requirements of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, Criterion 1, result in the establishment by licensees of effective quality assurance programs that are implemented in a manner that provides adequate assurance that structures, systems, and components covered in the appendix will satisfactorily perform their safety functions. Also, to assure that the requirements in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 result in the establishment by licensees of adequate quality assurance requirements for the design, construction, and operation of certain structures, systems, and components that prevent or mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents that could cause undue risk to the health and safety of the public. Background. In the aftermath of the Three Mile Island Unit i (2 accident, a number of studies have concluded that the scope of the items to which the quality assurance critoria of Appendix l B te 10 CFR part 50 apply needs to be broadenei to include the full ange of safety matters as was originally intended. Typical examples of. structures, systems, and components for which the Appendix B quality assurance program criteria may not have been fully implemented are in-core instrumentation, reactor coolant pump motors, reactor coolant pump power cables, and radioactive waste system pumps, valves, and storage tanks. The proposed rule is intended to clarify the Commission's ( original intent by revising Criterion 1 of Appendix A to state l specifically that the criteria to be used for the quality assurance program required in Appendix A are those criteria l contained in Appendix B. Additionally, in order to eliminate. confusion over definition of the terms "important to safety" as used in Appendix A and " safety-related" as used in Appendix l B, the proposed rule would, in Appendix B, delete the term "s a fety-rel ated". Legal Basis: 42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201, 2233. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the proposed rule is scheduled for fiovember 1982. C0tiTACT: William L. Belke Office of fluclear Regulatory Research (301)443-7741 c -90a-

PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Not yet published

SUBJECT:

Fire Protection for Future Plants SUMMARf: Descri ption. The proposed rule would provide more comprehensive fire protection requirements for future nuclear power plants. Objective. To consolidate the NRC fire protection guidelines and requirements for nuclear power plants in one enforceable document. Background. The present requirements for fire protection at nuclear power plants are limited in that these requirements apply only to plants licensed ~ prior to January 1,1979. At the time when these effective regulations were approved, the Commission directed the staff to proceed with Icvelopment of a comprehensive rule for plants licensed in the future. Sta ff is preparing a recommendation that rule development be postponed until all exemption request for Appendix R have been processed, and relevant research results are available to assure proper technical bases for the rule. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2201, 5841. TIMETABLE: Unscheduled. CONTACT: David P. Notley Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-5946 41-

PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Not yet published ) i

SUBJECT:

Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors

SUMMARY

Description. The proposed rule would revise the criteria for preoperational and periodic pressure testing for leakage of primary and secondary containment boundaries of water-i cooled power reactors. The current regulation specifies the criteria that leakage testing must meet and how the testing must be performed. The proposed rule would incorporate the accepted national standard (ANSI /ANS 56.8) that specifies approved procedures for conducting the te:t and thus permit the NRC staff to focus its attention on the performance standard and design criteria aspects of the regulation. The proposed rule would also eliminate ambiguities and increase the flexibility of the regulation. Objective. To emphasize' the testing criteria aspects of the regulation while reducing the mechanistic aspects of the testing procedure. Also, to reduce'the paperwork burden on NRC and the compliance burden on licensees by reducing the number of exemption requests licensees are required to submit. I Background. The current regulation was issued in 1973. The proposed rule would reflect experience gained in implementing the regulation by clarifying requiremants currently open to interpretation and by adopting a more flexible approach. By providing licensees with the option of obtaining NRC review of a procedural deviation, the number of exemption requests licensees submit would drop sharply. The staff is developing a proposed regulation. Legal Basis. _42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 5841. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the proposed rule is scheduled for September 1982. CONTACT: Gunter Arndt Office of Nuclear Regulatory Resehrch (301) 443-5860 I

PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Not yet published

SUBJECT:

Shift Staffing at Nuclear Power Plants

SUMMARY

Description. The proposed rule would

provide minimum shift staffing requirements for licensed operators at nuclear power plants.

Shift staffing requirements would be based upon a power plant's configuration (e.g., A power plant may have two units and one control room, or three units and two control l rooms) and the status of each unit (i.e., operating or cold shutdown). Objective. To upgrade shift staffing requirements at nuclear power plants to ensure that a sufficient number of licensed personnel are on duty at any given time. Background. This rulemaking effort is the result of the requirement in Task I. A.l.4. of the TMI Action Plan, approved by the Commission, to upgrade staffing of personnel in control rooms of nuclear power plants. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2201, 5846. r-TIMETABLE: Commission action on the proposed rule is scheduled for July 1982. CONTACT: Ellis W. Merschoff Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-5943 I c -

PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Not Yet Published

SUBJECT:

Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (Winter 1981)

SUMMARY

Description. The proposed rule would incorporate by reference the Winter 1981 addenda of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. The ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) code sets standards for the construction of nuclear power plant components and specifies requirements for inservice inspection of those components. The ASME code requirements for nuclear power plants are set forth in Section III for construction permit holders and Section XI for operating plants. Objective. To include the most recent changes made to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and to permit the use of improved methods for construction and inservice inspection of nuclear power plants. Background. Staff is preparing a draft proposed rule for ED0 action. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201, 5841. TIMETABLE: ED0 action on the final rule is scheduled for July 1982. CONTACT: Edward Baker Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-5894 i ! l l

Description. The proposed rule would cl'arify the description of a significant design or construction deficiency in a nuclear power plant and would require the holder of a construction permit to provide the Commission with more timely information regarding potential construction or design deficiencies. Objective. To provide the Commission with more timely information regarding events that may indicate a potential construction or design deficiency. Background. Staff action on this item was initiated in response to TMI Action Plan Task II.J.4 Legal Bas'is. 42 U.S.C. 2201. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the proposed rule is scheduled for December 1982. 4 CONTACT: Francis X. Cameron Office of Nuclear Regulatory.Research (301) 443-5981 4 i I,

PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): lione FEDERAL REGISTER CITATI0ft: fiot yet published

SUBJECT:

List of Required Emergency Response Facilities and Associated Implementation Dates SU!! MARY:

Description. The proposed rule would require nuclear power plant licensees and applicants to establish an access authorization program for individuals requiring unescorted access to the protected and vital areas of nuclear power plants. This program will include personnel screening to determine the suitability of an employee to be permitted unescorted access to either protected or vital areas of nuclear power plants.

Description. The proposed rule would require a licensee to obtain approval from the NRC prior to making any changes in the licensee's security plan which would reduce the security plan's effectiveness. This proposed requirement would apply to any licensee who submits a physical security plan in accordance with 570.22(k) of 10 CFR. These licensees include those which possess or use special nuclear material [SNM) of moderate strategic significance or 10 kg. or more of SNM of low strategic significance, except those licensees who possess this material in the operation of a nuclear power plant. This requirement

Export of Australian-Origin Nuclear Material and Equi pment +

SUMMARY

Description. The' fin 1 rule requires export licensees to notify the Commission in advance before shipping nuclear equipment or material of Australian origin to a third country. This requirement is necessary for the US Government.to obtain the prior consent of Australian authorities before eicporting Australian-origin nuclear material or equipment to a third country. 5 Objective. To assure proper compliance with provisions of. the US/ Australian Agre' ment for Cooperation in the Peaceful uses e of Nuclear Energy that> require the US Government to obtain the prior consent of/ Australian authorities before Australian-originin.uclear equ'ipment and material is exported to a third country.. ~ C S Back'groun'd..li5e US/ Australian Agreement for Cooperation concerning.the' Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy (the Agreement) became effective January 16, 1981. Article 5, paragraph 2 of 2 h the Agreement requires the United States to obtain the consent t of Australian authorities before exporting nuclear material or equipment of Australian origin. The advance notification ,t. requirement contained in this final-rule all.ows the US Government to assure proper compliance with.this requirement. . i' Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2201. TIMEqBLE: Commission action on the-final rule is scheduled for'. July 1982. i 'I, CONTACT: Marvin R. Peterson. ~ jh M i t Office of International Programs: 4 p N 492-4599 [@ j l 'y + - I i r e 4 . I A Jy s j at li -112-f M )K ~ ~ \\ p

r;,,

w ~ y a 1 -y a ~

p.,

e / / l,. 'l l;l PART: 110 ~ gi t OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None. f, N ' FEDERAL REGI3TER CITATION: Not yet published _t, \\ ,.n, 4 vr f

SUBJECT:

Expprt/ Import of Nuclear Equipment and Maperial 1

SUMMARY

Jescription.

Description.

The final rule would amend 10 CFR Part 140 by removing Appendix A, " Form of Nuclea*r Energy Liability Policy for Facilities," and by making the information contained in the Appendix available in the form of a Regulatory Guide. Objective. To ease the amendatory process and afford the licensee a greater degree of flexibility in meeting the financial protection requirements of the Price-Anderson Act. Background. The amendment is in response to two endorse-ments requesting changes in the existing Facility Form Policy that were submitted to the Commission by the American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) and published in the Federal Register on February 19,1981 (46 FR 12750), for public comment. Two comments were received on the proposed notice, and both opposed the Commission's proposed modification of its traditional position of publishing the entire nuclear liability insurance policy and endorsements. In reviewing the comments and after closer examination of the policy, the Commission decided not'to publish-the endorsements as part of Appendix A. The Commission decided, however, that since the insurance policy was merely one form which would be acceptable to the Commission rather than the reouired form, it would be more appropriate to publish the policy.and endorsements 4 l as a Regulatory Guide rather than a regulation. The NRC staff is preparing a Regulatory Guide concurrently' with the _ final rule to remove Appendix-A from Part 140. Legal Basis. 42 U.S.C. 2201. TIMETABLE: EDO action on the final rule is scheduled for August 1982. CONTACT:

ra Dinitz 0'fice of State Programs (701) 492-9884

-116-

PART: 170 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): fione FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Not yet published

SUBJECT:

Revision of License Fee Schedules *

SUMMARY

Description. The proposed rule would adjust the fiRC fee schedule to permit the NRC to charge fees for the actual cost incurred by the NRC to review license applications, renewals, amendments, etc. The new fee schedule would affect the licensing and inspection of nuclear power plants, other production or utilization facilities vendors of nuclear power steam supply systems and materials facilities engaged in uranium and plutonium fuel fabrication, uranium milling, leaching and refining operations, source material ore-bying and ion exchange activities, burial of radioactive waste, spent fuel cask and packaging approvals, and other users of critical quantities of special nuclear materials. Objective. To permit the NRC to charge fees for the actual costs incurred by the NRC to review license applications, renewals, amendments, etc. Background. The staff has completed the proposed rule and is awaiting a decision by the Commission. The proposed rule incorporates the proposed new Category ll.F schedule of fees for materials licenses published in the Federal Register as a proposed rule on March 31,1980 (45 FR 20899). Legal Basis. 31 U.S.C. 483, 42 U.S.C. 2201, 5841. TIMETABLE: The proposed rule is pending before the Commission. CONTACT: William 0. Miller Office of Administration (301) 492-7225 -117-

SECTION II - PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING l (A) - Petitions incorporated into final rules or petitions denied since April 9, 1982 l I I i 1

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-34-2 PETITIONER: Non-Destructive Testing Management Associaticn PART: 34 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: August 4, 1978 (43 FR 34563)

SUBJECT:

Registration, Licensing, and Control of Individual Radiographers SUMARY: Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to provide for the registration, licensing, and control of individual radiographers. The petition includes the outline of a suggested program of NRC registration for industrial radiographers. The petitioner believes that only through the registration, licensing, and control of the individual radiographer can the overexposure-to-radiation record of the radiographic industry be improved. Objective. The petitioner proposes that a program it suggests for the registration of industrial radiographers form the basis for a Commission rulemaking that would apply to all radiographers. The program suggested by the petitioner is intended to reduce the incidence of overexposure to radiation, to prevent needless exposure to radiation, to curtail noncomp'liance with accepted safety requirements and procedures, and to advance the overall safety of the radiographic industry. Background. The petitioner originally presented its program to the Commission by letter dated June 24, 1977, at which time NRC staff began its review. On June 28, 1978, the petitioner requested that this letter be considered a petition for rulemaking. The Commission agreed and published a notice of filing in the Federal Register on August 4, 1978 (43 FR 34563). The comment period closed October 3, 1978. Eleven comments were received, the majority of which opposed the petition. The staff is continuing to actively study this concept. Action on ancther-petition (PRM-20-13) from Victor D. Anderson is being held in-l abeyance pending the results of the studies on this petition (see Agenda Item No.142). The staff published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (May 4,1982, a7 FR 19152) and announced a series of public meetings (May 11, 1982, 47 FR 20149) (see Agenda Item No.133). l TIMETABLE: Action completed. By letter dated May 10,1982, the petitioner withdrew the petition for rulemaking. CONTACT: James A. Jones Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-5970 -118-

) (B) - Petitions incorporated into { proposed rules I h 1 1

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-20-7 PETITIONER: Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. PART: 20 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: September 23. 1976 (41 FR 41759)

SUBJECT:

Shallow Land Disposal of low-Level Radioactive Waste

SUMMARY

Description.

The petitioner requests the Commission to amend regulations to set interim standards for shallow land disposal of low-level radioactive wastes. The petitioner proposes that the regulations require (1) the transfer of regulatory authority for long-lived transuranic waste (TRU) from the states to NRC, (2) a moratorium on new or enlarged burial site licensing pending the establishment of certain requirements, (3) payment of fees by persons who produce TRU waste to finance safe permanent disposal, (4) the solidification of all radioactive wastes before shipment, and (5) the preparation of a generic environmental impact statement. These regulations are needed to ensure safe disposal of long-lived radioactive wastes. Objective. To provide interim measures needed to preserve the capability to dispose safely of low-level wastes until the necessary studies and environmental impact statement are completed for a long-term regulation. Background. The comment period closed on November 22, 1976. Fourteen of the fifteen responses from industry recommended denial of the petition. The NRC staff analyzed the petition and concluded that no compelling potential health and safety hazard existed to warrant immediate NRC reassumption of regulatory authority from the states, or immediate implementation of 1 interim regulations as proposed by the petitioner. Consequently, a notice denying immediate issuance of interim requirements for shallow land disposal of radioactive wastes was issued by the Commission and published in the Federal Register on July 25, 1979 (44 FR 4354). However, several issues raised by the petitioner are being considered as part of a comprehensive proposed rulemaking entitled " Licensing Requirements for Land i Disposal of Radioactive Waste" and published in the Federal Register on July 24,1981 (46 FR 38081, see Agenda Item No. 42). TIMETABLE: The final rule addressing these issues is currently-before the Commission. . CONTACT: Paul Lohaus Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (301) 427-4500 -119-

= PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-22 PETITIONER: Public Interest Research Group, et al. PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: August 8, 1977 (42 FR 40063)

SUBJECT:

Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants *

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request that the Commission amend its regulations to require nuclear plant operators to post bonds before each plant's operation to insure that funds will be available for isolation of radioactive material upon i decomissioning. The petitioners state that their proposal would insure that power companies which operate reactors, 1 rather than future generations, bear the cost of decommissioning. 1 The petitioners also request that the Commission amend its regulations to require that operators of nuclear power plants already in operation be required to establish plans and immediately post bonds to insure proper decommissioning. I Objective. Since decommissioning will not occur until after the 40-year operating license has expired and may require substantial capital expenses for hundreds of years thereafter, the petitioners seek to ensure that companies which are now i financially stable continue to have the capacity to pay ' decommissioning and guardianship' costs when necessary. Background. The original comment period closed.0ctober 7, 1977, but was extended to January 3,1978. Sixty-two comments were received, a majority of which oppose the' petition. A notice denying the petition in part was published in the Federal Register'on June 22, 1979 (44 FR-36523)..The partial denial covered that part of the petition seeking.an immediate rulemaking requiring the posting of surety bonds. Other issues and funding alternatives raised in the petition have Criteria.for Nuclear facilities (g rulemaking on Decommissioning been incorporated into the ongoin see. Agenda Item No. 50). An-advance notice of' proposed rulemaking for that proceeding was published on March 13,'1978 (43 FR 10370). The NRC -staff issued a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on decommissioning in January 1981. TIMETABLE: Commission' action ~on a proposed rule is scheduled for February 1983 4 CONTACT: William R. Pearson Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research-(301) 443-5910 4 -120-

PETITZON DOCKET WUMBER: PR!i-50-29 PETITIONER: Electric Utilities PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: November 4,1980 (45 FR 73080) Supplement to petition published February 3,1981 (46 FR 10501)

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the purpose of adopting new national standards for users of radioactive byproduct materials. The petitioner states that the Commission Radiation Standards for byproduct material facilities and nuclear power plants differ drastically. The petitioner states that a nuclear power plant's sophisticated control equipment is designed to handle different types of potential accidents and still keep radiation exposure to the public within acceptable limits, while a byproduct material facility (e.g. radiopharmaceutical plant) does not have the same capabilities. Furthermore, the petitioner states that because byproduct material plants have unrestricted siting, more people are in the vicinity of a byproduct facility than a nuclear power plant and would be affected by radiation exposure resulting from an acci' dent. Objective. The petitioner proposes that the Commission take the following actions to reduce unnecessary public exposure to radioactive substances emitted from byproduct material facilities: 1. Establish criteria to quantify the "as low as reasonably achievable" emission reduction policy for major facilities using byproduct materials from man-made fission reactions and require existing plants to meet these criteria. 2. Establish siting criteria for these facilites that would form a basis for evaluating the acceptability of new plant locations in terms of radiation doses to the public. 3 Require new and existing byproduct facilities to develop and implement offsite environmental surveillance programs to provide information on levels of radioactivity in the environment around these facilities. Background. The comment period closed October 11, 1977 Six comments were received, all opposing the petition. The staff is developing a final position on the petition. Th'is petition has been combined with an earlier petition (PRM-50-10) from the State of New Jersey that deals with similar issues (see Agenda Item No.128 ). TIMETABLE: Commission action on the petition is scheduled for December 1982. CONTACT: Richard Grill Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research-(301) 427-4468 -124-

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-30-58 PETITIONER: U. S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards PART: 20 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): 30, 40, 70 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: July 10,1981 (46 FR 35562)

SUBJECT:

Radioactive Material From Environmental Sources

SUMMARY

Description.

The petitioner requests that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding that would exempt radioactive material obtained directly or indirectly from environmental sources from specific license application requirements. Because of the plutonium and americium content of soil or tissue, an environmental sample, once it has passed through a licensee, is subject to all licensing requirements. The petitioner states that this licensing interpretation appears to apply to any sample extracted from the earth by anyone because of the residual plutonium and americium content. Objective. The petitioner proposes alternative amendments to NRC regulations that would exempt from licensing requirements radioactive material obtained from environmental samples. The petitioner suggests a broad amendment that would remove potential ambiguity in the regulations as these regulations might apply to individuals not covered by their requirements. In the alternative, the petitioner presents a specific solution that addresses the plutonium and americium content of the environmental sample in a manner that would alleviate the petitioner's problem. Background. The comment period closed September 8,1981. The staff is continuing to analyze the three comments received. The petitioner's request stems from its intent to provide a variety of environmental standards which would be collected. from numerous places in North America, assayed as to content for a number of isotopes, and packaged for sale as standards. Under existing regulations and NRC's licensing interpretation, this process could require license. applications to the NRC. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the petition is scheduled for October 1982. CONTACT: Donovan A. Smith Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-5825 ( -125-

PETXTION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-35-1 PETITIONER: George V. Taplin, M.D. PART: 35 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: May 7,1979 (44 FR 26817)

SUBJECT:

Physician's Use of Radioactive Drugs

SUMMARY

Description.

The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to remove its restrictions that apply when a physician uses an FDA-approved radioactive drug for a clinical procedure that does not have FDA approval. The regulations in question provide that when a physician uses byproduct material for a clinical procedure not approved by FDA and specified in the product labeling, the physician follow FDA approved product labeling regarding: (1) chemical and physical form (2) route of administration, and (~3) dosage form. Specifically,- the petitioner objects to the restrictions, as they would prevent the use of Tc-99m pentatate sodium as an aerosol by inhalation for lung function studies. Objective. The petitioner proposes that the NRC amend its regulations to remove the requirement that physicians use an approved radioactive drug strictly in accordance with the product label. The petitioner believes that this action would allow the physician to use approved drugs according to his or her best knowledge and judgment in the interest of the patient and allow the development of new' safe applications of approved drugs. Background. The comment period closed July 6,1979. Forty-five comments were received, all supporting the petition. On December 7,1979, the NRC met with FDA to discuss NRC restrictions on a physician's use of approved drugs for unapproved clinical procedures. HRC polls of the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes in February, June, July, and August 1981 indicated that the committee favored retaining NRC's general restrictions in question,'but the consensus of the Committee. was to grant exceptions to the restrictions, such as the use of Tc-99m pentatate sodium used for lung function st,udies. On April 13,1982 (47 FR 15798) the Commission published a proposed rule that would grant an exception to the regulations in 535.14(b)(1) for Tc-99m pentatate sodium _used for lung function studies. The proposed rule also includes a procedure-detailing how such exception could be expeditiously handled ~ in the future (see Agenda Item No. 23 ). -126-

TI!4ETABLE: Commission action on final rule is scheduled for September 1982. C0t4 TACT: Deborah Bozik Office of fluclear Regulatory Research (301) 427-4566 -126a-

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-40-23 PETITIONER: Sierra Club i PART: 40 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 25, 1981 (46 FR 14021)

SUBJECT:

Licensing the Possession of Uranium Mill Tailings at Inactive Storage Sites.

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to license the possession of uranium mill tailings of inactive storage sites. Uranium ore is mined and milled by private companies under licenses issued by the Commission. After fissionable material is extracted from the uranium, the ore removed is deposited after processing in tailing piles at the mill site. The petitioner states that the remaining tailings are radioactive in that the milling operators extract only 15 percent of the radioactive material. The petitioner believes the Commission exempted uranium mill tailings and inactive storage sites without making the required findings under the Atomic Energy Act that the exemption would not constitute an unreasonable risk to the healtn and safety of the public. Objective. The petitioner proposes the following regulatory action to ensure that the public health and safety is adequately protected: (1) repeal the licensing exemption for inactive uranium mill tailings sites subject to the Department of Energy's remedial program; (2) require a license for the possession of byproduct material on any other property in the vicinity of an inactive mill tailings site if the byproduct materials are derived from the sites; or, in the alternative, (3) conduct a rulemaking to determine whether a licensing exemption of these sites or byproduct materials constitutes an unreasonable risk to public health and safety. Background. The comment period closed April 27, 1981. Three comments were received, all stating the petition should be denied. Uranium mill tailings are regulated under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-604). Title I of the Act directs the Department of Energy, in consultation with NRC, to conduct a remedial action program at certain in-active uranium mill tailings sites. Title V of the Act authorizes NRC to regulate disposal of the tailings at active sites. The staff is preparing a response to the petition. 4 TIMETABLE: Commission action on the petition is scheduled for September 1982. CONTACT: Don F. Harmon Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 427-4284 -127-

PETITION DOCKET NUl1BER: PRM-50-10 PETITIONER: State of New Jersey Nuclear Energy Council PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): 30, 40, 55, 70, 100 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: !!ay 6,1974 (39 FR 15900); July 11,1974 (39 FR 75525)

SUBJECT:

Safety and Licensing Requirements

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations in Parts 50 and 70 to require that 4 licensees who routinely handle large quantities of byproduct material be made subject to emergency planning requirements and, in addition, to require that these licensees clearly identify the material involved, exposure pathways, and populations at risk as a result of licensed activities. In Part 100, the petitioner requests that the exclusion area criteria be amended, the population zone criteria be reviewed, and that radiation release protective action levels set by EPA or individual states be incorporated by reference. -The petitioner requests that the exclusion of the " Class 9 accident" from consideration in Part 50 reactor licensing procedures be eliminated when new or novel siting or design considerations are involved, and that due consideration be given to countermeasures for the " Class 9 accident" (a " Class 9 accident" occurs at a nuclear reactor when the fuel core melts). The petitioner also requested that reactor operators undergo training and periodic reexamination and that the scope of Part 55 be expanded to cover health physicists assigned to reactor sites and for.. operators of waste disposal facilities. Objective. To increase the ~ level of assurance 'that accidents at nuclear facilities can be prevented and, in the event of an accident, to assure that the ~ consequences are mitigated. Background. The comment period closed on July 5,1974. Six comments were received. The petitioner withdrew the requested' change concerning reactor personnel ~ qualification. The petitioner has agreed that its requested change concerning health-physics personnel-was s'atisfied by the Commission's issuance of regulatory guides. Part of the petitioner's request concerning emergency: planning-for Part 70 licensees was addressed in a ' final rule published in the Federal Register on March 31,1977. (~42 FR 17125). The petitioner has agreed that action on the " Class.9 accident" issue should await completion _ of the liquid pathways study. The petitioner's request concerning emergency planning for Part 50 licensees was incorporated,into a final rule published.in the Federal Register on June 3,1981 (46 FR ' 29712). The-petitioner's requests concerning " Class '9 accident," emergency planning and siting criteria for Part 30, 40, and -70 licensees, and revisions to Part 100 are the subject of. current-NRC staff reviews. This petition has been combined'with another -petition from the State of New -Jersey (PPJi-30-55) that deals with similer issues (see Agenda Item No.124 ). -128-

TIMETABLE: Commission action on the petition is scheduled for December 1982. C0itTACT: Richard P. Grill Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 427-4468 ) -128a-

PETITION DOCKET nut 1BER: PRM-50-21 PETITIONER: Northern States Power Company and Wisconsin Electric Power Company PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): 2 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: July 21,1977 (42 FR*37458)

SUBJECT:

Plant Security Information SUl?tARY: Description. The petitioners request that the Commission amend its regulations (1) in 550.34(c) to include plant security information within the definition of Restricted Data, or alternatively within the definition of National Security Information; (2) in 52.905 to assure that discovery of plant security information is subject to the protections of Subpart I to Part 2; (3) in Subpart I to Part 2 to explicitly recognize that the protections required by the Subpart extend to information not under Commission control; and (.4) to delete 52.790(d)(1) which currently could permit disclosure of plant security information without the protections of Subpart I to Part 2. Objective. To protect plant security information from unauthorized disclosure and to assure that licensees' security plans are not compromised. Background. The comment period closed September 19, 1977. Twelve comments were received, nine of which endorsed the petition. Consideration to grant the petition was under review based on Pub. L. 96-295 (NRC FY 80 Authorization Bill) which amended the Atomic Energy Act by adding Section 147 - Safeguards Information -which directs the Commission to prescribe regulations or issue orders to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of I safeguards information which specifically identifies the licensees' or applicants' detailed security measures, etc. The NRC staff is currently preparing a response to the petition. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the petition is scheduled for September 1982. CONTACT: James A. Prell 0ffice of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-5976 -129-

PETITI0ti DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-24 FETITIONER: John F. Doherty PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: August 16, 1979 (44 FR 47997)

SUBJECT:

Objects Falling From Earth Orbit

SUMMARY

Description.

The petitioner requests that the Commission adopt a regulation which would state that it is the duty of the Commission to inform all holders of Class 103 licenses (production and utilization facility licensees) of any announcement by any Federal agency or department of predicted or expected falling objects from earth orbit, whether the falling object is the responsibility of the announcing agency or the responsibility of a foreign nation. The petitioner also requests that the Commission adopt a regulation which specifies that the Commission's duty is to issue the initial warning and then continue to inform and advise the affected licensees until a prediction of the most likely impact area (s) can be' issued by the responsible department or agency. The petitioner requests that.the Commission order plants near the probable impact area to be shut down. Objective. To prepare for a possible occurrence of a situation similar to the Skylab incident where orbiting objects of considerable size are expected to fall to earth with considerable force. Background. The comment period closed October 1,1979. One comment was received which expressed the view that a regulation is not required for this issue since the NRC already has the authority to order that a nuclear power plant be shut down and, in addition, that events such as those envisioned by the petitioner would be infrequent. The NRC staff is preparing a response to the petition. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the petition is scheduled for September 1982. CONTACT: Brian K. Grimes Office of Inspection and Enforcement (301) 492-4614 -130-

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-25, PRM-50-25A 4 PETITIONER: State of Illinois and thc Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America, Inc., et al. PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None i FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 4,1980 (45 FR 7653)

SUBJECT:

Extension of Construction Completion Date

Description. The petitioners request that the Commission eliminate the requirement that armed security personnel at lnu' lear power plants or other facilities licensed to handle c s'pecial nuclear material (1) carry an extra pair of eyeglasses in-and (2) undergo an annual medical examination within the \\t, preceding thirty, days of an annual physical fitness test. The petitioners contend that these requirements are " excessive and unreasonable" when compared to similar requirements for security personnel in other government agencies or in operations with security requirements comparable to those of nuclear power pl ants. The petition includes proposed amendatory text which would achieve these modified requirements. Objective. To eliminate requirements for security personnel which the petitioner contends are " excessive and unreasonable." t Backgrcund. The comment period closed April 19, 1982. Nine comments on the petition were received. These comments are currently being evaluated by the staff. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the petition is unscheduled. CONTACT: ' William Floyd Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-5976 y , + ' ' ' ', ( l i; I a -134-5 I

PETITION DOCKET NU!iBER: PRM-73-7 PETITIONER: Wisconsin Electric Power Compacy, et al. PART: 73 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None I FELERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 16, 1982 (47 FR 6658)

SUBJECT:

Elimination of Required Log Out of Personnel from Vital / Areas of Nuclear Power Reactors SUM.tARY: Description. The petitioners request that the Commission eliminate the log-out requirement at nuclear power reactors for individuals given access to normally unoccupied vital ii areas. The petitioners contend that the requirement is not ~ only unnecessary from a safety standpoint, but may be detrimental to safe plant shutdown and effective plant response to other emergencies. The petitioners also contend that sensitive facilities have no similar requirement. The petition includes proposed amendatory text which would achieve these modified requirements. Ob3ective. To eliminate the log-out requirement at nuclear power reactors for individoals given access to normally unoccupied vital areas. Background. The comment period closed April 19, 1982. Nine comments on the petition were received. These comments are currently being evaluated by the staff. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the petition is scheduled for September 1982. CONTACT: William Floyd Office of Nuclear Regulatory. Research (301) 443-5976 f 1 g 4 I i e -135-m

4= PETITION DOCKET NUMSER: PRM-73-8 PETITIONER: Wisconsin Electric Power Company, et al. h-PART: 73 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None q__ FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Februa ry 16, 1982 (47 FP. 6657)

SUBJECT:

Elimination of Required Search of Hand-Carried Packages of Personnel at Nuclear Power Plants

SUMMARY

Description.

The petitioners request the Commission to eliminate the requirement for searches of hand-carried personal effects of screened employees entering a protected area of a nuclear power plant. The petitioners contend that the requirement is unnecessary as demonstrated by the absence of these kinds of searches in comparable Federal programs. The petitioners also contend that the requirement is an ineffective means of j preventing insiders from sabotaging the plant. The petition includes proposed amendatory text which would achieve this requested change. Objective. To eliminate the required search of hand-carried personal effects of screened employees entering a protected area of a nuclear power plant. Background. The comment period closed April 19, 1982. Ten comments on the petition were received. These comments are currently being evaluated by the staff. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the petition is unscheduled. CONTACT: William Floyd Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-5976 m A -136-

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-95-1 PETITIONER: General Atomic Company PART: 95 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: August 4,1981 (46 FR 39610)

SUBJECT:

Modification of Classification Guide for Safeguards Information

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its radiation protection standards as they apply to the maximum permissible whole body dose equivalent for occupational exposure. Specifically, the petitioner requests that (1) for individuals under the age of 45, the whole body radiation exposure limit would not exceed 0.5 rems in any calendar year and 0.3 rems in any calendar quarter; (2) that individuals over 45 years of age may receive up to 3 rems per quarter whole body dose as long as the whole body dose does not exceed 0.5(M-18) + X(N-M) rem, where M is not less than 45, N equals the individual's age in years, and X is calculated to reduce the cumulative somatic risk by a factor of 6 below t.he cumulative somatic risk associated with exposure at 5 rem / year from age

18. The petitioner also requests that hearings be held to determine the "as low as practicable" extent to which the exposures can be maintained below the proposed regulations.

Objective. To reduce the genetic risk associated with radiation exposure at the occupational level by a factor of 10 and to reduce the somatic risk by a factor of 6. Background. The initial comment period closed December 29, 1975; but was extended to February 12, 1976. The comments ~ received included three letters supporting the petition, one proposing an alternate set of reduced limits, and 52 opposing the petition. The petitioner filed a supplement to the petition, dated November 4,1977, requesting the consideration of recent epidemiological studies. This issue will be included in the hearing on occupational radiation protection.to be jointly sponsored b/ EPA, NRC, and OSHA. Staff presented.a paper to the Commission on August 17, 1978. The tentative staff position was that the petitioner's request to lower the occupational dose limits should be denied, but the staff is deferring its final recommendation until the public hearing has been held. Proposed EPA guidance was published in the Federal Register on . January 23, 1981. EPA / NRC/0SHA hearings were held in April 1981. The question of occupational dose limits is being addressed by the staff in work on the revision of 10 CFR Part 20 (see Agenda Item No.*48 ). This petition has been combined with PRM-20-6A from Rosalie Bertell (see Agenda Item No. 141) that addresses the same issues. A response to this petition and PRM-20-6A will be prepared following Commission action on the revised Part 20 rule. -140-

Description.

The petitioner proposes that the Commission amend its regulations to permit an interval longer than two years between required calibratio,ns of a dosimetry system that is used to perform calibration measurements on a teletherapy unit, as long as suitable dosimetry system verification checks are carried out. The petitioner also recommends, as an interim measure, that a variance be granted to licensed teletherapy users who are unable to have instruments calibrated within the required period. Current regulations require calibration measurements using a dosimetry system that has been calibrated by the National Bureau of Standards or an accredited Regional Calibration Laboratory within two years and after any servicing that may have affected system calibration. The petitioner indicates that as a result of this requirement and the limited number of instruments that may be calibrated by an approved organization, the waiting period for instrument calibration is currently about six months and expected to increase. Objective. The petitioner proposes a regulation that would allow a longer interval between calibrations while providing for suitable dosimetry system verification checks. The petitioner's proposed alternative is intended to reduce the six-month waiting period for instrument calibration without adversely affecting dosimetry system reliability. Background. The comment period closed March 30, 1982. The staff met with representatives of the National Bureau of Standards on January 21, 1982, to discuss the extent of and reasons for the instrument calibration backlog. Any amendment to Part 35 that may result from this petition for rulemaking would be incorporated into the proposed revision of Part 35 currently in progress. Affected licensees will receive relief in the form of rulemaking or variances as an interim solution until the Part 35 revision is complete [see Agenda Item No.84 ). TIMETABLE: Commission action on the petition is scheduled for September 1982. CONTACT: Elizabeth G. Rodenbeck Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 427-4580 -143-

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-17 PETITIONER: Boston Edison Company, et al. PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): 2 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: June 14,1976 (41 FR,24006)

SUBJECT:

No Significant Hazards Consideration

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request that the Commission amend its regulations to include criteria which would be used in making a determination as to when a proposed amendment to an operating license involves no "significant hazards consideration" and could thus be issued without prior public notice or hearing. Objective. The petitioners state that adoption of their proposed criteria would help reduce the uncertainty and unnecessary delay in the Commission's procedures for approving license amendments without compromising the rights of members of the public to participate in Commission proceedings involving significant safety considerations. Background. The comment period closed August 13, 1976. Ten comments were received. The comments were evenly divided for and against the petition. The Commission approved issuance of a proposed rule in response to the petition which was published in the Federal Register on March 28,1980 (45 FR 20491; see Agenda Item No. 70 ). Ten letters of comment were received on the proposed rule, none of which fully supported the staff proposal. Work on this petition was delayed due to commitment of staff to TMI-related work. A court decision in the case of Sholly v. NRC, 651 F. 2d 780 (1980), rehearing denied 651 F. 2d 792 (1980) and legislation pending in Congress have influenced this action. TIMETABLE: Commission action on this issue is not expected until either the Supreme Court acts or Congress passes currently pending legislation. Supreme Court or Congressional action is not expected until late 1982. CONTACT: Thomas F. Dorian Office of the Executive Legal Director (301) 492-8690 m -144-

l PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-20 PETITIONER: Free Environment, Inc. et al. PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): 100 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: May 19,1977 (42 FR 25785)

SUBJECT:

Reactor Safety Measures (

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requested that the Commission amend Part 50 before proceeding with the processing of license applications for the Central Iowa Nuclear Project to require that: (1) all nuclear reactors be located below ground level; (2) all nuclear reactors be housed in sealed buildings, within which permanent heavy vacuums are maintained; (3) a full-time Federal employee, with full authority to order the plant to be shut down in case of any operational abnormality, always be present in all nuclear generating stations; and (4) the Central Iowa Nuclear Project and all other reactors be sited at least 40 miles from major population centers.

Objective. To assure that additional safety measures are employed in the construction and siting of nuclear power plants. The petitioner seeks to have recommendations and procedures practiced or encouraged by various organizations, as well as current NRC guidelines, adopted as mandatory requirements in the Commission's regulations. Background. The comment period closed July 18, 1977. Three comments were received. The first three parts of the petition (see Description section above) were incorporated with PRfi 19 for staff action purposes. A notice of denial for the third part of the petition was published in the Federal Register on February 2,1978 (43 FR 4466). A notice of denial for the first two parts of the petition was published April 19, 1978 (43 FR 16556). NRC staff work on the fourth part of the petition will be carried out in connection with the ongoing Part 100 rulemaking (see Agenda Item No. 61 ) on demographic criteria. Petitioners were notified by letter on January 26, 1982, that the proposed rule on siting criteria will be delayed until summer 1983, to await safety goal information and source term reevaluation. TIMETABLE: Commission action on a final rule addressing demographic criteria is scheduled for summer 1983. CONTACT: William R. Ott Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 427-4078 -145-

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-31 PETITIONER: Citizens' Task Force PART: 50 GTHER AFFECTED PART(S): 70 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: March 24,1982 (47 FR 12639)

SUBJECT:

Emergency Preparedness

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission F amend its regulations to require that (1) the present ten-mile EPZ radius be extended to twenty miles and include any towns bordering on or partially within this zone; (2) all communities with a population in excess of 5,000 persons be-provided by the respective utility with the funding to purchase, install, and operate radiological monitoring equipment to reach and maintain the level of preparedness deemed necessary by the affected municipalities; and (3) utilities be required to finance the emergency planning efforts of municipalities located near nuclear reactors. Objective. To establish an effective notification and evacuation' system in communities located near nuclear reactors. Background. The comment period closed May 24, 1982. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the response to the petitioner is scheduled for April 1983. CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-5942 -146-

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM 32 PETITIONER: Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: June 24, 1982 (47 FR 27371)

SUBJECT:

Protection Against the Effects of Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) SUMitARY: Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 to require applicants for construction permits and operating licenses for nuclear power plants to provide for design features to protect against the effects of electromagnetic pulse (EllP). The petitioner states that electromagnetic pulses are generated by high altitude nuclear explosions and can cause current or voltage to flow through electrically conducting materials, thereby either destroying or temporarily disrupting control systems in a nuclear power plant that are essential for safety. Objective. To assure that structures, systems, and components of nuclear power plants which are important to safety are protected against the effects of electromagnetic pulse. Ba ckground. The comment period closes August 23, 1982. TIMETABLE: Not available. CONTACT: Faust Rosa Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (301) 492-7141 -147-

f PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM 1 -w PETITIONER: New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution PART: 51 + w OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: January 16, 1976 (41 FR 2448) --E

SUBJECT:

Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle

SUMMARY

Descri ption. The petitioner requests that the Commission initiate a rulemaking to amend its summary of environmental considerations in the uranium fuel cycle presented in Table S-P 3 of Part 51. The petitioner declares that (1) the current Table S-3 seriously underestimates the impact on human health and safety by disregarding the long-term effects of certain i radionuclides, particularly Thorium-230 which decays into radon gas; (2) the health effects of Krypton-85 and tritium releases from fuel reprocessing plants are underestimated; (3) releases of Carbon-14 from the fuel cycle should be included; (4) the term " man-rems" does not provide a meaningful representation of health effects, at least in terms of radionuclides involved in this petition, and that human deaths from man-rem exposures provide a more comprehensible consequence of fuel cycle activities; 7 and (5) the magnitude of the potential death toll from mill tailings alone alters previous judgments and requires a reassessment of previous conclusions to authorize construction and operation of nuclear reactors and the postponement of all pending applications for construction or operating authority until final resoluton of the issue by the Commission. Objective. The petitioner proposes that the amendments to Table S-3 it presents in its petition, form the basis of .i Commission action to amend Table S-3 to more accurately reflect the impact of the long-term effects of certain long-lived m radionuclides on human health and safety. The petitioner also y proposes to suspend all activities related to nuclear power 3 plant construction and operation until the Commission reassesses =_-_ the health and safety effects of mine tailings. Background. The comment period was extended to April 26, 1976 F (41 FR 12365). A majority of the ten comments received opposed n the petition. The Commission published a partial denial of s the petition on April 14,1978 (46 FR 15613) and deferred _= remaining action pending a future relemaking proceeding to amend the Table S-3 value for radon. That document removed the radon value from Table S-3 and made it subject to litigation 't in individual licensing proceedings. Seventeen cases were combined for a hearing of the radon issue before The Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board. Although the Appeal Board published a partial decision on May 13,1981 (ALAB-640), the 2 Board has not completed its proceeding.and nor has it published the remainder of its decision. -148- ~, M --mm----

TIMETABLE: Commission action on a proposed rule on radon is scheduled for March 1983. C0!iTACT: William E. Thompson Office of fluclear 11aterial Safety and Safeguards (301) 427-4211 w e -148a-s -mm--maimum-

P PETITIOl4 DOCKET fiUMBER: PRM-70-6 PETITIONER: Eberline Instrument Corporation f PART: 70 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): fione FEDERAL REGISTER CITATI0ft August 18, 1977 (42 FR 41675) =

SUBJECT:

Air Transport of Plutonium

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests the Commission to approve the air transport of calibration or reference sources which are generally licensed pursuant to s70.19 and manufactured pursuant to a specific license issued by the Commission under 5 70.39, or in accordance with the specifications contained in a specific license issued to the manufacturer by an Agreement State which authorizes manufacture of the sources for distribution to persons generally licensed by the Agreement State. As an alternative, the petitioner requests the Commission to declare that these calibration and reference sources represent "de minimis" quantities of plutonium for which container certification should not be required. Objective. To permit the air transport of calibration or reference sources which contain small quantities of plutonium. Background. The comment period closed October 17, 1977. Two comments were received, both of which supported the petition. Disposition of this petition will proceed when the Commission determines its policy on the air transport of plutonium by taking rulemaking action to implement that portion of Pub. L. 94-79 known as the Scheuer Amendment which places restrictions on the air transport of plutonium. This fiRC rulemaking, published as a proposed rule in the Federal Register on l!ovember 13,1981 (46 FR 55992, see Agenda Item fio. 44) considers, among other things whether under Pub. L. 94-79 the Commission may authorize air shipments of small quantities of plutonium in a package other than an approved container, and if so, what regulatory requirements should apply to these shipments. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the petition is unscheduled. Action on the petition will follow action on the final rulemaking implementing Pub. L. 94-79, which is to be included in the Part 71 rule making U.S. transport regulations consistent with those of IAEA. That rule is scheduled for review in October 1982. CONTACT: Donald R. Hopkins Office of fluclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-5825 -149-l

PETITI0fl DOCKET NU!!BER: PRM-71-6 PETITI0iiER: CRITICAL !! ASS ENERGY PROJECT, et al. PART: 71 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: December 1,1977 (42 FR 61089)

SUBJECT:

Emergency Planning and Response for Transportation Accidents Involving Radioactive Materials b Sul@!ARY: Description. The petitioners request the Commission to require licensees who transport radioactive materials to (1) use special routes to avoid densely populated areas and mountainous terrain; (2) adopt emergency plans involving their cargo, including the organization of emergency response units to carry out the plan and semi-annual drills with state and local 1 law enforcement officials; (3) assume financial responsibility ) for any shipping accident that involves the dispersal of their radioactive cargo; and (4) develop a plan for informing the drivers of the vehicles about the nature of the material they are shipping and emergency actions they should undertake in the event of an accident. The petitioners state that NRC regulations should also require that all licensees be in compliance with these regulations within 60 days of their promulgation and that each licensee be required to demonstrate to the Commission within 60 days after the effective date of the regulation that the licensee possesses the capability to deploy emergency response units promptly to an accident scene. Objective. To improve the emergency response capability of licensees and the shippers who transport radioactive material to respond to accidents. Background. The comment period closed January 30, 1978. Forty comments were received, the majority of which oppose the petition. On June 7,1978, the NRC informed the petitioners that the NRC was delaying action on the petition until a request by Congressman Wirth for a special joint study by the NRC and DOT on Package Requirements and Emergency Response was completed. The final report on this study, MUREG-0535, was published in July 1980. A staff response to the pe'tition has been prepared and forwarded to the Commission for action. The staff paper has been subsequently withdrawn pending resolution of the New York lawsuit on the DOT's highway routing rule and the proposed rider on DDT FY82 Authorization Bill which would require DOT to analyze comparative risks and costs for transporting a large quantity of radioactive materials by highway, rail, and barge or vessel. Resolution of these issues could materially affect the Commission findings on the petition. -150-

Description. The petitioners request that the Commission amend its regulations to prohibit the construction of nuclear reactors where the population in the surrounding area exceeds or will exceed specified numerical limits. The petitioners' proposed criteria would limit permissible population density to 400 people per square mile within a 40-mile perimeter. The petitioners state that they regard these proposed criteria as interim standards to be used until the Commission is able to generate its own numerical standards on population density. Objective. To restrict utilities from building nuclear reactors too close to metropolitan areas. Background. The comment period closed August 30, 1976. Twelve comments were received. An NRC staff paper (SECY 624) was submitted to the Commission on December 4,1978. In a memorandum to the Executive Director for Operations dated February 15, 1979, the Commission deferred action on the population density siting criteria issue pending submission of the Siting Policy Task Force report. The petitioners were notified of this deferral by letter dated March 9,1979. The petitioners were notified by letter (in July 1980) that the petition would be considered in the context of the rulemaking on siting criteria (see Agenda Item No. 61). Petitioners were noti fied by letter on January 26, 1982, that the proposed rule on siting criteria will be delayed until summer 1983, to await safety goal implementation and source term reevaluation. TIMETABLE: Commission action on the petition is scheduled for winter 1983 in the context of consideration of a proposed rule on siting criteria. CONTACT: William R. Ott Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 427-4078 y -153-

'U"" U S NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION ,,,,m BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET f;UREG-0936, Vol.1, fio. 2 4 TI TLE A% D SUR T s T LE (A dd voiame No. < f arprocr ores 2 ges,e rse as f1RC Regulatory Agenda Quarterly Report 3 RECIPIE NT S ACCESS 10N NO April - June 1982 1 AU THCH IS' 5 DATE HEPOHT COMPLE TED lvtAn u oN TH Af fl V l9b2 9 PE H F OHVING OIIG AN t/ A f ION P AVf AND Y AILING A DOHE SS tlaris* l.o Codel D ATE RE POHi ISSuf D d l4 EAR VONTH ( Division of Rules and Records 1ol u 1am Office of Administration e, E R --a, U. S. fuclear Regulatory Commission 4 a ae- ~-a i Washington: D_ r. 20555 12 SPONSOHI% OHGnNt/ AisON N Avt AND M AIL IN.', ADO HE SS (inciuar / p coar s 10 PROJF C T T ASK WCH A UNIT NO Same as 9. ,,y yo 1 A quarterly report which updates a ivPE 05 "EPoHT n nion cove ne o uecivi.e so se the status of NRC's rules and Petitions. April 9 through June 30, 1982 15 SUPPL E YE N T A H v NOTF S 14 st c.we n/pa f 16 ABS TH ACI (200 A mde or lessl The NRC Regulatory Agenda is a compilation of all rules on which the flRC has proposed or is considering action and all petitions for rulemaking which have been received by the Commission and are pending disposition by the Commission. The Regulatory Agenda is updated and issued each quarter. The Agencas for April and October are published in its entirety in the Federal Register while a notice of availability is published in the Federal Register for the January and July Agendas. 17 AE Y WOHDS AND DOCUME NT AN AL YSIS i la DE SC hip T OHS 17ti IDE N Tif IE HS OPE N t N DE D TF HMS 18 AV AIL AttiE.. \\ STATEVENT 19 dE Cu H6 T Y C L ASS 4 T As mporf, 21 NO OF P A if S tinci assi fi ori Unlimi ted 20 sEcumr,CtAss<r ,v m a m cE t!ncl assi fi na s N aC F ORV 33rs i 91 gn

UNITED STATES 3u.i ciass ua,t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 'C5(8,,6, 3 5 D WASHINGTON. D C. 20%5 ansa o c ei au.t n.111 Of fICIAL BUSINESS PENativ FOR PRrv ATE USE $3JO 120555078877 1 ANB7 US NRC ADM DIV CF TIDC POLICY E PUBLICATIONS FGT BR POR NUREG COPY LA 212 WASHINGTCN DC 20555}}

ML20062N096

Text

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY