ML20128M484

NRC Regulatory Agenda.Quarterly Report,January-March 1985

ML20128M484
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/31/1985
From:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:
References
NUREG-0936, NUREG-0936-V04-N01, NUREG-936, NUREG-936-V4-N1, NUDOCS 8505310669
Download: ML20128M484 (201)

Text

..

N0iiEG-0936 Vol. 4, No.1 1

NRC Regulatory Agenda l

Quarterly Report January - March 1985 i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration pn asa u d.....'

l 8505310669 850531 oh6

I i

1 R

~

Available from ,

2 Superintendent of Documents U.S. Govemment Printing Office Post Office Box 37082 Washington, D.C. 20013-7082 A year's subscription consists of 4 issues for this publication.

Single copies of this publication

! are available from National Technical Information Service, Springfudd, VA 22161 1

l l

L-(

i i

l i

l i

L' _

NUREG-0936 Vol. 4, No.1 NRC Regulatory Agenda ,

Quarterly Report Jrnuary - March 1985 Minuscript Completed: April 1985 D;ts Published: May 1986 Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wzhington, D.C. 20555

,>~ %,

- }

s.....e l

l I

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I - RULES Page (A) Rules on which final action has been taken since December 31, 1984 Changes _ in Radiation. Dose-Limiting Standards (Parts 19, 20).......... 1

' Lower Radiation Exposure Levels for Fertile Women (Parts 19, 20)..... 2 Performance Testing of Bioassay Labs (Part 20)....................... 4 Revision of Consumer Product Approval Criteria and Regulation

(Parts 30, 40)..................................................

5 Severe Accident Design Criteria (Part 50)............................ 6 Extension of Construction Completion Date (Part 50).................. 7 Interim Requirements Related to Hydrogen Centrol (Part 50).... . ... .. . 8 Criteria and Procedures for Determining the Adequacy of Available Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Capaci ty (Part 53) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Material Control'and Accounting Pequirements for Low Enriched Uranium Fuel _ Cycle Facili ties (Parts 70, 74) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 (B) - Proposed Rules Procedures Involving the Equal Access to Justice Act:

Implementation (Parts 1, 2)..................................... 13 Exceptions to Notice and Comment Pulemaking Procedures (Part 2)...... 14 Commission Review Procedures for Power Reactor Construction Permits; Immediate Effectiveness Rule (Part 2)........................... 15 Separation of Functions and Ex Parte Communications in On-the-Record Adj u d i ca t i o n s ( Pa r t 2 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 iii

r i

s

- Page-E J e Modifications to the NRC Hearing-Process (Limited Interrogatories- .

and Factual Basis for Contentions) (Part 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18' Notice'andHComment on, Procedures for' State Consultation on, and Standards for. Making Determinations about.Whether. License Amendments- Involve No Significant Hazards Considerations -

(Parts 2, 50)................................................... 19 _

Possible~ Amendments to "Immediate Effectiveness" Rules 21

. .(Parts 2,-50).......'............................................

s Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures for Environmental k

-Protection; Alternative Site Reviews (Parts 2, 50, 51).......... 23

/

. Hybrid Peari ng Procedures.for Expansions of Onsite Spent Fuel Storage Capacity at Civilian Nuclear Power Reactors 25 (Parts 2, 72)...................................................

- Nondiscrimination on Basis of Age in Federally Assisted; Commission

. Programs (Part 4)............................................... 27 -

f b Production or. Disclosure in. Response to Subpoenas or Demands of~

Courts or 0therfAuthorities (Part 28

[ 9)............................

- Accreditation of Personnel Dosimeter Processors (Part 20)............ 29

~ Reports of Theft or loss of Licensed Material (Part 20).............. 31 Access to and Protection of National Security Information and Restricted Data (Parts 25, 95).................................. .

32

~ '

E Residual Contamination in Smelted Alloys-(Parts 30,32,70,150)..... 33 Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities (Parts 30, 40, 50,-

'51,70,71)..................................................... 34

! . Radiation Surveys and In-House Inspection Systems in Radiography 36 (Part 34).......................................................

Pa tient Dosage Measurement ( Pa rt 35) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 t . .

Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Conforming NRC Requirements to

. EPA Standards (Part 40)......................................... 39 P

' Implementation of the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (Parts 40,70,73,110)........................ 40 f

P res su ri zed The rma l Shoc k ( Pa rt 50) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Al i

4 iv i

. .. - - w ~. , - _ . -n,__ , . . , _ - _ _ . - - - . _ . - _ _ ....-~.__r. - - - - -- - _ - _. ,..-. --_ .-- . . -

1 Page Fitness :for Duty.of Personnel with Access to Nuclear Power Plants (Part:50)....................................................... 43 Protection of Contractor Employees ( Part 50) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

. Consideration of. Earthquakes in the Context of Emergency' Preparedness (Part50)....................................................... 45 Limiting The Use of Highly Enriched Uranium in Domestic Research

~and Test Reactors (Part 50)..................................... 47 Communications-Procedures Amendments (Part 50)....................... 48 Revision of Backfitting Process for Power Reactors (Part 50)......... 50

. Changes in Property Insurance Requirements for.NRC Licensed Nuclear Power Plants (Part 50).......................................... 51 Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Reactors (Part 50)........ 52 L 0perator's. Licenses (Parts 50, 55)................................... 53

Safeguards Requirements for Nonpower Reactor. Licensees Possessing

- Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material (Parts-50,70,73).............................................. 55 i

j Personnel Access Authorization Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants l(Part of Insider Package) (Parts 50, 73)........................ 57 Explanation to Table S-3 Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data (Part 51)....................................................... 58

! .- Additional Technical Criteria for the Disposal of_High-Level l -- Radioactive Wastes in Geological Repositories Located in the Unsaturated Zone (Part 60 L 60)......................................

l Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories:

l Procedural Amendments (Part 60)................................. 61 l

l Material Control and Accounting Requirements for Licenseess L Possessing Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material (Part 70).............................................. 62 Modification of Protection Requirements for Spent Fuel Shipments (Part 73)....................................................... 64 Searches of Individuals at Power Reactor Facilities (Part of Insider Package) (Part 73).............................................. 65 V

{=

L

l Page 1

Miscellaneous Amendments Concerning Physical Protection of Nuclear l Power Plants (Part of Insider Rule Package) (Part 73). . . . ... . . .. 66 (C) - Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings: Role of NRC Staff in Adjudicatory Licensing Hearings (Part 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Regulatory Peform of the Rules of Practice and Rules for Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities (Parts 2, 50).......... 71 Standards for Protection Against Radiation (Part 20)................. 73 Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive Materials Licensees (Parts 30,40,70,72)...................... 75 Certification of Indus trial Radiographers (Part 34) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Uranium Mill Teilings Regulations: Ground Water Protection and Other issues (Part 40).......................................... 77 Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants (Part 50)............... 78 Design and Other Changes in Nuclear Power Plant Facilities After Issuance of Construction Permit (Part 50)....................... 79 Modification of the Policy and Regulatory Practice Governing the Siting of Nuclear Power Reactors (Parts 50,51,100)............ 80 Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants (Part 100)...................................................... 82 (D) - Unpublished Rules Conduct of Employees; Minor Amendments (Part 0)...................... 83 Revised Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings (Parts 0, 1, 2, 9, 50).......................................... 84 Delegation of Subpcena Authority (Part 1)............................ 85 Juri sdiction of Adjudi catory Boards ( Pa rts 1, 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 vi

Page Adjudications -- Special Procedures. for Resolving Conflicts Concerning the Disclosure or Nondisclosure of Information (Part 2)........................................................ 87 Criteria for Reopening Records in Formal Licensing Proceedings (Part 2).......................................................'. 88 Independent' Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive. Waste

-(Parts 2,-19, 20, 21, 51, 70, 72, 73, 75, 150).................. 89 Retention Periods for Records (Parts 4, 11,.21, 25, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35,40,50,60,61,70,71).................................... 90 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Nuclear Regulatory Commission Programs (Part 4).................................... . 91 Nondiscrimination.on the Basis of Sex - Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as Amended (Part 4).......................... 92 Revised Criteria and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to or Control Over Special Nuclear Material (Part 11),... 93 Residual Radioactive Contamination Limits for Decommissioning (Part 20........................................................ 94 Conforming' Amendments to Prenotification, Quality Assurance, and Package Monitoring Requirements (Parts 20, 71).................. 95 Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance (Parts 21, 50)........... 96 Access Authorization for Licensee Personnel (Part 25)................ 98 Informal Hearing Procedures for Materials Licenses Proceedings (Parts 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 50, 61, 70, 71, 72).............. 99 Licensing of Sources and Devices (Parts 30,32,40,70).............. 100 Financial Responsibility for Materials Licensees for Cleanup After Accidental and Unexpected Releases (Parts 30,40,61,70,72)... 101 Regional Nuclear Materials Licensing for Certain Federal Facilities

'(Parts 30, 40, 70).............................................. 102 Physician's Use of Radioactive Drugs (Part 35). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Medical Use of Byproduct Material (Part 35).......................... 104 vii

Page Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Well-logging Operations (Part 39)............................................ 105 Material Balance Reports (Parts 40,70,150)......................... 106

-Refinement of Emergency Planning Regulations (Part 50)............... 107 Deletion of the Unusual Event Emergency Classification (Part 50)..... 108 Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (1983 Edition, Winter 1982 through Summer 1984 Addenda) (Part 50).............. 110 General Design Criterion on Human Factors (Part 50) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Station Blackout (Part 50)........................................... 113 Modifications to GDC 4 Requirements for Protection Against Postulated Pipe Ruptures (Part 50).............................. 114 Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors (Part50).............................................. 115 Extension of Criminal Penal ties (Part 50) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 (Part 50)... 117 Radon 222 Estimate for Table S-3 (Parts 50, 51)...................... 118 Update of Table S-4, Part 51 (Part 51)............................... 120 Definition of High-Level Radioactive Waste (HLW) in 10 CFR Part 60 (Part 60)....................................................... 121 Financial Responsibility Standards for Long Term Care for Low Level Waste Disposal Sites (Part 61)........................... 122 Material Status Reports (Part 70)................................... 123 Rule to Amend the Transportation Provisions Pertaining to the Shipment of Low Specific Activity (LSA) Material (Part 71)..... 124 Physical Protection Requirements for Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSIs) (Part 73)....................... 125 Reporting Requirements for Safeguards Events (Part 73).............. 126 Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (Part 140)......... 128 viii

SECTION-II - PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING Page (A) - Petitions incorporated into final rules or petitions denied since December 31, 1984 Criteria for Becoming a Licensed User of a Medical Diagnostic Device (PRM-35-5).............................................. 129 (B) - Petitions incorporated into proposed rules Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-50-22) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Exemption of " Low Specific Activity Material" from the Requirements of Part 71 (PRM-71-1, PRM-71-2, and PRM-71-4)..... 132 Elimination of " Pat Down" Physical Searches of Individuals at Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-73-2)................................ 134 Physical Security Requirements at Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-73-3)..................................................... 136 Elimination of Required Log-Out of Personnel from Vital Areas of lucl ea r Power Reac tors ( PRM-73-7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Elimination of Required Search of Hand-Carried Packages of Personnel at . Nuclea r Power Plants ( PRM-73-8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (PRM-140-1)........................ 140 (C) - Petitions pending staff review Connission Decisions Regarding Closure of Advisory Committee Meetings (PRM-7-2)............................................. 141 Radiation Protection Standards (PRM-20-6)........................... 142 Standards for Protection Against Radiation (PRM-20-6A).............. 144 Shallow Land Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste (PRM-20-7)..................................................... 145 Disposal of Very Low Concentrations of Short-Lived Radionuclides (PRM-20-14)...................................... 147 ix

i l

l

.P. age -

.New Methods of Disposal of Radioactively Contaminated Waste Oil '

from Nuclea r Power Pl ants ( PRM-20-15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Radiation Standards for Uses of Byproduct Material 149 (PRM-30-55)....................................................

Final Radiation Survey of a Radiographic Exposure Device

-(PRM-34-3)..................................................... 151 Intervals Between Required Dosimetry System Calibrations 152 (PRM-35-2).....................................................

154 Pl a nt Securi ty . Information ( PRM-50-21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Extension of Construction Completion Date (PRM-50-25 and 155 PRM-50-25A)....................................................

Emergency Preparedness (PRM-50-31).................................. 156 Reporting Requirements in NRC Regulations and Documents 157 (PRM-50-36)....................................................

Standards for the Levels of Deuterium 'and Tritium in Water 158 Circulated In and Around Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-50-37)......

Environmental Assessment for High Burnup Nuclear Fuel (PRM-51-6).... 159 Transportation of Irradiated Reactor Fuel (Spent Fuel) (PRM-71-10).. 161 Modification of Qualifications for Security Personnel of Nuclear Power Plants and Other Special Nuclear Material Licensees 162 (PRM-73-6).....................................................

(D) - Petitions with deferred action Licensing the Possession of Uranium Mill Tailings at Inactive 163 Storage Sites (PRM-40-23)......................................

Revised Criteria for Operation of Uranium Mills and Disposition 165 of Tailings or Wastes (PRM-40-24)..............................

166 Reactor Safety Measures (PRM-50-20).................................

Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle (PRM-51-1).......... 168 Population Density Criteria Near Nuclear Power Plants 170 (PRM-100-2)....................................................

X

Preface The Regulatory Agenda is a quarterly compilation of all rules on which the NRC has proposed, or is considering action as well as those on which it has recently completed action, and all petitions for rulemaking which have been received and are pending disposition by the Commission.

Organization of the Agenda The agenda consists of two sections.Section I, " Rules" includes: (A) Rules on which final action has been taken since December 31, 1984, the closing date of the last NRC Regulatory Agenda, (B) Rules published previously as proposed rules on which the Commission has not taken final action, (C) Rules published as advance notices of proposed rulemaking 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, " Petitions for Rulemaking" includes: (A) Petitions denied or incorporated into final rules since December 31,1984,(8) 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 part within Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). If 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 amends 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 part of 10 CFR and are identified with a petition for rulemaking (PRM) number. If more than one petition appears under the same CFR part, the petitions are arranged by PRM numbers in consecutive order within the part of 10 CFR.

The status and information included in Sections I and II of this agenda have been updated through March 31, 1985. The dates listed under the heading

" Timetable" for scheduled action by the Commission or the Executive Director.

for Operations (EDO) on particular rules or petitions are considered tentative i

and are not binding on the Commission or its staff. They are included for planning purposes only. This Regulatory Agenda is published 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.

( _ Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L.96-354) was enacted to encourage l Federal agencies to consider, consistent with their enabling legislation, l regulatory and informational requirements appropriate to the sizes of the

[ businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulations. The Act requires that NRC 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 xi i

I

businesses or other small entities, while at the same time assuring that the l public health and safety and the common 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 so certify in the rule, and the analysis need not be prepared.

Rulemakings Approved by the Executive Director for Operations (EDO)

The Executive Director for Operations (ED0) initiated a procedure for the review of the regulations being prepared by staff offices that report to him to ensure that staff resources were being allocated to achieve most effectively NRC's regulatory priorities. This procedure requires ED0 approval before staff resources may be expended on the development of any new rulemaking. Furthermore, all existing rules must receive EDO approval prior to the commitment of additional resources.

Rules that have received EDO approval to date are identified as indicated below. As additional rules receive ED0 approval, they will be identified in subsequent editions of this agenda. Those unpublished rules whose further development has been terminated will be noted in this edition of the agenda and deleted from subsequent editions. Rules whose termination was directed subsequent to publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking will be removed from the agenda after publication of a notice of withdrawal.

Symbols Rules that appear on the agenda for the first time are identified by an asterisk "*". Rules that have been approved by the EDO are identified by the symbol (+). This agenda contains no major rules as defined in Section 1(b) of Executive Order 12291.

Public Participation in Rulemaking Comments on any rule in the agenda may be sent to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 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. Coments received on rules for which the comment period has closed will be considered if it is practical 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 agenda and any comments received on any rule listed on the agenda are available for public inspection, and copying at a cost of five cents per page, at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC. Single copies of this agenda may be purchased from the NRC/GPO Sales Program, Division of Technical Information and Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 at a cost of $6.00, payable in advance.

xii

e -

Additional Rulemaking Information

' Far 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 thel substantive content of any rule listed in the agenda, contact the individual listed under the heading " contact" for that rule.

xiii

-u- a w---- - a -u -~4m 1

6 l

1 1

I i

(A) Rules on which final action has been taken since December 31, 1984

_ ,_ - - . _ . _ s -m- - sa -., .m -- - s- 2 A - 4 i

e i.

4 I i

.Ii Y

i I

l l

l l

l l

l l

1 l

I.

l l

i l 1

l l

1 i

i

.( l i

l l

1 i

I I

i l

I I

TITLE:

o. Changes in Radiation Dose-Limiting Standards CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 19; 10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:

The issues addressed in this proposed rule will be dealt with in, and the notice of proposed rulemaking published 2/20/79 will be

. superseded by, the comprehensive revision of Part.20. As a result, this rulemaking was terminated by the EDO on February 1, 1985. The proposed rule was published because of the desire of the Commission to reduce the risk of occupational radiation doses in Commission-licensed activities. In particular, the Commission desired to cut off individual exposures greater than 5 rems / year that are permitted by the 5 (N-18) dose averaging provisions in section 20.101 (b). Other considerations included the Commissions's continuing systematic assessment of exposure patterns, and recommendations in Publication 26 of the International Commission on Radiological Protection for controlling radiation dose. The Commission took into account recently published interpretations of epidemiological data and associated recommendations for lower dose standards, PRM-20-6 and PRM-20-6a.- The proposed rule would have eliminated the accumulated dose averaging formula and the associated Form NRC-4

" Occupational External Radiation Exposure History" and imposed annual dose-limiting standards while retaining quarterly standards. In addition, the proposed rule contains provisions that would have expressed in terms of new annual standards, the i standard for dose to minors, and the requirements for control of total dose to all workers, including transient and moonlighting workers.

TIMETABLE:

L

~

NPRM 02/20/79 44 FR 10388 Previous NPRM 02/20/79 44 FR 10388 WITHDRAWN 02/01/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

l 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201 l

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:

William A. Mills Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4353 i

I

s I

TITLE:-

+ Lower Radiation Exposure Levels for Fertile Women CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 19; 10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:

The issue addressed in this proposed rule and the notice of proposed rulemaking published 01/03/75 (40 FR 799) will be superseded by, the comprehensive revision of Part 20. As a result, this rulemaking was terminated by the EDO on February 1, 1985. The proposed rule would have recognized that an embryo /

fetus is especially radiosensitive during critical states of embryogenesis in the early months of a pregnancy. Consideration was given to several alternative means of assuring protection for the. unborn including lower dose limits for fertile women, pregnant women, all women, or for all workers. There was concern regarding sociolegal questions including the potential for invasion of privacy, the potential impact on the employability of women and other discriminatory actions against women, and concern regarding the impact on licensees of a lower limit for all workers. The proposed amendments would have incorporated the intent of the recommendations of the National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) in Report No. 39 that the radiation exposure to an embryo or fetus be minimized.

It would help provide assurance that radiation exposures of fertile women and fetuses will be kept well within the limit of 0.5 rem during the entire pregnancy as recommended by NCRP without undue restriction on activities involving radiation and radioactive material. The proposed rule would have implemented a policy of informed consent, requiring licensees to instruct workers regarding health protection problems associated with exposure to radiation and radioactive materials by providing information about biological risks to embryos and fetuses.

Regulatory Guide 8.13, " Instruction Concerning Prenatal Radiation Exposure", provides the information considered necessary for this instruction. The proposed rule would also'have contained a Commission statement that licensees should make particular efforts to keep the radiation exposure of an embryo or fetus to the very lowest practicable level during the entire gestation periods as recommended by the NCRP.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 01/03/75 40 FR 799 Previous NPRM 01/03/75 40 FR 799 WITHDRAWN 02/01/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes 2

TITLE:

Lower Radiation Exposure Levels for Fertile Women AGENCY CONTACT:

. William A. Mills Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4353 l

O b

I i

l l

l l

t v

l

3

l TITLE:

+ Performance Testing of Bioassay Labs CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:

The Executive Director for Operations approved termination of the proposed ~ rule on. February 1, 1985. The rulemaking'was terminated because the Health Physics Society' Standards Committee is preparing Standard on Performance Testing of Bioassay Labs, which

' will be completed in about two years. Following an evaluation of the performance of bioassay labs against the standard, a decision will be made regarding the necessity of rulemaking. The proposed rule would have required licensees, who provide bioassay services for individuals to assess internal radiation exposure, to use accredited laboratories after an accreditation program is

. established. An expert, primarily industry-based, committee of the Health Physics Society wrote a draft standard. The draft standard was revised to take into account early comments that the NRC' solicited and received from industry. The NRC, in cooperation i

with the DOE, established a performance testing study to test the 4 standard, and to design and set up and accreditation program.

Results of Phase 1 measuring radioactivity in human excretion

' samples, showed that ways must be f'ound for more uniform quality control of analytical methods, or that some criteria of the standard may be more restrictive than appropriate for these kinds of analyses. The majority of persons in the affected i industry still appear to favor a rule requiring accreditation (with testing) of laboratories providing radiobioassay services to NRC. licensees.

4 TIMETABLE:

WITHDRAWN 02/01/85

. LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 5841

! EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 4

AGENCY CONTACT:

Allen Brodsky Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research I Washington, DC 20555

! 301 427-4394 I

f i

! 4 1

I i

f, l

i

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

TITLE:

+ Revision of Consumer Product Approval' Criteria and Regulations CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40 ABSTRACT:

The Executive Director for Operations approved-the termination of this rule on February 6, 1985. The purpose of the proposed rule was to reevaluate the policy, criteria, and regulations that govern the use of radioactive material in consumer products. This action was taken in order to determine whether a proposed-rule was needed to : (1)-codify the NRC policy on consumer product approval criteria; (2) review and revise regulations in-Part 30 providing exemptions for consumer products; (3) review, revise, and reorganize regulations in Part~40 providing exemptions for consumer products. The NRC terminated this rulemaking effort because (1) the consumer product approval criteria,1although not

. codified, has been used satisfactorily for nearly 20 years, and (2) consumer product regulations appear in most cases, to be adequate. However, the need for a proposed rule in this area will be considered after one year.

TIMETABLE:

WITHDRAWN 02/06/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Anthony N. Tse Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7902 5

i 1

l TITLE: I

+ Severe Accident Design Criteria CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The Executive Director approved termination of the advance notice of proposed rulemaking on February 1, 1985. This rule- making activity has been supplanted by the Severe Accident Policy Statement (SECY-84-370) now before the Commission. The advance notice of proposed rulemaking would have provided the nuclear industry and the public an opportunity to submit advice and recommendations to the Commission on what should be the content of a regulation requiritig improvements to cope with degraded core cooling and with accidents not covered adequately by traditional design envelopes.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 10/02/80 45 FR'65474 ANPRM Comment Period Begin 10/02/80- 45 FR 65474 ANPRM Comment Period End 12/31/80 Policy Statement Comment Per. Beg 04/13/83 48 FR 16014 Policy Statement Comment Per. Ends 07/09/83 48 FR 16014 WITHDRAWN 02/01/85 3

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Morton R. Fleishman Office of Nuclear. Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7616-l l

l s

6

<w'-- + -> ---- ---

TITLE:

Extension of Construction Completion Date CFR CITATION:

10.CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The Office of Executive. Legal Director has recommended that the staff discontinue development of this rule. The proposed rule would have clarified the provision of Section 50.55 (b) which describes both the procedure for renewal of a construction permit for a nuclear power plant following its expiration (a showing of

" good cause") and the circumstances under which the Commission will consider granting a request for an extension of a construction completion date. The proposed rule would have also addressed two essentially identical petitions for rulemaking filed with the Commission by the State of Illinois (PRM-50-25) and the Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America, et al. The petitioners requested that Section 50.35 (b) be amended or rescinded, and that the Commission promulgate a regulation which would not limit a " good cause" showing to the reasons why construction was not completed before the latest completion date specified in the construction permit.

TIMETABLE:

WITHDRAWN 02/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2235 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Linda S. Gilbert l Office of the Executive Legal Director

! Washington, DC 20555 l 301 492-7678 i

( 7 l

l i

. _ _ . - _ _ . _ . . _ = . . .- - . . - ._ - ._ . _ .

1 1

TITLE:

Interim Requirements Related to Hydrogen Control l

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The final rule would improve hydrogen control capability for boiling water reactors (BWRs) with MARK III containments and for pressurized water reactors (PWRs) with ice condenser containments. The amendments require improved hydrogen control.

i systems that can handle large amounts of hydrogen during and >

following an accident. For those of the affected reactors not relying upon an inerted atmosphere for hydrogen control, the rule requires that certain systems and components be able to function during and following hydrogen burning. The rule is needed to improve'the capability of the PWRs and BWRs to withstand the effects of a large amount of hydrogen generation and release to s

containment from an accident, as occurred at Three Mile Island..

The new requirements will result in greater assurance that nuclear power reactor containments and safety systems and components will continue to function properly so that the reactors can be safely shut down following a Three Mile '

Island-type of accident.

An alternative to the final rule'was to maintain the status quo with licensing decisions being treated on a case-by-case basis.

1 However, this alternative would not result in any savings to NRC ,

or the industry, since the requirements.of the rule would still  ;

be implemented. Because of the potential for time-consuming and costly litigation for each case, maintaining the status quo would have resulted in additional costs.

The estimated cost to the affected licensees is $9 million (for the assumed 14 plants that would be affected).-The additional-cost to the NRC is estimated to be $280,000. ,

I TIMETABLE:

i NPRM 12/23/81 46 FR 62281 NPRM Comment Period Begin 12/23/81 46 FR 62281 l NPRM Comment Period End 02/22/82 i

, Final Action 01/25/85 50 FR 3498 ,

I Final Action Effective 02/25/85 50 FR 3498 1 LEGAL AUTHORITY: l 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2152; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2234; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2239; 42 USC 2273; 42'USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 4

8

i

-TITLE:

Interim Requirements Related to Hydrogen Control AGENCY CONTACT:-

Morton R. Fleishman Office of-_ Nuclear Regulatory Research

. Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7616 il 9

_ _ - - - - - - . - - . . - - - ,v - r 3 r

1 i

TITLE:

Criteria and Procedures for Determining the Adequacy of Available Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Capacity CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 53 ABSTRACT:

The final rule implements procedures and criteria that the update NRC will use to determine whether a person owning and operating a civilian nuclear power plant is able to store the spent nuclear fuel generated at the plant. This determination is necessary before the Secretary of the Department of Energy may enter into a contractual arrangement with the owner of the plant to provide interim Federal storage for limited amounts of spent fuel that the owner is unable to store. Alternative procedures considered for the NRC to determine a licensee's need to use interim Federal storage were that (1) the licensee, without NRC guidance, provide sufficient information for the NRC to make this determination; (2) the Commission itself, rather than the EDO relying on the technical staff's review, make the determination; or (3) the NRC restate the statutory criteria for making the determination without providing further guidance as to how the Commission would make its determination.

It is anticipated that a licensee will expend an average of nine (9) months of professional staff resources to prepare a request for a Commission determination. This is equivalent to

$75,000 per request. A maximum of seven requests is expected in the 1984-1989 time period, for a maximum industry cost of

$525,000. NRC will be required to expend approximately two (2) months of staff time per request. This is equivalent to $19,200.

With not more than seven requests anticipated in the 1984-1989 time period, total NRC costs should not exceed $135,000.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 assigned the responsibility for this determination to the NRC.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 04/29/83 48 FR 19382 NPRM Comment Period Begin 04/29/83 48 FR 19382 NPRM Comment Period End 06/28/83 Final Action 02/11/85 50 FR 5548 Final Action Effective 03/13/85 50 FR 5548 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2011; 42 USC 2092; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 4332; 42 USC 5801; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5847; 42 USC 10152; 42 USC 10155 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 10

- TITLE:

Criteria and Procedures for Determining the Adequacy of Ava'ilable Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Capacity AGENCY CONTACT:

Donald R. Hopkins Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7878.

f l-11

I i

l TITLE:

L + Material Control and Accounting Requirements for Low Enriched Uranium Fuel Cycle Facilities I

< CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 74 i

, ABSTRACT:

Under currently applicable. regulations, material control and accounting (MC&A) requirements for low enriched uranium (LEU) and

- strategic special nuclear material (SSNM) differ very little. -

t However, both NRC-sponsored and independent studies have concluded that safeguards risks associated with LEU are far less significant than risks associated with SSNM. Current requirements do not sufficiently reflect this fact. The objective of this rule is to eliminate unnecessarily burdensome regulatory requirements.

' Because of the generic application of this action, it should be accomplished through rulemaking rather than through individual.

license conditions. This rulemaking action establishes more cost j effective MC&A requirements for LEU and reduces these requirements to a level commensurate with the material's low safeguards significance.

1 Although MC&A requirements for LEU are reduced by this rulemaking, the public will not be affected since the new requirements provide. appropriate protection for the public health and safety consistent with_the low strategic significance of the

, material. The total estimated savings for the industry is 4 $3.2 million per year with an additional potential gain of $725, 000 resulting from additional operating time from the elimination of one inventory per year. Since the rule has been completed, the bulk of NRC resources yet to be expended will be approximately 0.5 staff year for review of the fundamental nuclear material control plans submitted in response to the new requirements.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 12/14/82 47 FR 55951 NPRM Comment Period Begin 12/14/82 47 FR 55951 NPRM Comment Period End 02/14/83

Final Action 02/25/85 50 FR 7575 Final Action Effective 03/27/85 50 FR 7575 LEGAL AUTHORITY

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 4-EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Carl J. Withee Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

Washington, DC 20555

'301 427-4768 12 i-

l B

5 (B) Proposed Rules k

h 2 -

f i

i.

1, - --

,-a e a - - - - . n u , L l

I i

F A

1

(

l I

l t

i l

l I

I

TITLE:

Procedures Involving the Equal Access to Justice Act:

Implementation CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 1; 10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule provides new provisions intended to implement the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The provisions would provide for the payment of fees and expenses to certain eligible individuals and businesses that prevail in adjudications with the agency when the agency's position is determined not to have been substantially justified. The basis for these proposed regulations is a set of model. rules issued by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) that have been modified to conform to NRC's established rules of practice. The proposed rule would further the EAJA's intent by insuring the development of government-wide " uniform" agency regulations and by providing NRC procedures and requirements for the filing and disposition of EAJA applications. A final draft rule was sent to the Commission in June 1982, but Commission action has been suspended pending a 4 decision by the Comptroller General on the availability of funds

.to pay awards to intervenor parties. The decision from the Comptroller General has been rendered and is currently being l analyzed.

More recently than the actions just discussed, however, the President vetoed a version of a bill that would renew with

, some change the EAJA and requested that Congress submit another j version. (November 12, 1984, Memorandum of Disapproval on H.R.

! 5479, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Volume 20, I pp.1814-1816). This rule is being held in abeyance until another version of the EAJA has been passed.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 10/28/81 46 FR 53189 NP3M Comment Period Begin 10/28/81 46 FR 53189 l NPRM Comment Period End 11/28/81 Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

i 5 USC 504 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Beverly Segal

. Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-3224 l

13 l

f

TITLE:

Exceptions to Notice and Comment Rulemaking Procedures CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

This proposed rule would amend the Commission's rules of practice by revising NRC procedures contained in Sections 2.804 and 2.805 to clarify the Commission's use of the exceptions to notice and comment rulemaking contained in the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). Exception to notice and comment rulemaking may be applied (1) to interpretive rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)) or (2) when the agency for good cause finds that notice and comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). This clarification is necessary in light of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decision in Union of Concerned Scientists v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, No. 82-2000 (D.C.

Cir. June 30, 1983) which vacated a Commission rulemaking on the Environmental Qualification of electrical equipment. The court-held that by making the rule immediately effective, instead of providing for notice and comment, the NRC had among other things, violated 10 CFR 2.804 of the Commission regulations which the Cour~t read as a requirement for notice and comment in all Commission rulemakings. The proposed rule will provide explicitly for Commission discretion to invoke in appropriate situations the APA exceptions to notice and comment rulemakings cited above.

There are no satisfactory alternatives to this proposed clarification. It will have little or no impact on the public or the regulated industry because it merely clarifies existing Commission practice. Development and promulgation of the rule will involve approximately 320 hours0.0037 days <br />0.0889 hours <br />5.291005e-4 weeks <br />1.2176e-4 months <br /> of NRC staff time, at $60 per hour for a total of $119,200.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 04/02/84 49 FR 13043 NPRM Comment Period Begin 04/02/84 49 FR 13043 NPRM Comment Period End 05/02/84 Final Action 03/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Francis X. Cameron Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8689 14

TITLE:

Commission Review Procedures for Power Reactor Construction Permits; Immediate Effectiveness Rule CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would amend the immediate effectiveness rule with regard to rules of practice for granting a power reactor construction permit to conform to those for granting an operating license. It (1) would retain the requirement that the Commission conduct a limited revie'w of an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's decision to grant a construction permit pending completion of administrative appeals and (2) would delete the requirement that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board conduct a similar review. The proposed rule would not affect the separate Appeal Board and Commission appellate reviews of the merits of Licensing Board decisions. It would reduce somewhat the time required for administrative review of construction permit decisions while retaining direct Commission oversight prior to permit issuance.

The comment period closed November 24, 1982. Nine comments were received. Half of the comments favored the proposed rule while half opposed it. This proposed rule does not preclude further action on five alternatives for amending the "Immediate effectiveness" rule presented in an earlier notice on May 22, 1980 (45 FR 34279).

The public comment period on the " Regulatory Reform Proposal Concerning the Rules of Practice and Rules for Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities" (49FR 14698) closed June 11, 1984. As a result of staff evaluation of these comments and further staff review of the "immediate effectiveness" issues, a

, rule is being proposed that will supersede this proposed rule and l another entitled, "Possible Amendments to 'Immediate Effectiveness' Rules."

i TIMETABLE:

! NPRM 10/25/82 47 FR 47260 NPRM Comment Period Begin 10/25/82 47 FR 47260 l NPRM Comment Period End 11/24/82 l Final Action 04/00/85 l LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No I 15

r- , - - - - - . - _ _ . _ - . _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ - - - _ . _

TITLE:

Commission Review Procedures for Power Reactor Construction Permits; Immediate Effectiveness Rule AGENCY CONTACT:

Martin G. Malsch.

Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 1202'634-1465 16

TITLE:

Separation of Functions and Ex Parte Communications in On-the-Record Adjudications CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would amend the Commission's rules of practice regarding the separation of functions and ex parte communications in on-the-record adjudications. The proposed rule would allow the Commission greater flexibility in communicating with its staff by relaxing the restrictions on Commission-staff communications in initial licensing cases. The proposal would permit Commissioners to consult with staff members who were not personally involved in the proceeding and who did not consult privately with interested persons outside the agency. The proposed rule is intended to provide.the Commission with better access to the expertise of its staff. It would conform the Commission's rules to those of the Administrative Procedures Act. It would also supersede a prior proposed rule entitled "Ex Parte Communications and Separation of Adjudicatory and Non-Adjudicatory Functions" puolished in the

-Federal Register on March 7, 1979 (44 FR 1242e).

The issues encompassed in this rule were considered in the

" Regulatory Reform Proposal Concerning the Rules of Practice and Rules for Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities" (49 FR 14698). As a result of staff evaluation of comments received on this proposal and further staff review, a rule addressing these issues is being proposed for Commission consideration.

NRC resources needed for this rulemaking are estimated at 500

( staff hours. This proposed rule and other regulatory reform hearing process should ultimately provide cost savings to all participants in the process.

TIMETABLE:

( Previous NPRM 03/07/79 44 FR 12428

! Next Action Undetermined i

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

5 USC 554; 5 USC 557 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

I James R. Tourtellotte l Regulatory Reform Task Force Washington, D.C. 20555 1 202 634-1461 17

l l

l TITLE:

Modifications to the NRC Hearing Process (Limited >

Interrogat'ories and Factual Basis for Contentions)

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would expedite conduct of NRC adjudicatory proceedings by requiring intervenors in formal NRC hearings to set forth the facts on which contentions are based and the sources or documents'used to establish those facts and limit the number of interrogatories that a party may file in an NRC proceeding. The proposed rule would expedite the hearing process by, among other things, requiring intervenors to set forth at the outset the facts upon which their contention is based and the supporting documentation to give other parties early notice of intervenor's case so as to afford opportunity for early dismissal of contentions where there is no factual dispute. Expediting the i hearing process should ultimately provide cost savings to all participants in the process. The content of this rule is being considered as part of the regulatory reform rulemaking package.

The package was published in the Federal Register on April 12, 1984 (49 FR 14698).

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 06/08/81 46 FR 30349 Regulatory Reform Rule 12/00/84 Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2239 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

James Tourtellote Regulatory Reform Task Force Washington, DC 20555 ,

202 634-1461 I l

l i

l i

18

l-l t

TITLE:

Notice and Comment on, Procedures for State Consultation on, and Standards for Making Determinations about Whether License Amendments Involve No Significant Hazards Considerations CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The NRC is publishing a single final rule that combines the proposed action of two interim final rules implementing, in part, PL 97-415. Modifications to the final rule are based on further staff review and evaluation of public comments received on the interim rules. The interim final rules were published April 6, 1983 (48 FR 14868). The two rules specify criteria for notice and public comment on, procedures for State consultation on, and

standards for making determinations about whether amendments to operating licenses for certain facilities involve no significant hazards considerations. In addition, the rules specify procedures for consultation on these determinations with the State in which the facility of the licensee requesting the amendment is located.

The rule permits the Commission to act expeditiously if circumstances surrounding a request for amendment require prompt response and to issue an amendment before holding any required hearing, unless a significant hazards consideration is involved.

Regarding costs for this rule, the NRC receives about 600 amendment requests each year, 98 percent of which are deemed to involve no significant hazards consideration. This may result in an average increase in burden for the licensee preparing the amendment request of four hours per amendment.

However, implementation of this rule's procedures is expected to l cost the NRC approximately five professional-staff years (PSYE)

! each year. Expected distribution of these resources would be 3.0 PSYE to significant hazards determination, 0.5 PSYE to additional

[ requested hearings, 0.3 PSYE to State consultations, and 1.0 PSYE to publication of monthly notices. At $60 per PSYE of 2087 hours0.0242 days <br />0.58 hours <br />0.00345 weeks <br />7.941035e-4 months <br /> for each of 5 years, the total cost would be approximately

$626,100.

l TIMETABLE:

Interim Final Rule 04/06/83 48 FR 14076 l Final Action 06/30/85 l

l LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; PL 97-415 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 19

- - - = . - - . - . -

TITLE:

e.

Notice'and Comment on, Procedures for State Consultation on, and Standards for Making Determinations about whether License Amendments' Involve No Significant Hazards Considerations  !

1 AGENCY CONTACT:

Thomas F. Dorian Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington, DC 20555

.301 492-8690-l l

20

l TITLE:

Possible Amendments to "Immediate Effectiveness" Rules CFR CITATION:

10-CFR 2; 10 CFR 50

' ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule indicates that the Commission is'considering-five alternative amendments to the "immediate effectiveness" rule for construction permit jroceedings. Under the original "immediate effectiveness" rule (36 FR 828, January 19, 1971) 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 was 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 (1) allowed commitment of large

-sums of money to altering sites before a final decision was made on site-related issues and (2) promoted piecemeal review rather than promoting early resolution of all licensing issues to be considered. Present rules provide for limited review of ASLB decisions by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (ASLAB) and the Commission prior to issuance of construction permits.

This proposed rule would help to determine whether NRC should 3 return to the former "immediate effectiveness" rule or adopt one of the following alternatives:(1) require the ASLAB to make'a separate ruling on the question of effectiveness,-or

(2) require final ASLAB and Commission decisions on the merits of i certain construction-related issues prior to authorizing i issuances of the construction permit; (3) require final ASLAB and 4

Commission decisions on the merits of all issues prior to authorizing issuances of the construction permit; and, return to' the former "immediate effectiveness" rule, but relax the standards for obtaining a stay of the ASLAB decisions.

The public comment period on the " Regulatory Reform Proposal Concerning the Rules of Practice and Rules for Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities" (49 FR 14698) closed June 11, 1984. As a result of staff evaluation of these comments and

further staff review of the "immediate effectiveness" issues, a rule is'being proposed that will supersede this proposed rule and

another entitiled, " Commission Review Procedures for Power J- Reactor Construction Permits; Immediate Effectiveness Rule."

=

TIMETABLE:

{ NPRM 05/22/80 45 FR 34279 Interim Final Rule 04/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 -

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No i 21 1

l 1

a TITLE

• Possible Amendments to "Imme'diate Effectiveness" Rules AGENCY CONTACT:

Beverly Segal.

Office of-the General. Counsel.

Washington,-DC.20555 202 634-3224 22

TITLE:

l Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures for Environmental Protection; Alternative Site Reviews CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 51 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would focus on six major issues associated with alternative site selection for nuclear power plants; (1) information requirements, (2) timing, (3) region of interest, (4) selection of candidate sites, (5) comparison of the proposed sites with alternative sites, and (6) reopening of the alternative site decision. 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 review of a license application by codification of the lessons learned in past and recent review of nuclear power plant sites into an environmentally sensitive rule. The proposed rule would develop understandable, written NRC review and decision making criteria to permit a rational and timely decision concerning the sufficiency of the alternative site analysis.

Alternatives to this rulemaking would include publishing a policy statement or regulatory guide or withdrawing the proposed rule. Each of these alternatives would be less efficient than completing the rulemaking. The provisions of the proposed rule ~ provide a flexible and reasoned approach to siting that would facilitate license review and make decisions more predictable. Confusion and controversy over this issue would be reduced. There would be no significant impact on costs other than savings that would result from greater certainty regarding the Commission requirements. NRC resources necessary to complete this rulemaking are minimal. Approximately two-staff months of staff time will be required to finalize this rule if the Commission decides to complete the rulemaking.

I i After considering the comments on the proposed rule, the

! Cammission published a final rule on May 28, 1981 (46 FR 28630).

l That final rule aCdressed the sixth issue, reopening the construction permit or early site review stages insofar as it relates to operating license proceedings. Finalization of other

portions of the proposed rule has been deferred until completion l

of a comprehensive review of radionuclide source terms from i reactor accidents.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 04/09/80 45 FR 24168 NPRM Comment Period Begin 04/09/80 45 FR 24168 NPRM Comment Period End 06/09/80 Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 4332; 42 USC 5841 23

TITLE:

Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures for Environmental Protection; Alternative Site Reviews EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

William R. Ott Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4615 E

24 l

-. . .. -.- _ - - _ _ - . . . - . - - - = - - - -. .-

j. TITLE:

t Hybrid Hearing. Procedures for Expansions of Onsite Spent Fuel

. Storage Capacity at Civilian Nuclear. Power Reactors CFR CITATION:

. 10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 72-4 i

i ABSTRACT:. .

l The proposed rule contains two options for implementing.the hybrid hearing process in Section 134 of the Nuclear Waste Policy l

Act of 1982. That section sets forth a hybrid hearing process for j certain contested proceedings on applications for a license or a license amendment to expand the spent nuclear fuel storage

, capacity at the-site of a civilian nuclear power reactor. Either l version of the proposed rule would provide for an oral argument i- in the early stage of the hearing process and would designate l only genuine and substantial issues for resolution in an adjudicatory hearing. Option 1 would add a new Subpart K to Part

2. Subpart K would require the use of hybrid procedures in all

! proceedings to which section 134 applies. It would also change the initial stages of the existing hearing process by, allowing a person whose interest is affected to participate as a party and l ~to obtain discovery without the need to plead contentions. Option l

2 would permit the use of hybrid procedures at the request of any.

!~

-party to the proceeding. It would be implemented _by means of an alternative form of summary disposition under a new Sec. 2.749a.

In all other respects, the existing Part 2 procedures would apply. The Commission sought comments on both proposals to aid in i

its choice of procedures for the final rule.

l The hybrid hearing procedures are intended to simplify and j expedite the licensing process for spent fuel storage facility expansions and transshipments. The propcsed rule is needed to permit full realization of those statutory purposes. Because section 134 applies by its terms to applications filed after January 7, 1983, a final rule should be developed'as soon as practicable. There are no alternatives to rulemaking that would meet the statutory objectives. The rule will simplify and expedite the hearing process resulting in less costly and shorter hearings for license applicants, intervenors, the NRC staff, and the Licensing Boards. Members of the public who seek to participate in NRC licensing proceedings will have an opportunity to request an oral argument but will be required to make a

-stronger showing of need in order to require that an adjudicatory

• hearing be held.

l 25 I

l

. TITLE:

Hybrid Hearing Procedures for Expansions of Onsite Spent Fuel Storage Capacity at Civilian Nuclear Power Reactors TIMETABLE:

NPRM -12/05/83 48 FR 54499 NPRM Comment Period Begin 12/05/83 49 FR 414 NPRM Comment Period Extended to 02/20/84 01/04/84 49 FR 414 NPRM Comment Period End 02/20/84

~ Final Action 07/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2239 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Linda S. Gilbert Office of Executive Legal Director Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7678 l

l 26

._.. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - . _ - - - . ._ ._ _ - . . _ _ _ _ . _ m - _ . _

i 1

l TITLE:

Nondiscrimination on Basis of Age in Federally Assisted g Commission Programs CFR CITATION:

i 10 CFR 4 l ABSTRACT:

! The proposed rule would implement the provisions of the Age

! Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended. The proposed amendment makes it' unlawful for any recipient.of Federal financial.

. assistance to discriminate on the basis of age in programs or

activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the NRC.

The Act also contains certain exceptions that permit, under r limited circumstances, continued use of age distinctions or factors other than age that may.have a disproportionate effect on the basis of age. The Act. applies.to persons of all ages. The

proposed rule is necessary to comply with the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, which directs that all Federal agencies empowered-to

, provide Federal financial assistance issue rules, regulations, i and directives consistent.with standards and procedures established by the Secretary of Health and Human Services _(HHS).

~

i NRC's proposed and final regulations have been modeled after those HHS guidelines as published in 45 CFR 90.

On November 23, 1981, a copy of the draft final regulations was j transmitted to the Office of the General Counsel of the Civil l Rights Division, HHS, for review to comply with the requirement that. final agency regulations not be published until the i Secretary of HHS approved them. On July 13, 1984, HHS transmitted l a letter to NRC indicating its approval of the regulation, as proposed.

. TIMETABLE:

-NPRM 09/21/81 46 FR 46582 Final Action 07/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 6101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No

' AGENCY CONTACT

Edward E. Tucker Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization / Civil Rights Washington, DC i 301 492-7697 l

i.' -

27

. - - . ___ ._. . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ ~ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ . . . _ , _ _ . . _ , . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

TITLE:

Production or Disclosure in Response to Subpoenas or Demands of Courts or Other Authorities i

CFR CITATION: 1 10 CFR 9 1 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would add Subpart D to 10 CFR Part 9 to prescribe procedures with respect to the production of documents or disclosure of information in response to subpoenas or demands of courts or other judicial or quasi-judicial authorities in state and Federal proceedings. The proposed rule would clarify the procedures to be followed by Commission employees in responding to demands for testimony, information, or documents and would ensure that the responsibility for determining the response to the demands is placed on the appropriate Commission official.

-TIMETABLE:

NPRM 07/10/84 49 FR 28012 NPRM Comment Period Begin 07/10/84 49 FR 28012 NPRM Comment Period End 08/09/84 Final Action 05/01/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Theresa W. Hajosh Office of General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-1493 I

28

s ,

y l- TITLE:

L . Accreditation of Personnel Dosimeter Processors CFR' CITATION:

10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:- .

, .The notice.of proposed rulemaking seeks comment on a proposal to i

add amendments to.10 CFR Part 20 that would. improve the accuracy and consistency of repor'ted occupational radiation dose measurement.by requiring proficiency tests of dosimetry processors.who perform dosimetry for NRC' licensees. The' proposed

(~, amendments would require NRC licensees to have personnel dosimeters-(devices carried or worn by each radiation worker to I

measure radiation exposure received during work) processed by a j -dosimetry service that is accredited by NBS/NVLAP. The Commission i considered five alternatives for establishing a regulatory program intended.to improve personnel dosimetry processing. These

alternatives included

.no change in current requirements; requiring licensees to participate in performance testing without j- specifying a testing laboratory; requiring licensees to

, participate in performance testing conducted by an NRC-specified testing laboratory; a request from Congress for the, authority for ,

NRC to license personnel dosimetry processors directly; and '

!l requiring. licensees to obtain dosimetry services from an j NRC-operated or contracted dosimetry service.

An. evaluation of estimated annual costs to the dosimetry i processing industry resulting from an NRC rule requiring 1- licensees to utilize dosimetry processors accredited under an  !

j' NBS/NVLAP program was projected to be about $717,000. This would result in an estimated net annual increase in the cost of providing monitoring for each worker per year of $0.51, a 2.1%

annual increase. The major benefit of the proposed rule would be-L increased accuracy and reliability of dose measurement to workers in. licensed installations. Other benefits include continued assurance of-personnel dosimeter processor competence with 1

minimal NRC staff and resource-allocation; formulation of a I program that can easily be utilized by other agencies; value to 6 l the industrial licensee through legal credibility of a

= nationally-recognized accreditation program; and value to the

! worker through more accurate assignment of dose. The staff is

( currently analyzing the comments received on the NPRM.

t .

L TIMETABLE:

!' ANPRM 03/28/80 45 FR 20493 l ANPRM Comment Period Begin 05/12/80 45 FR 31118 ANPRM Comment Period End 06/27/80 NPRM 01/10/84 49 FR 1205

• NPRM Comment Period Begin 01/10/84 49 FR 1205 >

NPRM Comment Period End 03/12/84 Final Action 09/01/85 29

TITLE:

Accreditation of Personnel Dosimeter Processors i

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2134; )

t' 42 USC:2201; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 l EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:.

Don Nellis Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4588 30

l TITLE:

Reports:of Theft or Loss of Licensed Material CFR CITATION:

-10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would remove a discretionary clause that requires each NRC licensee to report a. loss or theft of licensed material only when it appears to the licensee that the loss or theft would pose a substantial hazard to persons in an unrestricted area. The proposed rule would provide increased radiological safety to the public by requiring that all losses or thefts of licensed material be reported to the NRC if the loss 4

exceeds the minimum quantity specified in the regulations. The estimated total annual cost to affected licensees is $6,000, or approximately $200 per license. The estimated cost to the NRC is

$2,000 annually.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 05/09/83 48 FR 20721 NPRM Comment Period Begin 05/09/83 NPRM Comment Period End 06/23/83 Final-Action 12/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2073 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Donald R. Hopkins

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7878 l

l~

L 31 l

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

i ,

N, N,

I l

TITLE: 1 Access to and Protection of National Security Information and i Restricted Data l CFR CITATION:

, 10 CFR 25; 10 CFR 95 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would incorporate a recen'tly approved exception to the personnel security background investigation requirement

for access _to Communications Security (COMSEC) information, provide a procedure for affected licensees to obtain NRC approval for any substantive changes a licensee may contemplate making to the approved security plan, and adopt various ministerial revisions to bring certain provisions in conformance with current policy, practice, and procedure. These amendments are necessary to incorporate experience gained under the current regulations

, and implement an exception to current policy recently approved by 7

the National Communications Security Committee.

Because this rulemaking would apply only to those licensees and others who need to use, process, store, reproduce or otherwise handle classified information, it is expected that this rulemaking would have a negligible effect upon the general public. These amendments are viewed as regulatory improvements,

benefitting the NRC licensees. NRC staff resources should total about 400 hours0.00463 days <br />0.111 hours <br />6.613757e-4 weeks <br />1.522e-4 months <br />.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 03/13/85 50 FR 10064

NPRM COMMENT PERIOD BEGIN 03/13/85 50 FR 10064 NPRM COMMENT PERIOD END 05/13/85. '

4 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2165; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Richard A. Dopp i Office of Administration l f Washington, DC 20555 '

301 427-4549 i

i 32 4

.a -,_ -- - _ - , - - - - _ _ , _ _ , - . _ . . . - . . - - -. _ _ . - - - _ . - - -..,__.._c ,,, _

l l

TITLE:

Residual Contamination in Smelted Alloys CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 32; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 150 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule;would exempt from licensing and regulatory requirements technetium-99 and low enriched uranium as residual contamination.in any smelted alloy. The proposed rule would remove the Commission's present specific licensing requirement that has the effect of~ inhibiting trade in and recycling of metal scrap contaminated with small amounts of these radioactive materials. This requirement also prevents recycling by the secondary metals industry of smelted alloys containing these two radioactive materials. The NRC issued the proposed rule'in response to a Department of Energy request. A draft environmental statement for this action has been prepared.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 10/27/80 45 FR 70874 NPRM Comment Period Begin 10/27/80 45 FR 70874 NPRM Comment Period End 12/11/80 Environmental Impact Statement 04/30/84 Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2021; 42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2077; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

~

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

D. R. Hopkins Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l Washington, DC 20555 l 301 443-7878 l

i l

l-I 33

h

' TITLE:. .

Decommissioning . Criteria for' Ruclear Facilities CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 30;'10'CFR 40; 10 CFP. 50; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 71 3 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would establish th'e technical and financial criteria for-

~decomissioning. licensed facilities necessary to provide more specific

~

. guidance.for production and utilization facility li_censees and byproduct,

. source, and speciall nuclear materials licenses. The proposed. rule is intended'to ' protect;public health and. safety by assuring that decomis-sioning will be accomplished in a safe and timely manner.and that funds foridecommissioning yill be available.

The major cost impact of.the proposed rule would involve proper ~planni_ng at all stages of nuclear facility operation. _ Proper planning includes

.providing for (1) financial assurance.-that funding will be available for decomissioning, .(2) maintenance-of records that could affect decomission-

.ino, and (3) careful planning of procedures at the time of decomissioning..

For the roughly 150 non-reactor facilities affected_by financfa1 assurance requirements, it-is estimated that the major impact will' result' in-an over-

~

all expenditure of 85 staff-years ($6.4 million) spread over 5 years or 1.28, million per year).

For the approximately 80 operating reactors plus 75-research and test reactors, it is estimated that the major impact will result in an

aggregate expenditure of 8.51 staff-years ($638,000) spread over'3 years.

These-expenditures will ensure that adequate measures have been taken to protect the health and safety of occupational ~ workers, the public, and

. the environment within the confines of optimum cost-benefit- consideration.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 03/13/78 43 FR 10370 4..

-NPRM 02/11/85~ _50 FR 5600. _

NPRM Comment Period Begin 02/11/85 50 FR 5600 NPRM Coment Period End 05/13/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY: r 42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes h

i r I

34 }

i

, - . .= . . . . . . .. .. .

=TIKLE:.

Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities

' AGENCY CONTACT:

Keith G.~Steyer/ Catherine Mattsen ,

4 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

' Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7910 ,

1 k

1 4

l' l

t i

l 35 p.

[-

i I

I

-TITLE:

Radiation Surveys and In-House Inspection Systems in Radiography I

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 34 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would require that the in-house inspection description in a radiography license application specify a method for inspecting each radiographer and radiographer's assistant's knowledge of applicable regulations, license conditions, and performance of established procedures at intervals not exceeding three months. This action is intended to further ensure that radiographic operations are conducted safely.

The cost of performing the inspection is estimated to be

$120.00 per worker or $432,960 per year for the entire industry.

There is no impact on the NRC staff. The proposed rule would also require a licensee to perform and record a radiation survey of a radiographic exposure device made when storing the device after use instead of recording the results of the radiation survey made after the last exposure. This action, which is taken in response to_ petition for rulemaking (PRM-34-3) is intended to provide an acceptable procedure for assuring that the sealed source has been properly stored within the device.

Alternatives to rulemaking were considered including preparation of guidance recommending a time-of-storage survey or license condition. These approaches would not have a regulatory basis and also would not be adaptable by agreement states.

Requiring an additional radiation survey at the time of storage provides additional assurance that accidental exposures will not occur to members of the public as well as workers. The cost of this survey requirement to the entire industry is estimated to be

$541,200 annually ($150.00 per radiographer). There are no additional recordkeeping costs. Impact on NRC staff is negligible since inspectorn will review the time-of-storage survey record rather than the last use survey record. NRC staff time for processing this rule to final publication is estimated to be 0.4 staff years.

TIMETABLE:

Petition for Rulemaking (PRM-34-3) 11/23/82 47 FR 52722 NPRM 10/04/84 49 FR 39168 NPRM Comment Period Begin 10/04/84 49 FR 39168 NPRM Comment Period End 11/18/84 Final Action 10/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Undetermined

?

36

TITLE:

Radiation Surveys'and In-House Inspection Systems in Radiography AGENCY CONTACT:

Donald O. - Nellis Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301.,427-4588 T

.9 37

TITLE:

Patient Dosage Measurement CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would require that the activity of each radiopharmaceutical dosage be measured before it is administered to a patient. Each of NRC's specific medical licensees is currently required to perform these measurements by a license condition. This action is intended to ensure the consistent application of the requirement and to simplify licensing by replacing the individual license conditions with a single regulatory requirement that would apply to all current and future medical licensees. Because, the only way to impose a requirement on all medical licensees is by license condition or regulation; no alternative action was considered. The proposed rule will require licensees to measure each dosage and make a record of each measurement. Because, the requirement is currently imposed by license condition, there will not be cost savings or additional burden; however, the industry and NRC will benefit by having a clear, concise requirement in the regulation. The proposed rule is being incorporated into a proposed revision of 10 CFR Part 35 (See RIN-3150-AA73 Medical Use of Byproduct Material).

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 09/01/81 46 FR 43840 NPRM Comment Period Begin 09/01/81 46 FR 43840 NPRM Comment Period End 11/30/81 Final Action 04/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Norman L. McElroy Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4108 38 1

t TITLE:

Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Conforming NRC Requirements to EPA Standards CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 40

" ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would revise the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulations governing the disposal of uranium mill tailings to conform-them to regulations recently published by the Environmental Protection Agency that set standards for protecting the environment from.these wastes. The proposed rule would remove inconsistencies between NRC and EPA requirements and incorporate

.in NRC regulations the stability, radon release, and.other-provisions of the EPA standard not related to' groundwater. This action is necessary to comply.with provisions of the Uranium Mill Tallinos Radiation Control Act and the NRC Authorization Act~for FY 1985; therefore no alternatives to-this action need to-be considered. EPA has estimated that compliance with their recently published regulations would cost the uranium milling industry-from about $310 million to $540 million to dispose of all existing tailings and tailings to be generated by the year,2000.

This~ includes the costs of the groundwater protection provisions which are to be addressed in' future NRC rule changes. The EPA regulations ~are binding on NRC licensees in the interim. The final rule should be in place within 6 months after publication of the proposed rule and require only nominal (less than at $25,044) NRC staff resources.

TIMETABLE:

'NPRM- 11/26/84 49 FR 48418 NPRM Comment Period Begin 11/26/84 50 FR 2293 NPRM Comment' Period End 02/10/85

, Final Action 05/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC.2014; 42 USC 2092; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2094; 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC ~'il3; 42 USC 2114; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2?36; 42 USC 2282; 42 USC 2021; 42 USC 5841 .

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Kitty S. Dragonette Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301'427-4300 39

~ . . . . .

4 b TITLE:

+-Implementation of the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material 7>-

f I

CFR CITATION: .+

10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 110 ABSTRACT:

The NRC is amending its regulations in order to implement the provisions of the Convention on the' Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. Since NRC is responding to implementing

' legislation enacted by Congress and signed by the President, no alternatives ;<ere consides*ed. The proposed amendments would require (1) the physical protection of transient shipments of special nuclear material of moderate and low strategic significance and irradiated reactor fuel, (2) advance 1

~ notification to NRC concerning the export of Convention-defined nuclear materials, and (3) advance notification and assurance of

protection to NRC concerning the importation of convention-defined nuclear. materials from countries that are not parties to the Convention, and (4) advance notification and assurance of protection concerning transient shipments of Convention-defined nuclear material shipped between countries'that are not party to the Convention. The adoption of the proposed amendments would result in improved security for Convention-defined nuclear 4

material during interr ional transport.

4 Compliance with the new regulations is expected to cost licensees about $230,000 annually. Public comments have been received and analyzed.

TIMETABLE

NPRM 07/14/83 48 FR 32182 NPRM Comment Period Begin 07/14/83 48 FR 32182 NPRM Comment Period End 10/13/83 Rule is currently pending before the 4

Commission.

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42'USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

- EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Carl Sawyer Office of' Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4186 40 J

,w~ .-e,--,-- - , . -- , , . - - - ,--.,-.--n----%---,--- .~.e, . - . - - . - . -~ .w,--- -- -- - =.-_m. -. -

TITLE:

Pressurized Thermal Shock CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would codify the NRC staff's recommended near-term actions for protection against pressurized thermal shock ~(PTS) events. Specifically, the provisions of the proposed rule would establish screening criteria for axial and circumferential welds; require licensees with operating plants to submit _ data concerning their reactor vessels to the NRC staff for review; require certain licensees to submit an analysis and schedule for implementation of flux-reduction programs; and require certain licensees with operating pressurized water reactors (PWRs) to submit a PTS safety analysis to the NRC staff for review. The issue of pressurized thermal shock arises because in PWRs, transients and accidents can occur that result in severe overcooling (thermal shock) of the reactor pressure vessel concurrent with,'or followed by, repressurization. In these PTS events, rapid cooling of the reactor vessel internal surface results in thermal stress with a maximum tensile stress at the inside surface of the vessel. The provisions of the proposed rule would apply only to PWRs. The major considered alternative to the proposed rule was taking no action.

With the possible_ exception of a few plants where large flux reduction options may be initiated in the near future, the only significant costs will be future analysis costs for those few plants 1that are expected to approach the screening RT-NDT limit.

A cost analysis will be prepared for those plant after receipt of the plant specific analysis and the resulting determination of the particular corrective regulatory action necessary and expedient for the plant. It is anticipated that the value of such i identified corrective actions will be large~in comparison to-the relatively low cost of performing the analyses necessary to

identify those actions, and therefore the presently proposed rule

is justified. An estimate of the cost for performing the plant-

specific analyses by the staff is four staff-weeks time 10,000

!- for each evaluation.

! TIMETABLE:

NPRM ~02/07/84 48 FR 4498 NPRM Comment Period Begin 02/07/84 48 FR 4498 NPRM Comment Period End 05/07/84 Final Action 08/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

' EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND G ER ENTITIES: No 41

~l s

l l

l 1

TITLE: 1 Pressurized Thermal Shock l AGENCY' CONTACT:

Roy H. Woods 4 Office-of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4714 d

9 42

TITLE:

Fitness for Duty of Personnel with Access to Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50' ABSTRACT:

At a Commission meeting, October 17, 1984, the Commission directed the staff to draft a policy statement on programs for training and qualification in lieu of publishing this proposed

" Fitness _for Duty" rule and other proposed training and qualification amendments. On December 10, 1984, the NRC decided to separate the policy statement on fitness for duty from the policy statement on training and qualifications. Therefore, this proposed rule is being withdrawn. The policy is being established to allow power reactor applicants and licensees to develop and implement their own fitness-for-duty programs during a 2 year period. Nothing in the policy statement limits NRC's authority or responsibility to follow up on operational events or its enforcement authority when regulatory requirements'are not met.

The proposed rule would have required licensees to establish and implement controls to provide reasonable assurance that persons with unescorted and escortea access to vital areas of nuclear power plants are fit for duty. The Commission initiated the rule in response to concern by members of the public that nuclear power plant personnel, like airline pilots, should not be permitted to perform activities that could degrade the public health and safety while unfit for duty as a result of actions such as the consumption of alcoholic beverages. The result of the proposed rule would have been the further protection of the public health and safety by requiring persons with unescorted or escorted access to vital areas of nuclear i

power plants to be fit for duty.

[ TIMETABLE:

1 NPRM 08/05/82 47 FR 33980 l NPRM Comment Period Begin 08/05/82 47 FR 33980 NPRM Comment Period End 10/04/82 l Final Action 04/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2237 i

[ EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Thomas Ryan Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

, Washington, DC 20555

301 443-7619 43

TITLE:

Protection of Contractor Employees l

l CFR CITATION 10 CFR 50 '

ABSTRACT:

The proposed. rule would require 10 CFR Part 50 licensees, permittees, and applicants to ensure that procurement documents they issue or modify, specify that contractors and subcontractors post a notice to employees relate'd to employee protection. The required notice would contain information notifying employees that an employer is prohibited from discriminating against an employee engaging in protected activities and that an employee may seek a remedy for prohibited discrimination by filing a complaint with the Department of Labor. The proposed amendment would affect licensees, permittees, applicants, and their contractors and subcontractors who are contractually responsible for construction of basic components or production and utilization facilities. Although there is no health and safety reason for addressing the issue, NRC is interested in protecting employees from discrimination. However, because Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act does not give the NRC direct authority over' contractors and subcontractors and it clearly envisioned that the Department of Labor would be the principal agency in ensuring the rights of nuclear industry employees, the NRC is considering the termination of this rulemaking action.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 07/06/83 48 FR 31050 NPRM Comment Period Begin 07/06/83 48 FR 31050 NPRM Comment Period End 09/06/83 Final Action 04/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2282; 42 USC 5851 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Anthony J. DiPalo i Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research '

Washington, DC 20555 ,

301 443-7613 j 44

TITLE:

Consideration of Earthquakes in the Context of Emergency Preparedness CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would consider the need to take into account the complicating effects of earthquakes on emergency preparedness. Existing regulations require that nuclear power plants be designed to safely shut down for most earthquakes. The probability of earthquakes large enough to cause major onsite damage that would result in a significant radiological release from the plant is low; and for large earthquakes, offsite damage could make prior offsite emergency plans premised on normal conditions marginally useful.

One alternative to the proposed rule change would be not to require that the emergency plans specifically address the impact of earthquakes. The staff believes this to be an inappropriate alternative because of the flexibility of existing emergency plans as well as the very low probability of the occurrence of an earthquake of substantial magnitude and a radiological release from the plant. Another alternative would be to adjudicate the issue on a case-by-case basis. The staff believes this to be an inappropriate alternative because it would be extremely time consuming and at the same time would necessitate the unwarranted extensive NRC staff resources. The proposed rule change is the best alternative for achieving the specific regulatory objective.

The proposed amendment will not greatly affect the industry since licensees are required to have approved emergency response plans which are flexible enough to assure that appropriate protective measures can be taken to mitigate the consequences of a nuclear L emergency. The public will not be affected as adequate emergency preparedness at nuclear reactors will be assured. The staff anticipates that there will be no increase in cost to the NRC, l State, and local governments and to licensees associated with the l proposed rule change because it is interpretative in nature.

(

, TIMETABLE:

l NPRM 12/21/84 49 FR 49640 NPRM Comment Period Begin 12/21/84 49 FR 49640 l NPRM Comment Period End 01/22/85 l Final Action Os/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 i

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No L 45

7 -______ __ _ _ _ _ - _ .

TITLE:

Consideration of Earthquakes in the Context of Emergency Preparedness AGENCY CONTACT:

Mike Jamgochian.

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington,- DC 20555 301 443-7615 i

l 1

46

i TITLE: '

l Limiting The Use of Highly Enriched Uranium in Domestic.Research

' and Test Reactors a

CFR CITATION: '

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would require that non power reactors use only i low-enriched uranium fuel (LEU),.with certain exceptions. The 4 proposed rule is intended to reduce the high-enriched uranium 4

-fuel (HEU) in the United States and thereby reduce the potential for theft or diversion. The majority of licensees affected by the proposed rule would be universities operating research and training reactors.-To date, four of the 25 affected universities have made the decision to curtail the operation of their research/ training reactors. Delay in the implementation of the proposed rule could have an adverse impact on the remaining 4

affected licensees and their decisions regarding continuance or discontinuance of their respective reactor operations.

1 i Other alternatives that have been and will continue to be i

considered include retaining the status quo and leaving the i

highly enriched uranium in place while upgrading security over

the life of the facility.

The estimated identified and quantifiable costs to the affected licensees range between 59-12 million. In addition, there will be otner identifiable costs that are difficult to assess quantitatively, such as societal costs. The estimated impact on NRC resources is approximately

! $400,000. '

1 TIMETABLE:.

. NPRM 07/06/84 49 FR 27769 NPRM Comment Period Begin 07/06/84 NPRM Comment Period End 11/02/84 Final Action '05/00/85

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

'42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 i

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: N/A AGENCY CONTACT:

William R. Lahs j Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

, Washington, DC 20555 l 301 443-7874 i

47 i

, , - _ . . - . - - - - . - - . _ - __ - _ - - - - . - _. - -_.- - -. - .- -.~ ..,

l TITLE:  :

+ Communications Procedures Amendments l l

I CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

This proposed rule would amend the regulations which establish the procedures for submitting correspondence, reports, applications, or other written communications pertaining to the domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities.

The proposed amendments are expected to resolve confusion regarding submittal procedures and improve the communication process with the affected applicants and licensees.

The proposed amendments would (1) simplify the procedures for making Part 50 submittals to the NRC; (2) facilitate the timely dissemination of Part 50 submittals to NRC staff; (3) reduce postage and copying costs for applicants and licensees by requiring fewer copies of submittals; (4) establish a central NRC receipt point for Part 50 submittals; (5) include the NRC Resident Inspectors in the formal communications; and (6) supersede all outdated submittal directions contained in other sources of submittal guidance, such as Regulatory Guide 10.1 (Revision 4) and NRR Generic Letter 82-14. Although these documents addressed the problem, they did not entirely resolve the confusion. Moreover, subsequent changes in the organizational structure of NRC were not reflected in the guidance documents.

The current regulations also cause unnecessary delays in the dissemination of information to NRC staff. For example, any document submitted to an NRC Regional Office will not usually be disseminated to NRC Headquarters staff until two weeks later.

These problems can be resolved only by amending 10 CFR Part 50, since the current regulations are the source of the problems. The proposed rule is expected to reduce postage and copying costs for licensees and applicants subject to 10 CFR Part 50. An annual savings of $140,000 is estimated. In addition, the NRC is expected to realize a small savings in postage costs. Preparing and publishing this rule would cost NRC approximately 320 hours0.0037 days <br />0.0889 hours <br />5.291005e-4 weeks <br />1.2176e-4 months <br /> of staff time at $60 per hour for a total of $19,200.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 03/26/85 50 FR 11884 NPRM COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS 03/26/85 NPRM COMMENT PERIOD EXPIRES 05/28/85 48

e.' a g J

LTITLE: . .

Communications Procedures Amendments

' LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201--

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS ~AND OTHER ENTITIES: No

AGENCY CONTACT:

Steve Scott ~

Office of Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

301 492-8585 4

o e

i 49 i- -se

TITLE:

Revision of Backfitting Process for Power Reactors CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule is being initiated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to establish requirements for long-term management of its review process for the imposition of new regulatory requirements on power reactors. More specifically, the objective of the rulemaking is to address "backfitting", a process which can include both plant specific changes and generic changes as applied to one or more classes of power reactors. this rulemaking would revise 10 CFR 50.54, 50.109, 2.204, and add a conforming amendment to Appendix 0. The rule is intended to reduce costs of "backfitting" for licensees through better management of this review process.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 09/28/83 48 FR 44217 ANPRM Comment Period End 10/28/83 ,

NPRM 11/30/84 49 FR 47034 NPRM Comment Period Begin 11/30/84 49 FR 47034 NPRM Comment Period End 01/29/85 Final Action 06/00/85 i LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2021; 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2239; 42 USC 4332; 42 USC 4334; 42 USC 4335; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No I AGENCY CONTACT:

James Tourtellotte Regulatory Reform Task Force Washington, DC 20555 202 634-1461 1

1 50

TITLE:

Changes in Property Insurance Requirements for NRC Licensed Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

An advance notice of proposed rulemaking requested comments on the Long Report (NUREG-0891) entitled " Nuclear Property Insurance: Status and Outlook," in order to determine the adequacy of the NRC's property insurance requirements. This report, prepared by Dr. John D.-Long, Professor of Insurance at Indiana University, 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. Based on comments rceponding to the advance notice, the staff prepared a final rule for the Commission's approval. Upon review, the Commission directed the staff instead to develop a proposed rule that would increase the amount of insurance required and to evaluate the legal issues of Federal preemption of state prohibitions against utilities buying certain types of insurance and of a decontamination priority. The staff is currently reviewing comment letters received in response to the recently published proposed rule.

f TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 06/24/82 47 FR 27371 ANPRM Comment Period Begin 06/24/82 47 FR 27371 ANPRM Comment Period End 09/22/82 NPRM 11/08/84 49 FR 44645 NPRM Comment Period Begin 11/08/84 NPRM Comment Period End 02/07/85 Final Action 08/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Robert S. Wood Office of State Programs Washington, DC 20555 301 492-9885 51

TITLE 8 Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Reactors CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would amend current regulations pertaining to technical specifications for nuclear power reactors.

Specifically, the proposed rule would (1) establish a standard for deciding which items derived from the safety analysis report must be incorporated into technical specifications, (2) modify the definitions of categories of technical specifications to focus more directly on reactor operations, (3) define a new category of requirements that would be of lesser immediate significance to safety than technical specifications, and (4) establish appropriate conditions that must be met by licensees to make changes to the requirements in the new category without prior NRC approval.

The changes are needed because of disagreement among parties to i

proceedings as to what items should be included in technical specifications, and concern that the substantial growth in the volume of technical specifications may be diverting the attention of licensees from matters most important to the safe operation of the plant.

The proposed rule would improve the safety of nuclear power plant operation by reducing the volume of technical specifications, place more emphasis on those specifications of high safety significance, and provide more efficient use of NRC and licensee resources. The NRC staff has estimated that each of the affected 21 licensees should utilize the proposed method for changing supplemental specifications approximately twice a year. The total additional yearly burden to resubmit a revoked change for all 21 affected licensees would be approximately 101 staff hours.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 07/08/80 45 FR 45916 ANPRM Comment Period Begin 07/08/80 45 FR 45916 ANPRM Comment Period End 09/08/80 NPRM 03/30/82 47 FR 13369 NPRM Comment Period Begin 03/30/82 47 FR 13369 NPRM Comment Period End 06/01/82 Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Don Beckham Office of. Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7803 52

l TITLE:

Operators' Licenses CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 55 ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to amend its regulations to (1) require each holder of and each applicant for a license to operate a commercial nuclear power plant to establish and use a systems approach in developing training progr,ams and establishing qualifications requirements for civilian nuclear power plant operators, supervisors, technicians, and, as appropriate, operating personnel; (2) clarify the regulations for the issuance of licenses to operators and senior operators; (3) revise the requirements and scope of written examinations and operating tests for operators and senior operators; (4) codify procedures for the administration of requalification examinations; and (5) describe the form i,

and content for operator license applications. This proposed rule was responsive to Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

Coordinated industry objections to item (1) of the proposed rule were the subject of a Commission meeting on April 9,1984. At a Commission's meeting, October 17, 1984, the Commission directed the staff to publish the portions of this proposed rule revising 10 CFR Part 55, " Operators' Licenses," and to draft a policy statement on the portion of the rule being added to 10 CFR Part 50 on programs for training and qualification of nuclear power plant personnel.

The policy statement, " Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel," was published in the Federal Register on March 20, 1985 (50 FR 11147). The training programs are to be developed and implemented during a two-year period. The policy statement provides guidance about NRC's support of the industry-managed training accreditation program and states NRC's continuing responsibility to independently evaluate an applicant's or a licensee's implementation of training improvement programs.

The regulatory analysis for the original proposed rule is being revised to reflect only the costs and benefits of implementing the proposed revision to 10 CFR Part 55 and significant comments received on the original regulatory analysis. The revised analysis will not reflect costs and benefits for the training improvement programs now covered by the policy statement.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 11/26/84 49 FR 46428 NPRM Comment Period Begin 11/26/84 NPRM Comment Period End 02/24/85 Final Action 12/00/85 53

,y.m - ,

4

(? TITLE:

[,' ' Operators' Licenses i 3

h, LEGAL AUTHORITY: l l 42 USC 2137; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 10226 )

to i l- EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No l-AGENCY CONTACT:

Bruce Boger

! Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4868 i-i b

I< '

l i ,

l l

I t

l' t

fi

, e >

.x f !!i

? 1' ,

l L

o l 54

i TITLE:

Safeguards Requirements for Nonpower Reactor Licensees Possessing Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material CFR CITATION:-

10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:

When the Commission approved the set of final physical protection

requirements for fuel cycle facilities possessing formula

, quantities (five formula kilograms or more) of strategic special nuclear material (SSNM), they exempted nonpower reactors from these requirements and, instead specified a set of interim requirements. At that time the staff was directed to develop a set of permanent physical protection requirements for this class of nonpower reactors. This rulemaking is needed: (1) to replace current interim regulations and establish permanent physical security requirements for nonpower reactor licensees who possess a nonexempt formula quantity of SSNM, (2) to provide protection against insiders, and (3) to arrange for a response by local law

. enforcement or other agencies in time to prevent a theft of a formula quantity. The staff is using a performance-oriented

, regulatory approach which would give affected licensees flexibility in designing cost-effective measures for implementing the requirements of the final rule by allowing licensees to take t advantage of existing facility design features. Not more than three facilities are expected to have to implement these

, requirements at an estimated cost increase of $1,100 to $5,100 i

for improvements and $300 to $7,900 for annual operating costs per facility. Public comments on the new NPRM have been received and analyzed. Further action has been deferred pending resolution

of other related issues.

TIMETABLE:

Interim Final Rule 11/28/79 44 FR 68199 Previous NPRM 09/18/81 46 FR 46333 NPRM 07/27/83 i NPRM Comment Period Begin 07/27/83 48 FR 34056 Proposed Rule limited to Part 73 07/27/83 48 FR 34056 NPRM Comment Period End 11/28/83 Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2071; 42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2152; 1 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2239; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846

. EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 55

TITLE:

Safeguards Requirements'for Nonpower Reactor Licenseer Possessing Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material AGENCY CONTACT:

Carl J. Withee Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4768 56

TITLE:

Personnel Access Authorization Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants (Part of Insider Package)

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:

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. These amendments represent the culmination of several years of development which included publication of an earlier proposed rule; public hearings; the establishment and recommendations of a Hearing Board; and establishment and recommendations of the NRC Safety / Safeguards Review Committee. Adoption of the amendments as currently proposed will result in increased assurance of the trustworthiness of licensee employees and contractor personnel.

Each licensee will be required to submit for Commission approval an Access Authorization Plan which will consist of three major industry-run components; background investigation, psychological assessment, and continual behavioral observation programs.

Other alternatives considered were to maintain the status quo, endorse an ANSI Standard through an NRC Regulatory Guide, impose license conditions, and use staff position papers. The other alternatives were rejected because use of those approaches established for and administered by nuclear power plant licensees. The proposed rule will provide for this program and 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. The screening program would cost each individual applicant and licensee approximately

$155,000 initially and $300,000 per year thereafter.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 08/01/84 49 FR 30726 NPRM Comment Period Begin 08/01/84 NPRM Comment Period End 03/07/85 Final Action 09/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Kristina 2. Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7687 57

l TITLE:

Explanation to Table S-3 Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data j CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 51 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule provides a narrative explanation of the numerical values established in Table S-3, " Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data,"'that appears in the Commission's environmental protection regulations. The proposed rule describes the basis for the values contained in Table S-3, the significance of the. uranium fuel cycle data in the table, and the conditions governing the use of the table. The narrative explanation also addresses important fuel cycle impacts (e.g., environmental dose commitments, health effects, socioeconomic impacts) and the cumulative impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle for the whole nuclear power industry so that it may be possible to consider these impacts generically rather than repeatedly in individual licensing proceedings. The proposed rule was published for public review and comment in 1981 (46 FR 15154, March 4, 1981) but the final rulemaking was deferred pending the outcome of a suit (Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. NRC, No. 74-1486) in the U.S. Court of Appeals. The U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C.

Circuit) decision on April 27,1982 invalidated the entire Table S-3 rule. The Supreme Court reversed this decision on June 6, 1983. The proposed rule to provide a narrative explanation for Table S-3 was revised to reflect new developments and the passage of time while the rulemaking was deferred. The proposed rule, SECY 84-149 was submitted to the Commission for consideration on April 6, 1984.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 03/04/81 46 FR 15154 NPRM Comment Period Begin 03/04/81 46 FR 15154 NPRM Comment Period End 05/04/81 Court invalidates Table S-3 rule 04/27/82 Petition for Rehearing Denied 06/30/82 Appeal to Supreme Court filed 09/27/82 Supreme Court reverses the 04/27/82 court decision 06/06/83 Final Action 04/00/86 s

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2011; 42 USC 4321 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 58

TITLE:

Explane. tion to Table S-3 Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data l AGENCY CONTACT:

Glenn A. Terry Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 -

301 427-4283 4

i 59

TITLE:

+ Additional Technical Criteria for the Disposal of High-Level j Radioactive Wastes in Geological Repositories' Located in the I

Unsaturated Zone l

l CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishi1g amendments

! related to the disposal of high-level radioactive wastes in l geologic repositories within the unsaturated zone. These amendments, in addition to the existing provisions of 10 CFR Part 60 would ensure that the regulations will apply in an appropriate manner to geologic media within either the saturated or the unsaturated hydrogeologic zone. This action is necessary to l ensure that the NRC regulations address considerations relevant to all geologic repositories, whether sited in the saturated or j the unsaturated zone. The major benefit of the final amendments t

would be to provide NRC with the maximum flexibility with respect

! t'o reviewing license applications for high-level radioactive i

waste disposal. The cost to NRC would be approximately 1.0 staff year.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 02/16/84 49 FR 5934 NPRM Comment Period Begin 02/16/84 49.FR 5934 NPRM Comment Period End 04/16/84 l Interim Final Rule 06/30/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 10141

. EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No i AG2NCY CONTACT:

Colleen Ostrowski Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 j 301 427-4615 l

l 60 i

+

TITLE:

+ Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories: Procedural Amendments CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:

i The proposed rule would revise procedures regarding NRC reviews of license applications.for disposal of high-level radioactive

wastes in geologic repositories. The procedures are being revised principally to conform to the provisions of the Nuclear Waste

. Policy Act of 1982. Specifically, the proposed rule would clarify that NRC begins its review in this licensing process after DOE provides NRC a site characterization plan and that usual rules of practice apply to licensing of these repositories. It would also provide that the NRC may publish a notice of receipt of a site characterization plan and a notice inviting comments on its analysis of a plan.

The proposed rule would also change some of the procedures for the participation of States and Indian tribes in the licensing process. Without the proposed rule, there would be major incongruities between the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and 10 CFR Part 60. Alternatives to the proposed rule would be changing the i Nuclear Waste Policy Act or doing nothing and allowing 4

incongruities to exist, with subsequent risk of litigation against NRC.

State and Indian tribes will be affected in that proceduces for State and Indian tribes participation in the licensing process

! for geologic repositories will be changed. This should not result

in any additional costs or expenditures of resources on the part of-the public, NRC, or the nuclear waste management system. The public, and especially States and Indian tribes, will benefit from increased clarity in procedures for licensing.

I

TIMETABLE

, NPRM 01/17/85 49 FR 2579 l NPRM Comment Period Begin 01/17/85 49 FR 2579 NPRM Comment Period End 03/18/85 I.

Final Action 08/00/85

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

( 42 USC 2071; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846; 42 USC 2021a; 42 USC 5851; 42 USC 4332; 42 USC 10141; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 2201(o)

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No ACENCY CONTACT:

Enrico F. Conti Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4616

61

m. , , , . , - _ _ , , ._,-_,m_,__,__m._.nm _ . - _ _ . , . . . . . _ . . , - _ , _ , _ , . , - . . , , . , , , _ , . . . _ , _ . _ _ , , . . , , . _ , - . _ , - _ . _ , - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . , _ ,

s) 4 TITLE:

Material Control and Accounting Requirements for Licensees l

. Possessing Formula Quantities of Strategic Special. Nuclear j

< Material 1  :

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 70 l ,

ABSTRACT:

'The proposed rulemaking'would replace existing material control and accounting (MC&A) requirements for fu-l cycle facilities that are authorized to possess and use formula quantities of strategic special nuclear material (SSNM). >

It would establish a performance oriented regulation thaCs emphasizes timely detection of formula quantity SSNM losses and provides for more conclusive resolution of discrepancies than is currently achievable. Experience with existing regulations has demonstrated weaknesses in the ar6a of alarm resolution

principally because of a lack of timely detection of anomalies 5- and poor loss localization capabilities. The rulemaking, would alleviate these liabilities by requiring tests on a more timely basis on small plant subdivisions.

An alternative to the rule would be to implement the concepts 1

through license amendments for the four involved licensees; however, such an action would be inconsistent with the Administrative Procedures Act and the direction provided in NRC's Policy and Program Guidance document. The protection of the public health and safety will be enhanced through earlier detection and more prompt resolution of-anomalies potentially indicative of an SSNM loss. In response to public gomments, the staff is currently revising the earlier cost figures to reflect costs on a site-specific basis. The initial cost to the industry may be offset by the reduction or elimination of unnecessary requirements with the principaltone bei'ng a reduction in the frequency of physical inventories.sThe cost to NRC to complete this rulemaking is estimated to be four staff years which

! includes time for the review of the plans submitt,ed in response

. to the rule. '

i ,

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 11/18/81 46 FR 45144 ANPRM Comment Period Begin 11/18/81 46 FR 56625 ANPRM Comment Period End 02/09/82 NPRM 02/02/84 49 FR 4091 NPRM Comment Period Begin 02/02/84 49 FR 4091 NPRM Comment Period End 09/05/84 Final Action 04/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 62 e

4 t

TITLE: ,

Material Control and Accounting ~ Requirements for Licensees Possessing Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material AGENCY CONTACT:

C. W.-Emeigh

' Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301'427-4769 i

63

TITLE:

Modification of Protection Requirements for Spent Fuel

' Shipments CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would moderate the present interim requirements for the protection of shipments of irradiated reactor fuel cooled for 150 days or more. Recent research shows that the quantity of radioactive material that would be released as a result of successful sabotage is much smaller than was supposed at the time that the interim rule was issued. The alternatives considered during the development of the proposal were: (1) let the current interim. requirements continue in force; (2) moderate the current requirements; and (3) eliminate all interim requirements. The alternative of moderating the requirements was selected because the moderated requirements would provide for (1) shipments to be accompanied by an unarmed escort, who may be driver or carrier employee and may have other duties, (2) on-board communications, and (3) immobilization capability for trucked shipments. Present interim requirements will continue to be effective for shipments of irradiated reactor fuel cooled less than 150 days. The benefit of the proposed rule would be the elimination of unnecessarily strict requirements which presently apply to spent fuel shipments. It is estimated that the modified requirements will result in a savings to licensees of about $20,000 to $30,000 annually, assuming the present rate of 135 shipments annually. Adoption of the proposed amendments would free about 1.5 NRC staff years annually for other assignments and would reduce NRC travel cost by about $8,000 annually. A proposed rule has been published for public comment.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 06/08/84 49 FR 23867 NPRM Comment Period Begin 06/08/84 NPRM Comment Period End 09/10/84 Final Rule to Commission 02/00/85 Final Action 09/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Carl B. Sawyer Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4186 64

! TITLE:

Searches of Individuals at Power Reactor Facilities (Part of Insider Package)

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 73

-ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would revise the search requirements for individuals entering the protected area of nuclear power plants.

Under the proposed requirements, all persons would be subject to equipment searches for firearms, explosives and incendiary devices. Physical 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. Random searches were considered as an alternative, but were dismissed as being possibly disruptive. Since licensees already possess the necessary equipment, this rule will affect only licensee procedures at negligible additional cost.

Since requirements for searches have been in effect for some time, and modifications to those requirements are needed, alternatives to this rulemaking such as revised guidance would be inappropriate in that they would not carry the force of a regulation.

The estimated average annual cost to each affected licensee is

.$8,000. The impact on NRC operations ~will occur in the area of licensing review of amended licensee security plans. Initial cost

~

to the NRC is estimated to be $46,100 and estimated annual cost in subsequent years is $5,800.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 08/01/84 49 FR 30726 NPRM Comment Period Begin 08/01/84 49 FR 30726 Comment period extended 12/11/84 49 FR 48200 NPRM Comment Period End 03/07/85 Final Action 09/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Tom R. Allen Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4010 65

4 TITLE:

Miscellaneous Amendments Concerning Physical Protection of Nuclear Power Plants (Part of Insider Rule Package) i CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 73 i'

ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would require in Nuclear Power Plants (1) the designation of vital areas (to allow vital islands), (2) access controls to vital islands, (3) the protection of certain physical security equipment, (4) revised requirements for key and lock controls, and (5) revised searches of hand-carried items at protected area entry points. The requirements will clarify policy in these areas and reduce unnecessary burden on the industry while' maintaining plant protection. This rule is a revision of the~ proposed rule entitled " Access Controls to Nuclear Power Plant Vital Areas." Initial development of a final rule produced significant changes, particularly the criteria for personnel access controls to vital areas, resulting in the need to publish 1

a revised proposed rule. This proposed rule and the other components of the insider rule package were reviewed by the NRC Safety / Safeguards Review Committee which considered a number of 4 alternative approaches to vital island configurations and

, provided recommendations that are reflected in the proposed rule.

. Since requirements for protecting vital areas have been in 4

effect for some time, and modifications to those requirements are needed, alternatives to:this rulemaking such as revised guidance would be inappropriate in that they would carry the' force of a regulation.

Costs for these. improvements are estimated at $850,000 per site. The impact on NRC operations will occur in the area.of licensing review of amended licensee security plans and Inspection and Enforcement staff' support time. Initia'l cost to the NRC is estimated'to be $299,500 and estimated annual cost in

subsequent years is,$37,400.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 08/01/84 49 FR 30726 NPRM Comment Period Begin 08/01/84 Comment period extended 12/11/84 49 FR 48200 NPRM Comment Period End 03/07/85 Final Action 09/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2101; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No i

66 l

TITLE:

Miscellaneous Amendments ~Concerning Physical Protection of Nuclear Power Plants (Part of Insider Rule Packace)

AGENCY CONTACT:

i Tom R. Allen Office of Nuclear' Material Safety and Safeguards

. Washington, DC 20555 301-427-4910 4

i I.

4 67

(C) . Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking i

}

I l .-

i i __

e_ , L- man - - - 4 4.- --a m - _-._-- - - - - _ -,-- --_ __ _ An -_m ,w a 1

i

(

l l

l l

l l

l l l

i l

i C

I I i i i

i w

l l

t l

i i

j 1

i i

1

TITLE:

Rules of' Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings: Role of NRC Staff in Adjudicatory Licensing Hearings CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The role of the NRC staff in initial proceedings was among the issues discussed in an enclosure to a January 2, 1985, memorandum to the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development from Chairman Palladino. This discussion stated that the Commission has decided that the NRC's role in these

-proceedings should not be changed. Therefore, the action proposed by this advance n7tice of proposed rulemaking will be terminated.

The Commission is considering amending its Rules of Practice -

concerning what role the NRC staff should have in adjudicatory licensing hearings to most effectively contribute to the protection of the public health and safety. This notice invites ,

public comments and suggestions on four options and related questions, briefly described below. Option 1 would limit staff participation in contested initial licensing proceedings to only those controverted factual issues it disagrees with on a technical basis or rationale. This option is similar to the proposal of a Part 2 unpublished rule (3150-AB08), " Participation of the NRC_ Staff.in Initial Licensing Proceedings," published in NRC's October-December 1964 agenda. Option 2_would require the NRC staff to supply the Commission and the Licensing Board with its-view and analyses on every substantive issue raised in an initial licensing proceeding but would prohibit the staff's participation in any procedural matter. Option 3 would retain status quo, i.e., the NRC staff would participate as full party on all issues. Option 4 would expand public involvement in the

.prehearing stage of initial licensing proceedings, and this option could be used in conjunction with any of the first three options. The staff would subsequently address each substantive issue raised in the Safety Evaluation Report.

j Alternatives to-rulemaking could include a policy statement or I no action, depending on the option chosen. The possible means of l addressing this issue through rulemaking are discussed above. The effects of the rulemaking, including benefits and costs, will depend on the option chosen. NRC resources needed for this 1 rulemaking are estimated at 500 staff hours.

l TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 11/02/83 48 FR 50550 l

ANPRM Comment Period Begin 11/02/83 48 FR 50550 ANPRM Comment Period Extended 01/03/84 48 FR 54243 ANPRM Comment Period End 01/03/85 Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231 69 1

1 b; 1

i l

TITLE' Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings: Role of NRC .l Staff in Adjudicatory Licensing Hearings EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

James R. Tourtellotte Regulatory Reform Task Force

.W ashington, DC 20555 301 492-7678

(

5 70

l t

l TITLE:

Regulatory Reform of the Rules of Practice and Rules for Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities l

l CFR CITATION:

! -10.CFR 2, 10.CFR 50 t

ABSTRACT:

This~ proposed rule would amend thirty-three sections of two parts l affecting the hearing process associated with the issuance of i all NRC licenses. Streamlining the hearing process would ultimately provide cost savings to all participants in the

, process. However, intervenors may initially be required to L -provide more information than is now required at some added expense.

In the screening process, the most significant chan'ges would j (1) establish a screening Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

' (ASLB) to act as a clearing house for all requests for hearings, petitions for leave to intervene, and proposed contentions, (2) require a participant in a hearing to show that he or she has an interest to protect in the proceeding, and (3) require evidence of a factual dispute for a contention to be admitted.

During the conduct'of hearings, the most significant changes would (1) not hear' discovery requests requiring the staff to support positions other than its own, (2) permit the ASLB to decide the case on the basis of written material, (3) permit the ASLB to appoint a panel of technical experts if needed, (4) allow presiding officers to raise issues on their own motion-(sua sponte) only in unusual cases, (5) allow summary disposition motions to be filed at any stage of the proceeding, (6) allow the Commission to designate a hearing examiner in lieu of a three-member ASLB, and (7) require the filing of cross examination plans.

l

-During the decision-making process, the most significant changes would (1) remove the ASLB as an independent appeal board

-but place it organizationally directly under the Commission to i review, as before, ASLB decisions, and give.its recommendations i to the Commission, (2) allow and generic issue resolved in an initial licensing proceeding to be codified, allowing _a 45 day

-comment period (3) allow an intervenor to participate in discussing only those items he or she introduced, and (4) reinstate the immediate effectiveness of an ASLB decision on an operating license, construction permit,-or work authorization.

l The proposals, submitted by the Commission's Regulatory Reform L

Task Force suggest ways to improve the reactor licensing process.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 04/12/84 49 FR 14698 ANPRM Comment Period Begin 04/12/84 49 FR 14689 ANPRM Comment Period End 06/11</84 Next Action Undetermined 71 l

l

TITLE:

Regulatory Reform of the Rules of Practice and Rules for Licensing of Production and Ut.ilization Facilities l

I LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846

)

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

James R. Tourtellotte  !

Regulatory Reform Task Force Washington, DC 20555 202 634-1461  !

1

)

i l

l l

1 72

l TITLE:

Standards for Protection Against Radiation i

CFR CITATION: ,

l 10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:

Radiation protection philosophy and technology have changed.

markedly since the present Part 20 was promulgated nearly thirty i

years ago. Since Part 20'contains the.NRC standards for l protection against radiation which are used by all licensees and affects exposures of workers and members of the public, it should be the most basic of the NRC regulations. However, because the present Part 20 has become outdated, most. radiation protection l actions occur through licensing actions independent of Part 20. A complete revision is necessary to provide better assurance of.

protection against radiation; establish a clear health protection basis _for the limits; reflect current information on health risk, -

dosimetry, and radiation protection practices and experience; provide NRC with a health protection base from which it may consider.other regulatory actions taken to protect public health; j be consistent with recommendations of world authorities (ICRP);

I and apply'to all licensees in a consistent manner.

~ Alternatives to the complete revision considered were no action; delay for further guidance; and partial revision of the l standards. They were rejected as ignoring scientific advancements; being unresponsive to international and national guidance; and correcting only some of the recognized problems with the present Part 20. Benefits would include updating the regulations to reflect contemporary scientific knowledge and radiation protection philosophy; implementing regulations which reflect the ICRP risk-based rationale; reducing lifetime doses to individuals receiving highest exposures; implementing provisions i

for summation of doses from internal and external' exposures; providing clearly identified dose limits for the public;

-providing understandable health-risk base for protection; and placing constraints on collective dose evaluations at levels where risks are trifles.

i -Initial estimates of the cost of implementing the revision is i ,

about $23 million the initial year and about $7 million in

. subsequent years. This cost does not include any savings which might also be realized by the revision.

L TIMETABLE:

I ANPRM 03/20/80 45 FR 18023 L ANPRM Comment Period Begin 03/20/80 45 FR 18023 ANPRM Comment Period End 06/18/80 NPRM 12/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42.USC 2273; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 73 l

4-l TITLE:

Standards for Protection Against Radiation EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:

Robert E. Baker Office of Nuclear Regulatory.Research Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4570 74

TITLE:

Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive Materials Licensees CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would require about 130 fuel cycle and other radioactive materials licensees to submit an emergency plan that would among other actions, require the notification of local authorities in case of an accident and that the licensee recommend protective actions for the public. The proposed rule is intended to further protect the public from accidental exposure to. radiation. The affected licensees are those whose possession limits indicate the potential for an accident that could deliver a radiation dose offsite exceeding one rem effective dose equivalent or 5 rems to the thyroid or could cause a soluble uranium inhalation of 9 milligrams (a chemical toxicity hazard).

Based on preliminary data contained in the draft regulatory analysis for this proposed rule, the costs of emergency preparedness are expected to exceed the benefits in terms of protecting public health and safety.'However, the proposed requirements may be justifiable in terms of the intangible benefit of being able to reassure the public that if an accident does occur, they will be warned and told what to do to protect themselves.

TIMETABLE:

-ANPRM 06/03/81 46 FR 29712 ANPRM Ccmment Period Begin 06/03/81 46 FR 29712 ANPRM Comment Period End 08/03/81 NPRM 05/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:

Stephen A. McGuire Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7636 75

k

(

TITLE:

> Certification of Industrial Radiographers CFR CITATION:

10.CFR 34 ABSTRACT:

The advance. notice of proposed rulemaking would have required all individuals who use byproduct material in the conduct of industrial radiography to be certified by a third 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 sought comment on a proposal that would enable NRC to verify the effectiveness of this training, thereby assuring that all' radiographers possess adequate training and experience to operate radiographic equipment safely.

4 Following a series of-public meetings, many comments were received. The thrust of the comments was that current training programs and examination procedures administered by licensees were adequate for determining the competence of individuals to be.

industrial radiographers. An ad hoc Radiography Steering Committee formed to improve radiation safety in the performance of industrial radiography agreed that the costs associated with a third party certification program would not result in significant benefits through a reduction.of accidents that would not result in overexposures to individuals. Therefore, the staff is considering whether this rulemaking action should be

i. terminated.

TIMETABLE:

- ANPRM 05/04/82 47 FR 19152 ANPRM Comment Period Begin 05/04/82 47 FR-19152

ANPRM Comment Period End 09/03/82 4 Final Action 07/01/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES

Undetermined AGENCY CONTACT:

Nathan Bassin Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-9027 76

.m_-=~-- --m-_- , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _

i TITLE:

Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Ground Water Protection and Other Issues CFR CITATION: .

10 CFR 40 ABSTRACT:

The advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeks comment on NRC's tentative approach to making further amendments to its uranium mill tailings regulations. The contemplated rulemaking proceeding

- is intended-to incorporate groundwater provisions and other

• ' requirements established by the Environmental Protection Agency i for similar hazardous wastes into NRC regulations. This action is

. necessary to'make NRC regulations consistent with EPA standards as required by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, and consequently no alternatives to this action need to be considered. Comments on the ANPRM will help define the nature and

. scope of the action. EPA has estimated that compliance with their-groundwater standards and with the stability, radon release, and other requirements recently promulgated will cost the industry from about $310 million to $540 million for all tailings generated by the year 2000. The range depends on the eventual cost of groundwater protection for future tailings. The EPA regulations are binding.on NRC licensees in the interim. NRC resources and schedules are still being developed.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 11/26/84 49 FR 48425 ANPRM Comment Period Begin 11/26/84 50 FR 2293 l ANPRM Comment Period End 03/01/85 i Next Action Undetermined l

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 7901 Note EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Kitty S. Dragonette Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

' Safeguards Washington, D.C. 20555 301 427-4300 77 1

f

3 1

TITLE:

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

-CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50

, ABSTRACT:

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 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 an entire group of plants; (2) what would be the impact of the proposed procedure-oriented 'and certain specific technicalLrule changes; and (3) how should safety margins be quantified. The Commission is.considering changing certain technical and nontechnical

requirements within the existing ECCS rule. 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 i

construction of the plant.

The changes w'ould provide improvements to the ECCS rule which would eliminate previous difficulties encountered in applying the

rule and improve licensing evaluation in the light of present knowledge, while preserving a level of conservatism consistent with that knowledge.

TIMETABLE:

, ANPRM 12/06/78 43 FR 57157 ANPRM Comment Period Begin 12/06/78 43 FR 57157 i

ANPRM Comment Period End 02/05/79 NPRM 04/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233

- EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Morton R. Fleishman Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7616 1 78

l l

TITLE:

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

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

. The proposed rule will prescribe improved approaches for reducing and better controlling the level of change in reactor design and construction. These approaches will be based on reco'mmendations found in NUREG-1055, " Improving Quality and the Assurance of

-Quality in the Design and Construction of Nuclear Power Plants" (QA Report), which the NRC submitted to Congress in. April 1984.

The'QA Report, prepared by the NRC's Office of Inspection and i- Enforcement-(IE), cited deficiencies in the management of design i

changes as a key factor contributing to significant quality problems in reactor design and construction that.have occurred in the past several years. The QA Report recommended that the NRC consider _ requiring more complete-designs prior to the beginning 1 of construction and the adoption, as a discipline, of change management (known generically as configuration management) as approaches to overcoming the design management deficiencies.

p -Since this rulemaking deals with issues closely related to design completion and control of changes, responsibility for this j rulemaking was transferred from the NRC's Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research to IE in September 1984.

I

! Staff-is' working toward a refinement of the QA Report findings

and the development of a regulatory _ analysis which will discuss L .the economic. impact of the rulemaking on affected licensees.

i L TINETABLE:

ANPRM 12/11/80 45 FR 81602 ANPRM-Comment Period Begin 12/11/80 45 FR 81602 L

ANPRM Comment Period End 02/09/81 Final Action 11/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 L

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Wayne Scott Office of Inspection and Enforcement l Washington, DC 20555 l -301.492-4220 l'

l 79

?

---

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

TITLE:

Modification of the Policy and Regulatory Practice Governing the Siting of Nuclear Power Reactors CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 100 ABSTRACT:

This rulemaking is intended to review and revise the Commission's siting regulations to reflect experience gained since the Commission's current reactor siting regulations were published on April.12, 1962 (27 FR 3509). Many developments in this period including work to establish a Commission safety goal and the review of reactor accident source terms, have brought into the question both the existing regulations and their technical support. This rulemaking will resolve those questions. In the present circumstances a lack of applications for new plants argue that these changes are not needed. However, the new information that is now available and the lead time between the decision to site and the time when a reactor begins producing power commercially make it prudent for the Commission to address these changes in a timely manner. The alternatives to rulemaking in this case are restricted to no action. If action is taken based on the new and more reliable data now becoming available, the regulations themselves must be changed. Intermediate remedies such as policy statements and regulatory guides would not have adequate authority to supplant existing regulations.

An advance notice of rulemaking was published (45 FR 50350) seeking public comment on various approaches to this rulemaking.

A proposed rule will be structured to achieve resolution of these comments and reflect recent information from the reactor accident source term review and the trial implementation period for the Safety Goal. These revised regulations will make the siting and review of power reactor sites more predictable through application of clearer requirements. There is no indication that 4 the criteria would increase costs or have a significant adverse affect on safety. On the contrary clear requirements will allow for more informed and more efficient siting decisions. This rulemaking would require additional NRC resources of approximately two man years and minimal contract support. This rulemaking is presently in hold pending completion of the reactor accident source term review. A schedule for resumption of this activity is to be presented to the Commission in March, 1985.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 07/29/80 45 FR 50350 NPRM 03/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 80

TITLE:

Modification of the Policy and Regulatory Practice Governing the Siting of Nuclear Power Reactors AGENCY CONTACT:

William R._Ott Office..of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4631 l

+

I

['.

t i

81

I TITLE:

Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 100 ABSTRACT:

The advance notice of proposed rulemaking was published to solicit public comment on the need for a reassessment of the

-Commission's criteria for the siting of nuclear power plants.

The Commission determined that this action was necessary as a result of experience gained with application of current criteria and the rapid advancement in the state of the art of earth sciences. The NRC staff was particularly interested in finding out about problems that have arisen in the application of existing siting criteria. The public was invited to state the nature of the problems encountered and describe them in detail.

The public was also asked to submit proposed corrective actions.

Two petitions for rulemaking filed with the Commission, PRM-50-20 and PRM-100-2 will be addressed as part of this rulemaking.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 01/19/78 43 FR 2729 NPRM 12/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Leon L. Beratan Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4370 4

82

- - ~ . -

(D) Unpublished Rules

}

t i

f k

^

l i

i.

3 f

r 4

4

)

I~

f l-i y

n u - _ . .-

f I

i l

l l

I l

i TITLE:

• Conduct of Dnployees; Minor Amendments CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 0 ABSTRACT:

The NRC is amending its standards of conduct to codify in NRC's regula-tions, provisions of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (18 U.S.C. 207),

as amended, relating to reporting of financial assets by senior NRC officials. The Commission is adopting several other amendments that will exempt former NRC employees from the post-employment restrictions of 18 U.S.C. 207 in order to communicate scientific or technological information to_the NRC;' eliminate an ambiguity relating to the acceptance by.NRC employees of gifts, meals, and entertainment from foreign governments; and modify the regulations to require only annual publication of the prohibited security interests list (formerly published twice annually).

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 07/30/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Trip Rothschild Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 (202) 634-1465 l

L I

I l

l l

83

TITLE:

Revised Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 0; 10 CFR 1; 10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 9; 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing an amendment that would revise its procedural rules governing the conduct of all adjudicatory proceedings,' with the exception of export licensing proceedings. The proposed rule would comprehensively restate current practice, retitle the hearing office, and revise and reorganize the Commission's procedural rules. The changes set out in this proposed rule are intended to enable the Commission to render decisions in a more timely fashion and reduce the burden and expense to the parties participating in the proceedings.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 04/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841; 5 USC 552 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

B. Paul Cotter, Jr.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7787 84

l TITLE:

• Delegation of Subpoena Authority CFR CITATION:

l. 10 CFR 1 ABSTRACT:

! The final rule would incorporate the Commission's decision to delegate authority to the Office of Investigations to issue subpoenas where necessary or appropriate for the conduct of investigations. This final

rule will permit the Office of Investigations to independently issue a i subpoena during.the course of investigations.

l TIMETABLE:

~ Final Action 05/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 U.S.C. 5841; 42 U.S.C. 5843; 42 U.S.C. 5844; 42 U.S.C. 5845; 4

42 U.S.C. 5849 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No

! ~ AGENCY CONTACT:

l Ben B. Hayes Office of Investigations l Washington, DC 20555 (301).492-4388 t

I L

l

[ 85

TITLE:

Jurisdiction of Adjudicatory Boards CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 1; 10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:.

The final rule would amend the Statement of Organization and Rules of Practice to make explicit the jurisdiction of NRC's adjudicatory boards in certain ancillary licensing matters which may arise in the course of an operating license proceeding for a nuclear power reactor. The amendments clarify the board's authority to decide issues related to a license application for

_, the receipt of cold fuel at a reactor site prior to issuance of an operating license.

This proposed rulemaking would reduce NRC costs by eliminating the requirement that a separate adjudicatory board reconvene to rule on whether an applicant may receive cold fuel. This action would, thereby, provide the licensee a slight time savings in obtaining an operating license.

TIMETABLE:

Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2241 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

William M. Shields Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8693 86

d

. TITLE:

Adjudications -- Special Procedures for Resolving Conflicts  ?

Concerning the Disclosure or-Nondisclosure of Information y

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering amending its rules of practice to provide special procedures for resolving conflicts concerning the disclosure or nondisclosure of

'information relating to an NRC investigation or inspection or provided by a confidential source and deemed relevant and Ematerial to-an adjudication. Prepared at the express direction.of the Commission, the proposed amendments apply to all NHC offices that have information-relevant and material to an. adjudication.

The proposed amendments provide ~for in camera presentations and follow guidance contained in the Commission's recent statement of policy on' investigations, inspections, and adjudicatory proceedings. 3

'r TIMETABLE:

'NPRM OS /00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841 l EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:.

Jane R. Mapes _

E Office of the Executive Legal Director s

! Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

Washington, DC 20555 .

301 492-8695 3 I

I' l

l 87 4

TITLE:

Criteria for Reopening Records in Formal Licensing Proceedings CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering amending its regulations to codify and refine NRC case law criteria for reopening a closed evidehtiary record in a formal licensing proceeding. This rulemaking would affect any party who wishes to reopen an evidentiary record.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 12/27/84 49 FR 50189 NPRM Comment Period Begin 12/27/84 49 FR 50189 NPRM Comment Period End 02/11/85 Final Action 04/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841

. EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Carole F..Kagan Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-1493 88

TITLE:

Independent Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste CFR CITATION:

'10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 19; 10 CFR 20; 10 CFR'21; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 75; 10 CFR 150 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule will revise existing regulations to cover specific licensing requirements for the storage of spent nuclear

- fuel and high-level. radioactive waste in a monitored retrievable

~ storage installation (MRS). This revision, required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, is intended to ensure that the Commission'has in place:the appropriate regulations to fulfill

-the requirements contained in the Nuclear Waste-Policy Act of 1982 concerning the-licensing of facilities whichEcould be part of the MRS program. Paragraph (2) of Section 141 of the NWPA provides that~any monitored retrievable storage installation-pursuant,to Section 141 shall be subject to licensing by the Commission. The Commission could await'further' development of the MRS option before proposing its MRS rules. However, this approach could result in_ unnecessary delay in' reviewing a license application if congress authorizes construction of an MRS. The Department of: Energy '(DOE)'is required to complete a-detailed study of the need for and-feasibility of a MRS installation. In a proposal to be submitted to Congress on or before June 1, 1985, DOE must include the establishment of a federal program for the siting, development, construction, and operation of facilities capable of storing spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Site-specific designs, specifications, and cost estimates must also be included in the proposal.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 07/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42-USC 2021; 42 USC 2071; 42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2077; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2099; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232;

, 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2234; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2237; 42 USC 2282 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 1

AGENCY CONTACT:

William R. Pearson Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555

! 301 443-7910 I

I.

89

l TITLE:

Retention Periods for Records CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 4; 10 CFR 11; 10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 25; 10 CFR 30; 10 CFR.31; 10 CFR 32; 10 CFR 34; 10 CFR 35; 10 CFR 40; L^ CFR 50; 10 CFR 60; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 71; ...

ABSTRACT:

This proposed rule would establish a specific retention period for certain NRC-required records. It would also provide a uniform standard acceptable to the NRC for the condition of a record throughout a specified retention period. Further, the rule would establish throughout NRC regulations, with some exceptions, uniform retention periods of three years, five years, ten years, and the life of a license. This rule would bring NRC regulations into compliance with the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR 1320.6) that requires a specified retention period for each required record. It also implements NPC's 1982 commitment to OMB to establish a record retention period of determinable length for each required record. Amending twenty-one parts of NRC regulations to specify clearly what records to retain, how long to retain them, and the condition of a record useful for NRC inspection, will be mutually beneficial to applicants and licensees and to the NRC. Recordkeeping labor for NRC's approximately 6,700 licensees who would be affected by the rule can be divided into four functions: (1) preparing the report, (2) storing the report, (3) maintaining the report files, and (4) retrieving the report information. The principal savings to the licensee, dispersed over the period licensed, would be in physical storage space and associated storage equipment and materials. The burden of recordkeeping would be reduced approximately 10 percent annually for these licensees by the proposed rule. An estimated 466,323 hours0.00374 days <br />0.0897 hours <br />5.340608e-4 weeks <br />1.229015e-4 months <br /> associated with recordkeeping or $28,000,000 annually would be saved. Preparing and publishing this rule would cost NRC approximately 500 hours0.00579 days <br />0.139 hours <br />8.267196e-4 weeks <br />1.9025e-4 months <br /> of staff time et $60 per hour for an estimated total of $30,000.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 04/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

R. Stephen Scott Office of Administration Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8585 90

TITLE:

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Nuclear Regulatory Commission Programs CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 4 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would provide for the enforcement of section

'504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicap, in programs or activities conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The proposed rule would make it unlawful for the NRC to discriminate, on the basis of handicap, in employment or the conduct of its activities. The proposed rule would place the same obligations on the NRC that are placed on the recipients of Federal financial assistance.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 06/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

1 42 USC 2021; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 29 USC 794; 29 USC 706 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Edward E. Tucker Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization / Civil Rights Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7697 91

TITLE:

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex - Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as Amended CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 4 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would implement the provisions of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The proposed rule sets out the requirements necessary to comply with the legislation and the procedures to be followed by appropriate officials within the NHC in enforcing the requirements. The requirements of the proposed rule would apply to each recipient of Federal financial assistance from the NRC.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 06/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 20 USC 1681; 20 USC 1682; 20 USC 1683; 20 USC 1685; 20 USC 1686 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Edward E. Tucker

! Office of Small and Disadvantaged l

Business Utilization / Civil Rights

( 301 492-7697 l

l I

i 92 r

TITLE:

• Revised Criteria and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to or Control Over Special Nuclear Material CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 11 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would amend the requirements for applications for initial access authorization and for their renewal by allowing utilization of information on file with the government on individuals who possess current active clearance based upon equivalent investigations. The proposed changes would eliminate unnecessary duplication of administrative costs to licensees for individuals who possess comparable clearances and also eliminate certain NRC administrative costs. The objective of this rulemaking action is to provide an effective program for the Commission to grant special nuclear material access authorizations without imposing unnecessary administrative burdens on licensees. This can be achieved by effecting the foregoing changes to the existing rule, which will allow the Commission to grandfather certain cleared licensee employees into the program and to accept application forms and investigative data provided by other Federal agencies thereby eliminating the $1580.00 investigation fee.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 06/31/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 U.S.C. 2201(i), 42 U.S.C. 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No l

AGENCY CONTACT:

t Russel R. Rentschler Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

! Washington, D.C. 20555

! 301 427-4761

/

l l

l 1

l 93 ,

l I

TITLE:

Residual Radioactive Contamination Limits for Decommissioning l I

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would establish residual radioactive contamination limits that must be met before buildings, structures, equipment, materials, and lands may be released for use on an unrestricted basis. Licensed facilities with residual levels of radioactive contamination below these limits would be eligible for unrestricted release and termination of the license.

The proposed amendments are necessary to provide licensees with quantitative criteria to use in the decommissioning and cleanup of buildings, structures, equipment, materials, and lands used in NRC licensed activities. The primary alternative to rulemaking is to continue case-by-case evaluations based on regulatory guides until such time as EPA may establish such standards. The proposed rule is intended to ensure that buildings, structures, equipment, materials, and lands used in NRC licensed activities will be decommissioned and decontaminated in a consistent manner that protects public health. The cost analysis for this proposal is being completed.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 02/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Don R. Harmon

\ Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4566 94

TITLE:

+ Conforming Amendments to Prenotification, Quality Assurance, and Package Monitoring Requirements CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 20; 10 CFR 71 ABSTRACT:

The proposed amendments would revise the requirement for advance notification of waste shipments to provide a more uniform level of hazard at which the report is required. The proposed level'of hazard-is expected to conform to the level at which the Department of Transportation imposes motor vehicle routing requirements. The proposed amendments would also clarify which of the general licenses in 10 CFR Part 71 require quality assurance programs. The propostd amendments would also adjust the limits for package monitoring on receipt in 10 CFR 20.205 to conform to the new Al/A2 system of Part 71.The proposed amendments are expected to result in no overall net increase in costs to affected licensees.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 09/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC'2111; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Kathryn A. Bissell Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7920 95

-_ - . _ _ .. - .._. . _ = .

l TITLE: )

i + Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 21; 10 CFR.50 ABSTRACT:-

This proposed rule would amend Part 21 and Sec. 50.55(e) of Part 50, both of which require the reporting of safety defects by licensees. This effort was prompted by TMI Action Plan Task II,J.

4 and has as its main objectives: (1) elimination of duplicate reporting among all requirements, (2) consistent reporting among

, all reporting requirements, (3) establishment of uniform and clear definitions for defects which need to be reported, (4) establishment of uniform time limits within which.a defect must be reported and evaluated and, (5) establishment of a uniform format for reporting of. defects. Approximately 300 and 5000 reports are. issued annually under Part 21 and Sec. 50.55(e) respectively..The reports identify plant specific safety concerns and potential generic safety concerns for further NRC followup.

These reports form the basis for numerous NRC bulletins and information notices. This proposed rulemaking will reduce the l potential for duplicate reporting and evaluation that now exists and will establish a more coherent regulatory framework that is expected to reduce industry and NRC burden in this ' area without

, sacrificing safety effectiveness. Alternatives to this approach varied from establishment of a single rule for all reporting to maintaining a Status Quo for defect reporting. All alternatives were rejected since they would not result in any substantial improvement to the present regulatory framework.

Current costs of reporting under Part 21 and 50.55(e) are estimated at $5,000,000 annually for industry and $2,600,000-i annually for NRC evaluations. It is anticipated that industry reporting burden with the proposed rulemaking will be reduced by 231,750 hours0.00868 days <br />0.208 hours <br />0.00124 weeks <br />2.85375e-4 months <br /> or $2,484,000 while NRC burden should be reduced by 10,950 hours0.011 days <br />0.264 hours <br />0.00157 weeks <br />3.61475e-4 months <br /> or $657,000. Additional burden to industry and NRC,

[ while minimal, is anticipated in the areas of adherence to time schedules and enforcement, respectively.

TIMETABLE:

I NPRM 05/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2282; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 96

l TITLE:

Proposed Revisi ns to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of De1 Ots and Noncompliance AGENCY CONTACT:

John Zudans Office of Inspection and Enforcement

' Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8030 97

l TITLE:

Access Authoriz'ation for Licensee Personnel CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 25 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would adopt revised National policy, initiated by the National Security Council and approved by the President, which prescribes that a new, standardized form titled " Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement" (SF-189) be completed by all licensees who request NRC_ access authorization under this Part

.25. The proposed rule also requires that a security indoctrination be given to the affected individuals prior to completing the new form. These amendments are necessary in order to comply with National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 84, Safeguarding National Security Information."

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 04/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2165; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Richard A. Dopp Office of Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4549 l

i 1

I 98

TITLE:

• Informal Hearing Procedures for Materials Licenses Proceedings CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 32; 10 CFR 33; 10 CFR 34; 10 CFR 35; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 70 ; 10 CFR 71 ;

10 CFR 72 ABSTRACT:

This proposed rule, being prepared at Commission direction, would provide comprehensive treatment of hearing procedures to be implemented by the commission for materials licensing proceedings. It would clarify ~the obligations of each participant in the proceeding. There are no reasonable alternatives to rulemaking for implementing these procedures. The informal hearing procedures are expected to reduce the economic burden imposed on a participant in a proceeding.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 07/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2111 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Marjorie Nordlinger Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-3214 99 s

l 1

4 l

TITLE: 1 Licensing of Sources and Devices CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 32; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would require manufacturers or distributors of sealed sources or devices containing sealed sources to obtain a ,

license from the NRC pri6r to the initial transfer of the sealed '

sources or devices to specific licensees. The rule would also require manufacturers or distributors of sealed sources or devices to provide the NRC with information on such products relating to design, manufacture, testing, operation, safety and hazards as a condition for obtaining a license.If the proposed requirements were applied to the 800 material license applications and amendments reviewed in 1982 as a statistical base, total costs to suppliers would rise from $148,025 under the current voluntary program to $152,950. At the same time, the proposed rule would eliminate the $48,000 cost to material licensees of preparing 800 license amendments.

! TIMETABLE:

NPRM 06/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2071; 42 USC 2092 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:

Donald R. Hopkins Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7878 l

100

. TITLE:

+ Financial Responsibility of Materials Licensees for Cleanup After Accidental and Unexpected Releases CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72 ABSTRACT:

The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeks comments on the advisability of having NRC require a mechanism to assure financial capabi'lity on the part of certain NRC materials licensees (e.g., fuel fabricators and users of sealed radiation sources) to undertake prompt cleanup of accidental releases or contamination, both on and off site. Estimates for cleanup costs in the recent past have ranged up to $2 million for a single event. To date, cleanup has been conducted by the state or Federal government, but frequently public monies are used only after lengthy delays. Use of an alternative, i.e., the 1980 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), is effectively blocked by EPA policy. CERCLA provides funds for cleanup if the owner or operator is unable to do so and if the release is not covered by " Price-Anderson" provisions, which' address liability and do not provide funds for cleanup per se. EPA maintains that NRC has full authority to require cleanup of accidental releases by. licensees; thus, CERCLA public funds should not be used for this purpose.

Costs to licensees of the possible different financial assurance mechanisms are based on proprietary information. Staff is inviting comments in response to the ANPRM to address costs aspects, as well as scope of coverage and availability of alternative mechanisms.The NRC resources necessary for the ANPRM are about 0.6 FTE in 1984 and 0.3 in 1985.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM to States 09/00/84 NPRM 06/00/85~

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Undetermined AGENCY CONTACT:

Mary Jo seeman Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4647 101

l l

TITLE:  !

+ Regional Nuclear Materials Licensing for Certain Federal.

Facilities CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70 ABSTRACT:

The final rule amends provisions concerning the domestic licensing of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials.-

The final rule is intended to provide information about the

-further implementation of NRC's decentralized licensing program.

This amendment implements another phase of the process by broadening the scope of the program in all regions to include licensees at certain Federal facilities. The final rule is necessary to inform present and prospective NRC licensees of current NRC practices and procedures.

TIMETABLE:

Final Action 04/00/85 LEGAL' AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL~ BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: ~N /A AGENCY CONTACT:

Donald R. Chapell Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555.

301 427-4152 102

TITLE:

+ Physician's Use of Radioactive Drugs CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT:

As new uses for FDA approved drugs are developed, NRC proposes'to amend its regulations to provide physicians an exception from its requirement to only use a radiopharmaceutical for the methods of use listed on the package label. This rule will facilitate potentially beneficial new uses of approved drugs. The only alternative to the rulemaking would be to amend individual licenses to authorize these new methods of use which would consume an inordinate amount of staff time. The proposed rule would allow NRC licensed physicians to use certain currently available diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals for some recently developed methods of use that are not listed on the respective package labels.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 04/00/85 -

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY. CONTACT:

Norman L. McElroy Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4108 103

TITLE:

+ Medical Use of Byproduct Material CFR CITATION:

10'CFR 35 ABSTRACT:

-The proposed rule would revise Part 35 to modify the process for licensing and regulating the medical use of radioactive byproduct material. Requirements that apply to medical licensees are scattered in the regulations, license conditions, the individual licensee's application, and licensing branch policy statements.

The purpose of the proposed rule is to consolidate and codify the requirements in the regulation. This rule will result in a clearer understanding of NRC requirements for.all medical licensees. This revision is necessary in order to provide a clear consolidated statement of requirement. The only way to impose requirements on all licensees is by license condition or regulation; therefore no alternative action was considered.

Because most of the requirements contained in this regulation are currently imposed by regulation or license condition, there will be no significant cost savings or additional burden; the industry and NRC will benefit by having a clear, concise, complete regulation. The proposed revision is currently before the Commission for their consideration.

The NRC will use about 0.3 staff year to complete the proposed revision and forward it to the Commissioners for their consideration in the fall.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 04/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:

Norman L. McElroy Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4108 104

l' l-

[

TITLE

.

+ Licenses and Radiation Safety-Requirements for Well-logging Operations

, CFR. CITATION:

10 CFR 39 ABSTRACT

, The proposed rule would~ establish' specific radiation safety requirements applicable to licensees who perform operations such as well-logging, mineral-logging, radioactive markers, a.nd subsurface use of' radioactive materials in tracer studies. The proposed rule is necessary because current NRC regulations address these operations in a general way without providing the specific guidance necessary to ensure that these operations are performed safely. As an alternative to the status quo, the proposed rule would adopt the requirements in the suggested State-

, Regulations for Control of Radiation Part W as new NRC

, regulations. The potential costs for industry to implement these I

requirements would be about $1,300,000/yr. However, because most

, of the' requirement is already imposed by license conditions, the net-increase in cost would be about $350,000 per year for the 3-

industry or about $2000 per licensee. The proposed rule would establish a consistent, comprehensive set of requirements that-would minimize the eff. ort required'to obtain reciprocity

for NRC licensees to operate in Agreement States or vice versa.

The proposed rule would require about one professional staff year effort by NRC.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 04/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC.5841 .

1

- EFFECTS ON SMALL~ BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Anthony N. Tse-Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7901 l

4

t

'l 105 4

.~.e...,~...,y. , - .m,.. . . . , .- , _ . . , - , ,-.-.-.-.e, ,....,,-.-m..,__~,_..--,__._-...-_

TITLE:

+ Material Balance Reports CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 150 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would amend the requirements applicable to the submission of source material and special nuclear material inventory reports. The proposed rule would eliminate the

requirement to report inventories on Form 742 for all licensees except those reporting under the US/IAEA Safeguards Agreement.

.The proposed rule would also eliminate the requirement to report inventories for all licensees except those for nuclear reactors and those reporting under the agreement. The NRC would generate an equivalent inventory report, based on the data submitted by each affected licensee; and the licensee would verify the accuracy of the report. This amendment would reduce the reporting burden imposed on the licensee without adversely affecting the domestic safeguards program on the ability to satisfy international commitments. The proposed reduction would result in a total cost savings of $39,000 for affected licensees.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 05/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

}

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

June Robertson Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 301 427-4004 1

l 106

TITLE:

Refinement of Emergency Planning Regulations CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would amend the Commission's emergency planning regulations to reflect experience gained since 1980 and' reorganize the emergency planning requirements for clarity.

Research studies on reactor risk and practical emergency planning experience have led to a refined portrayal of reactor risks and consequences. The proposed rule would require a graduated emergency response capability to reflect a more realistic program for dealing with radiological emergencies at nuclear power

-plants.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 08/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Undetermined AGENCY CONTACT:

Michael Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7615 107

i-i 4

TITLE:

Deletion of the Unusual Event Emergency Classification

i. CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

' The proposed rule would delete the " Unusual Events" emergency class from the Commission's emergency classification scheme. The

! current. emergency classifications are: - (1) notification of

unusual events, (2) alert, (3) site area emergency and (4)

. general emergency. This emergency classification scheme has been used by=the NRC, FEMA, licensees and State and local governments for at least four years. During this time, the Commission has

[L noted that the reporting of unusual events not only significantly strains the NRC resources, but tends to establish a " cry wolf"

. syndrome with State and local governments. The NRC emergency

. operations center receives approximately 20 notifications of unusual events per week. The purposes of the unusual events

- offsite notifications are to (1) assure that the first step in

.any response later found.to be necessary has been carried out, i (2) bring the operating staff to a state of readiness, and (3)

}. provide systematic handling of. unusual events.information and

.decisionmaking. All of these purposes are redundant to the purposes and required licensee actions associated with the

" alert" classification.

1 One alternative.to the proposed rule would be to not remove the 1

unusual events classification. Another alternative simply would i be to delete the unusual event from NUREG-0654. These alternatives would not satisfactorily accomplish the staff's j objectives. The staff believes that the deletion of the " unusual

!' events" classification would not ~ impair or decrease the state of l preparedness at nuclear power plants. The proposed change would

! require"the NRC to approve revised emergency plans. However, the staff believes that the deletion of " unusual events" will represent-a substantial savings to the industry both in dollars l and in human resources, approximately one-half staff year per l

plant. The NRC resources expended through 1985 in order to develop this rulemaking will be approximately two staff years per p year.

l' TIMETABLE:

NPRM OS /00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2234; 42 USC 5841

. EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES

No 108 i

i

,-w, v. -n,,,- ,.e,m ,v--,n-w-,- . ,.ny,- -.n ,. m-,n-- -,ne,,,-. -,. w v u .n _,,,-,n,--,,c- -n - s.---en-.--~~-,~~.

... . . ~_

l l

~-

TITLE:

Deletion of'the Unusual Event Emergency Classification A"iENCY CONTACT:

Michael Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7615 J

h I

+

4 f-t t

1 l

L.

i i

r i

109 i

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

TITLE:

+ Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (1983 Edition, Winter 1982 through Summer 1984 Addenda)

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would incorporate by reference the Winter 1982 Addenda, Summer 1983 Addenda, Winter 1983 Addenda, Summer 1984 Addenda, and the 1983 Edition of Section III, Division I, of~the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code), and the Winter 1982 Addenda, Summer 1983 Addenda, and the 1983 Edition of Section XI, Division I, of the ASME Code. The ASME Code sets standards for the construction of light-water-reactor nuclear power plant components in Section III, Division 1, and specifies requirements for the inservice inspection of those components in Section XI, Division I. The proposed rule would update the existing reference to the ASME Code and would thereby permit the use of improved methods for the construction and inservice inspection of nuclear power plant components.

Incorporating by reference the latest edition and addenda of the ASME Code will save applicants / licensees and the NRC staff both time and effort by providing uniform detailed criteria against which the staff can review any single submission.

Revisions to the ASME code are achieved through the process to which the NRC contributes. This consensus process ensures a proper balance between utility, regulatory, and other interests concerned with the code and ensures that the value of any revisions to the code is consistent with its impact.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 04/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Gilbert C. Millman Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7860 110

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

TITLE:-

General Design Criterion on Human Factors I CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ,

. ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would establish a new general design criterion

-on human factors considerations. The specific. factors to be.

,. . addressed. include operability, surveillance, maintainability, and' human engineering criteria. The revised human factors criterion Lis necessary because post-TMI reviews and operating experience indicate that the human factors discipline is rarely applied when

'needed at the' design and construction stage.

, Alternatives to the proposed criterion are described in the i Reg'ulatory Analysis and include (1) continuation of the current i ad hoc requirements; (2) modification to specific existing i criteria'in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A; and (3) delaying action until the development of an industry standard and preparing a ,

y regulatory guide to document the NRC position.

1 Alternative 1 may'not meet the objective of timely

. incorporation of sound human factors principles into the design,.

construction-and' operation of nuclear power plants; alternative 2 would probably prove more costly and less efficient to implement, and alternative 3 may not implement the human factors principles p in the time frame. recommended by TMI investigative groups.

f.

When all effects of the proposed Human Factors General Design

' Criterion are quantitatively evaluated, a net benefit ~is

, _ expected. The results indicate that the nuclear industry will -

f experience an overall cost increase as a result of applying human

. factors principles'to the design, installation and' operation of

j. an average system..However,-new plants that have human factors -

principles applied throughout the entire design, construction, j' .and operations phases can expect a net. savings of $1.1 million on

.each. system. Operating plants or plants with an already approved

-design that apply human factors principles to new or replacements i systems may experience a net cost increase of about $3.1 million.

[ A qualitative analysis for this proposed rule showed that

! benefits will accrue in the areas of occupational exposure,

'publicchealth, regulatory efficiency and economic risks to onsite p and offsite property.

TIMETABLE:

j NPRM 05/00/85 i: ,

l- ~ LEGAL AUTHORITY:

L ~42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5846 L EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: N/A

111

s.

TITLE:

General-Design Criterion on Human Factors AGENCY CONTACT:

' James P.-Jenkins Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington,-DC 20555 301 443-7657 112

(

5 i

. TITLE

Station Blackout CFR-CITATION:

10 CFR 50 1

ABSTRACT:

c NRC is proposing to amend its regulations to require light water 2 nuclear power plants.to be capable of withstanding a total loss l of alternating-current.(AC) electrical power, called Station-Blackout, to the essential and nonessential switchgear buses.for a specified duration. A proposed regulatory guide, to be issued i at the same time as the proposed rule, would provide guidance on how to-determine the duration..

j 'The proposed requirements were developed in response to information generated by the Commission's study of Unresolved Safety Issue A-44, Station Blackout. The proposed-rule is

, intended to provide further assurance that a loss of both

. off-site and emergency on-site electric AC power systems will not adversely' affect the public health and safety.-

A' regulatory analysis has been' prepared for the proposed rule.

The estimated'public risk reduction is 80,000 person-rem over 25

years, and the estimated total' cost for industry to comply with the proposed rule is, $40 million. This results in an overall cost ,

+

benefit ratio of about 2,000 person-rem per million dollars.

The alternatives to this proposed rulemaking are to

.take no action or to provide only guidance for plants.to be able to cope with a station blackout period. To take no action would not yield any reduction in public risk from station blackout' events. To provide guidance only, since there is presently-no requirement for nuclear power plants to be able to cope with a total loss of AC power, would not result ~in'any basis for enforcement. The proposed rule is the recommended alternative based on its. enforceability and, in'part, on the favorable cost / benefit ratio.

1

. TIMETABLE:

NPRM 09/00/85

. LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: N/A

< AGENCY CONTACT:

' Alan Rubin Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington,-DC 20555

301 492-8303 l 113

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

TITLE:

+ Modifications to GDC 4 Requirements for Protection Against Postulated Pipe' Ruptures f

CFR CITATION:

4 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would permit licensees to use newly developed i

analytical methods involving widely accepted advanced fracture mechanics theories for determining that certain pipe ruptures need not be treated in the. design basis for dynamic effects ~.

Implementation of the rule would facilitate the removal of unnecessary pipe whip restraints and jet shields from existing nuclear power plants. This would reduce inservice inspection cost and,'in addition, would reduce inspector radiation exposure. The need and urgency-for addressing the issue stems from the widespread acceptance of the analysis results and the research findings pertaining to pipe rupture coupled with increasing confidence in its applicability. Prior to the last few years, there was no sound technical basis for excluding certain pipe ruptures from the design basis. Now it is clear that it is possible to defend the exclusion of PWR primary loop double-ended guillotine pipe ruptures, and that the scope may be extended to other piping. A benefit derived from the rule would be avoidance

,l-of extensive exemptions to General Design Criterion 4 which would be the only acceptable alternate to the proposed rule.

The rule may only require minimum addition and for modification of the existing text of GDC 4. Two staff years will be needed to complete this rulemaking.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 07/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

John'A. O'Brien Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 4 Washington, DC-20555 1 l 301 443-7860 1 4

i i

j. 114

T i

l l

TITLE:

Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would update and revise the 1973 criteria for preoperational and periodic pressure testing for leakage of primary and secondary containment boundaries of water-cooled power reactors. Problems have deve, loped in application and interpretation of the existing rule. These result from changes in testing technology, test criteria, and a relevant national standard that needs to be recognized. It is proposed to revise the rule as noted to make it current and improve its usefulness.

The benefits anticipated include elimination of inconsistencies and obsolete requirements, and the addition of greater usefulness and a higher confidence in the leak-tight integrity of containment system boundaries under post-loss of coolant accident conditions. The majority of the effort needed by NRC to issue the rule has already been expended. Still remaining are resolution of issues peripheral to, but important to, the rule, presentation of the proposed rule for public comment and integration of appropriate public c6mments.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 07/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 5841 l

i EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No

, . AGENCY CONTACT:

L Gunter Arndt l Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7860 l

1 115

l TITLE:

Extension of Criminal Penalties CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule, in accordance with the provisions of the NRC Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1980, would extend the application of the criminal penalties provision of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, to any individual director, officer, or employee of a firm constructing or supplying the components of a nuclear power plant who knowingly and willfully violates any NRC regulation, order, or license condition during construction of a nuclear power plant. Section 223(b) of the AEA essentially directs the Commission to establish a limit for potential unplanned off-site releases of radioactive material which would trigger consideration of possible criminal penalties.

As directed in Section 223(b)(3), the proposed rule establishes, in its definition of a " basic component," the limits for potential unplanned releases of radioactive material that could trigger application of criminal penalties.

TINETABLE:

NPRM 01/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Donald R. Hopkins Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7878 116

I 1

TITLE:

• Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 CFR CITATION:

10 CFR Part 50 ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to clarify its regulations on the use of the terms "important to safety" and " safety related" by adding two new definitions to 10 CFR Part 50 and by discussing how these definitions will be applied in NRC licensing reviews. Significant issues concerning the meaning of these terms as they are used in this part have arisen in Commission licensing proceedings. This proposed rule would define these terms and clarify the nature and extent of their affect on-quality assurance requirements, thereby resolving these issues. The rulemaking should not impact licensees or the public because it clarifies existing requirements. The additional burden on NRC to prepare and implement this rule will be very nominal because current practices will not be changed.

TIMETABLE:

SECY 85-119 has been submitted to the Commission for consideration.

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Stephen M. Goldberg

' Office of Inspection and Enforcement Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4968 117

TITLE:

+ Radon 222 Estimate for Table S-3 CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 51 ABSTRACT:

In a Federal Register notice published on April 14, 1979 (43 FR 15613) the Commission deleted the radon-222 value from Table S-3 because it was recognized to be underestimated. Pending rulemaking action to provide a new estimate for radon-222 in Table S-3, the environmental effects of radon are subject to litigation.in individual nuclear power plant licensing proceedings. The purpose of the proposed rule would be to deal with this question generically for all nuclear power plants, thus saving the time and cost of repetitive consideration of the effects of radon-222 in individual nuclear power plant licensing proceedings. The only alternative to generic treatment of the environmental impact of radon-222 is to continue to allow these environmental impacts to be brought into-litigation in individual licensing cases. By the proposed rulemaking action, new estimates for the environmental releases of rn-222 will be added to Table S-3, and the narrative explanation of Table S-3 will be modified accordingly. This will complete Table S-3 and will remove all environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle from further consideration and litigation in individual nuclear power plant licensing cases.

This rulemaking action will not impose additional work or requirements on the public, the industry, license applicants, or the Commission staff. It will reduce the time required and the effort needed to complete nuclear power plant licensing proceedings. NRC resources to develop the rulemaking are estimated to be 0.5 FTE scientific staff, with no contractual support.

TIMETABLE:

U.S. Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit Invalidates Table S-3 04/27/82 EPA's New Standards promulgated 10/01/84 New Estimates for Table S-3 12/31/84 NPRM 12/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 118

l

' TITLE:

-+ Radon 222 Estimate for Table S-3 AGENCY CONTACT:-

' William E. Thompson Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

~ Washington, DC 20555 301 427-9024 4

l-h' l -

i-( 119

- . - - - - . . - - , . - , - v , ,-- ,n-r - , ~-- - ., . - - , , ,

l l

l l

TITLE:

Update of Table S-4, Part 51 CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 51 ABSTRACT:

Table S-4 helps provide a means for meeting the NEPA requirements for an environmental assessment at the construction permit stage of a new reactor. The te'chnical basis for this table, WASH-1238, was published in 1972. A revised and updated version of WASH-1238 (NUREG/CR-2325) that includes current transportation data and impacts was published in December 1983. In addition, staff calculations are available on the impacts of the higher burnups and increased enrichments currently in use in many reactors. The proposed rule would amend Table S-4 to include the impacts from these two studies and ensure that the table reflects the current environmental impacts. Prior to developing this rule, an Environmental Impact Assessment will be developed to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.This proposed rule would probably have no impact on licensees but would require one to two NRC professional staff years to develop.

TIMETABLE:

Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 4332 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

William R. Lahs Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7874 120

TITLE:

• + Definition of High-Level Radioactive Waste (HLW) in 10 CFR Part 60 CFR CITATION:

10 CFR Part 60 ABSTRACT:

This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeks to revise the definition of HLW in Part 60 to reflect certain changes in the legal definition of HLW contained in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

Because of the complex issues involved in revising the definition of HLW, which affects virtually the entire radioactive waste management system, the staff is proposing an ANPRM rather than a proposed rule. A revision of the definition of HLW would affect DOE's plans for a geologic repository, state plans for regional compacts to manage low-level waste, Federal vs. State responsibility for some above Class C wastes, costs of waste disposal for certain waste generators, and the development of new technologies and facilities to dispose of certain types of wastes. A definition of HLW which reduces uncertainty about responsibility for different types of wastes would benefit the radioactive waste management system. NRC would require staff effort from RES, ELD, NMSS and OSP to carry out a rulemaking, but such a rulemaking which reduces uncertainty might save NRC resources in the future by reducing the need for case-by-case reviews, and minimizing litigation.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 07/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 U.S.C. 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:

Clark Prichard Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 (301) 427-4586 121

l 1

)

TITLE: i Financial Responsibility Standards for Long Term Care for Low Level Waste Disposal Sites CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 61 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule is designed to provide standards to ensure that each licensee responsible for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste possesses an adequate bond, surety, or other financial arrangement to insure completion of all requirements established by the Commission for decontamination, decommissioning, and site closure. Section 151 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act authorizes the NRC to develop standards for i- financial arrangements for low-level radioactive waste site closure. Comments on the ANPRM will help define the nature and scope of.the action. NRC resource scheduling is being developed.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 09/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 10171 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Mary Jo Seeman Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4647 122

TITLE:

+ Material Status Reports CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 70 ABSTRACT:

The NRC is amending its regulations in section 70.53 to require affected licensees to report data summarizing the results of physical inventories of special nuclear material (SNM). The affected licensees are required by section 70.51 to conduct the physical inventories but would be required by section 70.53 to l- report the summary of the results. In the pa'st, licensees

(

. voluntarily provided this information, which is used to determine compliance with NRC regulations and to provide data for NUREG-0430, " Licensed Fuel Facility Status Report." Without a regulatory requirement or without licensee's voluntary submittals, NRC would have to conduct inspections-to acquire SNM physical inventory data. In conjunction with this rulemaking, the form that licensees use to report summaries of SNM physical inventory data has been modified to include definitions of required data elements.

Since the affected licensees are already supplying this information voluntarily, there will be no additional costs to these licensees.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 10/30/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

i 42 USC 5841 i

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No

! AGENCY CONTACT:

Sandra Frattali Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301 443-7890 l-i 123

TITLE:

Rule to Amend the Transportation Provisions Pertaining to the Shipment of Low Specific Activity (LSA) Material CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 71 ABSTRACT:.

The proposed rule would define two classes of LSA materials with specified shipping or packaging requirements. The two classes represent a consolidation of five classes of LSA materials and solid contamination objects (SCO) now in the 1985 regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In addition, the proposed rule provides special consideration for the inherent safety associated with the shipment of solid, nonflammable objects which are not dispersible in water. A new requirement of the amended rule would impose a dose rate limit on LSA materials.

This requirement, which is philosophically consistent with the proposed IAEA regulations, is considered necessary to keep current and future LSA shipments within the envelope of safety-originally conceived for such materials. This proposed rule would be responsive to PRM-71-1, PRM-71-2 and PRM-71-4.A regulatory analysis is currently being developed by the staff.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 06/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:

Donald R. Hopkins Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7878 i

124

i-TITLE:

i + Physical Protection Requirements for Independent Spent Fuel

. Storage Installations (ISFSIs)

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 73

! ABSTRACT:

Requirements for the physical protection of spent nuclear fuel at independent storage sites are currently contained in 10.CFR 73.50.'Those requirements were originally developed for a broad range of materials _and facilities, and were not developed

~

specifically for independent spent fuel storage installations.

(ISFSIs). Preliminary studies, some of which are related to  ;

- transportation and require extrapolations to fixed installations, indicate that some of the current requirements for ISFSIs may not

- be at the appropriate level. If ongoing assessments confirm that existing regulations should be changed to be more commensurate with the consequences of a sabotage attack, a proposed performance-oriented rule would be-developed to allow licensees

- the flexibility of using the most cost-effective measures available.to meat the regulatory requirements. The necessity and

. urgency of addressing this issue is to have safeguards requirements in place that are commensurate with the risk of storing spent nuclear fuel in dry casks at reactor. sites. An alternative to rulemaking is to continue use of the existing regulations, issuing exemptions and adding' license conditions as necessary.-

In accordance with NRC Policy and Planning Guidance, rulemaking

, is to be utilized when numerous licensees are affected. As work -

on resolution of the technical issues continues, analyses regarding the effects.of the rule on the public, industry;and NRC will be developed. It will take about one year to publish a final i- rule after the Commission approves the proposed rule for publication. The estimated resources needed from now until a final rule is prepared are approximately 1-1/2 staff years.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 12/31/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42'USC 2201;.42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No  :

AGENCY CONTACT: -

Frank Davis Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards l- Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4765 125 4

y --m ,-,w, ow----.-,,,,n w-m - ~_-+-,wr,e. ,,, .,,,,,--m_-,,,, . - - -,,---,----,-+---e, -,---n--

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

i 1

t l TITLE:

+ Reporting Requirements for Safeguards Events  !

i i l

l CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 73 ABSTRhCT: '

. The proposed rule would amend taporting requirements of section 4

73.71 for reports of unaccounted for shipments, suspected thefts, unlawful diversion, and.other safeguards events. The staff has found the present requirements confusing to licensees and, therefore, difficult for licensees to properly implement. These i difficulties have contributed to safeguards event reports that-

lack uniformity and contain insufficient data for NRC analysis purposes. Safeguards event reporting requirements are necessary to permit. timely response by the-NRC to safeguards incidents and to. identify possible generic deficiencies in safeguards systems, i Until the requirements for reporting are clarified and

simplified, the problems identified above will continue to exist.

This is considered to be a matter of moderate urgency. An alternative to rulemaking is issuance of additional or revised-

-guidance on the present requirement. However, such guidance would lack. regulatory authority. Since the problems have arisen over

, the abstract nature of the-present requirement, it appears the best solution is to correct the source of the problem by amending the existing rule. The proposed amendments' redefine, in clearer terms, the events to be reported and classify certain of these events into different reporting categories. The current 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> telephonic notification is deleted. All events would be i

either. telephonically reported within one hour or logged in licensee records to be submitted to the NRC quarterly. Concurrent with the rule revision, a revised regulatory guide is being

, developed which provides a format for reporting to the NRC and

! gives examples of what types of events should be reported and under'what category, i-l There is expected to be no cost impact to the public. Benefits i

to licensees will be clearer, simpler regulations, and.a reduction.in telephonic and written report making. While the proposed regulations will require more detailed, standardized written reports, the reduction in the number of telephone and t written reports is expected to result in a net cost decrease to-l industry of $641.6K incurred on an annual basis, i

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 06/00/85 LEGAL' AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No

, 126

- , , . , - . , . . . , . . - . . , - . ~ , _ . - . ~ , , , - , . , - - - . - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - . . + - - - - -,

TITLE:

+ Reporting Requirements for Safeguards Events

~

~ AGENCY CONTACT:

Priscilla A. Dwyer.

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555

-301 427-4773 1

O C

r i

+'.

l I

.~

l '

[.

127 L.

f

l i

i I

1 TITLE:

Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence l i

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 140 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would revise the criteria the Commission currently follows in determining an extraordinary nuclear occurrence (ENO), in order to overcome the problems that were encountered following the Three Mile Island (TMI) accident when the present criteria were applied. The proposed criteria would focus on items that can be readily counted or estimated within a relatively short time following an accident (i.e., substantial release of radioactive material or radiation offsite and substantial exposure levels). The revised criteria will provide for speedy satisfaction of legitimate claims in the event of an ENO. Because ENO criteria are administrative criteria for use by the Commission, they do not impose any requirement upon a licensee.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 05/01/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2210; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Harold Peterson Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4578 128

a - ,-- - e _ _ ,,,. a w -~ - -- - - - - - , - - - --

i 1

l l

l t

1 l

l l

l l

l l

l l

l l

l l

l

'~ * - -- ,_ _ _ , . _ ,,

(A) - Petitions incorporated into final rules or petitions denied since December 31, 1984 I

4

a .--s - .a- - s.aa . --- w .s o.. -am m n .A m f

t 4

I l I

i i

I Ya f

l i

r i

f I

e l

l 1

i l

. ~ - _ ,. - _ _.___.._ _ _ . ._ , _ _ _

I PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-35-5 l 1

PETITIONER: Nuclear Radiation Consultants PART: 35 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: March 8, 1984 (49 FR 8621)

SUBJECT:

Criteria for Becoming a Licensed User of a Medical Diagnostic Device

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner proposes that the Commission amend its regulations governing the human uses of byproduct material to permit any health professional with appropriate training and experience to obtain a license authorizing the use of a medical diagnostic device containing a radioactive source. This device.is a dual photon spine scanner also known as a bone mineral analyzer. Current regulations require that persons authorized to use the device be physicians who meet the training and experience requirements outlined in Policy and Guidance Directive FC 83-24. The petitioner's requested amendment would allow any health professional with the training and experience required by FC 83-24 to become licensed to use a bone mineral analyzer.

Objective. To permit a greater number of health profes-sionals to become licensed to use the device without, according to the petitioner, any increased risk to public health and safety. The petitioner contends that a person need not be a physician to use the device because use of the device does not constitute the practice of medicine.

Background. The comment period closed May 7, 1984. The petitioner was granted an additional ninety days to provide further information or secure more comments.

TIMETABLE: Complete. The notice denying this petition was published in the Federal Pegister February 28, 1985 (50 FR 8136).

CONTACT: Judith Foulke Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 427-4563 129

(B) - Petitions incorporated into proposed rules

a - _ ,__. m a _ a - -

i 1

a i

.I r

1 I

J f

i i

l V

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 ensure that funds will be available for isolation of radioactive material upon decommissioning. The petitioners state that their proposal would ensure that power companies which operate reactors, rather than future generations, bear the cost of decommissioning. The petitioners also request that the Comission amend its regulations to require that operators of nuclear power plants already in operation be required to establish plans and imediately post bonds to insure proper decommissioning.

Objective. Since decommissioning will not occur until after the 40-year operating license has expired and may require substantial expense for years thereafter, the petitioners seek to ensure that companies which are now financially stable continue to have the capacity to pay decommissioning costs when necessary.

Background. The original coment period closed October 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 imediate rulemaking requiring the posting of surety bonds. Other issues and funding alternatives raised in the petition have

, been incorporated into the ongoing rulemaking on Decommis-sioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking for that proceeding was published on March 13, 1978 (43 F.R 10370), and the proposed rule was published February 11, 1985 (50 FR 5600). The comment period for this proposed rule ends May 13, 1985.

TIMETABLE: Commission action on final rule is scheduled for February 1986.

CONTACT: Catherine Mattsen Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-7910 131

l PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-71-1, PRM-71-2, PRM-71-4 PETITIONER: Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA)/D0E (PRM-71-1)

American National Standards Inst. Connittee N14 (PRM-71-2)

Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. (PRM-71-4)

PART: 71 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: PRM-71-1, September 22, 1975 (40 FR 43517);

PRM-71-2, April 15, 1976 (41 FR 15921); and PRM-71-4, January 27, 1977 (42 FR 5'149).

SUBJECT:

Exemption of " Low Specific Activity Material" from the Requirements of Part 71

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners requested that the Commission amend.its regulations at 6671.7 and 71.10 to exempt " low specific activity material," as defined in 971.4(g), from the requirements of Part 71. The petitioners stated that the Department of Transportation (DOT) Hazardous Materials Regulations, 49 CFR 170-189, provide a specific exemption for " low specific activity material" in which these materials -

are exempted from the normal packaging requirements.

Petitioners further stated that this exemption would make Part 71 more consistent with both the 1967 regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and with the 1972 revised edition of the IAEA regulations.

Objective. To exempt " low specific activity material" from the packaging requirements of 10 CFR Part 71 to achieve-

-corpatibility among the regulations of-the NRC, 00T, and 1AEA.

Background. Comments were received on these petitions over a period of one and one-half years. Altogether, five favorable comments were received. In July 1979, the Commission approved a proposed revision (SECY-79-192) to the NRC transportation regulations in 10 CFR Part 71 to make them more compatible with those of the IAEA, including the requested revision to 971.7 to exempt " low specific activity material" from the requirements of Part 71. The proposed rule change was published in the Federal Register on August 17, 1979 (44 FR 48234). During the development of the final rule, however, the transportation program office (NMSS) reversed its earlier decision to exempt " low 132

4 <

specific activity material" from Part 71 until a. deficiency in the. rule..is corrected'and directed that action on the petitions be delayed until a new rulemaking action is..

initiated to correct the deficiency. That new proposed

. rule is scheduled for completion by June 1985.

. TIMETABLE: ' Commission action on the petition is' scheduled for-June 1985.

. CONTACTi Donald R. Hopkins . .

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-7878 i

C 133

- . . . -_-__-_- __ _-_ - , , a.

j PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-73-2

-PETITIONER: Wisconsin Electric Power Company, et al.

. PART: 73 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None

~

FEDERAL 1 REGISTER CITATION: September 15,- 1977 (42 FR 46431)

SUBJECT:

, Elimination of " Pat Down" Physical Searches of Individuals at Nuclear Power Plants

SUMMARY

Description. . The petitioners request elimination of the requirement for " pat down" physical searches of individuals

. entering a prote'cted area-of a nuclear power plant. _The petitioners. contend that the requirement ~ is -unnecessary in that comparable highly sensitive facilities such as those used to store. nuclear weapons do not have such a requirement.

The petitioners state that their petition would permit..." pat down" searches and that individuals entering a-protected area would be put on notice that they are subject to these searches. Existing requirements for the use of detection equipment would not be'affected. The , petition . inclu' des ,

proposed amendatory text to Part 73. The petitioners also have submitted a memorandum in support of-the petition.

Objective. To eliminate"the requirement for " pat down" Ehysical searches of'indi'viduals entering a protected-area of a nuclear power plant.

Background. The~ comment period closed October 17, 1977.

Approximately 100 coments were received. Eighty comments were from utilities and: supported the petition. The other--

20 disagreed with the petition. Currently effective regulations require, in part, that licensees conduct

, physical " pat down" searches of their employees and other L persons before allowing them_to enter a: protected area of a I power reactor facility. However, NRC has extended ~to:

! licensees relief from this requirement while a' proposed v rulemaking proceeding in physical' searches is conducted.-

? The most recent notice granting a continuation of this

= relief was-published in the Federal Register on December l',

1980.(45 FR 79492). The Commission notified the petitioner

.-;that action on the petition has been delayed-pending j resolution of the rulemaking proceeding to modify require-ments_for physical searches at nuclear power plants.

. Implementation of the proposed revised pat-down search .

, rule would not' represent any increased costs to individual licensees.

i r 134 I

- , - + n , .,,m -,n + - - - , , , _ . , , - - . - - - - , - - y,sv .. v --. n.e-, ,, , , , , , ,,- ,

h e

,z - TIMETABLE: Commission action'on the petition.for rulemaking is pending issuance of the final rule on personnel access authorization. .The proposed rule was published.in the

. Federal Register on August 1, 1984.(49 FR 30738), and the' comment period for the rule was extended to March 7, 1985.(49 FR 48200). Commission' action on the' final rule is. scheduled for September 1985.

-- - CONTACT

.Kristina Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-7687 9

-h'.'_

135

l 1

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-73-3 r l PETITIONER: KMC, Inc., et al.

PART: 73-0THER AFFECTED PART(S): None-FEDERAL REGISTER CITATIONi July 10, 1978 (43 FR-29635)

SUSIECT: Physical Security Requirements at Nuclear Power Plants

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests amendment of $73.55 to include a statement that, if a nuclear power reactor

.. licensee meets the' specific requirements for physical protection against an insider threat, as provided for in the Commission's_ regulations, a licensee will also meet the.

general performance requirements for physical protection provided ;in 573.55. The petitioner contends that while 973.55(a) permits licensees to suggest alternative measures

- that .would achieve equivalent levels of physical protection,

. experience has shown that these proposed alternatives have not been accepted by.the NRC staff. The petitioner states that the NRC has required additional features,- beyond the requirements in'673.55, to meet the general performance.

requirements for physical security protection.

Specifically, the petitioner. requests amendment of-paragraph (a)(2) of 673.55 that provides requirements for protection against " insider" threat (that is, a threat from an individual.-inside a plant, including an employee of the utility). The requested change would state that a utility that meets the specific requirements in paragraphs (b) through (h)'of 673.55 would satisfy the general performance requirements for physical security.in

$73.55. .The petitioner provides specific amendatory language _in the petition and also has submitted a memorandum.in support of the petition.

Obfective. To limit NRC staff from imposing on utilities.

additional requirements for physical security. protection

'above those requirements in 573.55 by stating that a utility, when it satisfies the specific requirements for physical protection against.an insider threat (as provided in the Commission's regulations), will also meet the general performance requirements for physical protection against an. insider-threat.

Background. The comment period closed September 8, 1978.

Four coments on the petition were received. On November 11, 1978, the-NRC notified the petitioner that action on the petithn would be delayed because the currently effective physical security requirements in 573.55 were under review.

136

The NRC has extended to licensees partial relief from the physical security requirements in 973.55. The most recent notice extending this relief was published in the Federal Register on December 1, 1980 (45 FR 79410). The NRC published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on December 1, 1980 (45 FR 79492), which would modify the physical security requirements in $73.55. Action on the petition is delayed pending resolution of policy questions raised by the petition in current rulemakings.

TIMETABLE: Commission action on the petition for rulemaking is pending issuance of the final " Insider Rule." The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on August 1, 1984 (49 FR 30738),and the comment period for the rule was extended to March 7, 1985 (49 FR 48200).

Commission action on the final rule is scheduled for September 1985.

CONTACT: Kristina Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-7687 137

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-73-7 PETITIONER: Wisconsin Electric Power Company, et al.

PART: 73 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 16, 1982 (47 FR 6658)

SUBJECT:

Elimination of Required Log-0ut of Personnel from Vital Areas of Nuclear Power Reactors

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request that the Commission eliminete the log-out requirement at nuclear power rea uors for individuals given access to normally unoccupied vital 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 that would achieve these modified requirements.

Objective. To eliminate the log-out requirement at nuclear power reactors for individuals given access to normally unoccupied vital areas.

Background. The comment period closed April 19, 1982.

Nine comments on the petition were received. Action on the petition is delayed pending resolution of policy questions in current rulemakings.

TIMETABLE: Commission action on the petition will follow publication of the final " Insider Rule." The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on August 1, 1984 (49 FR 39735), and the comment period for the rule was extended to March 7, 1985

(<^ FR 48200). Commission action on the final rule is scheduled for September 1985.

~

CONTACT: Kristina Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-7687 138

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-73-8 PETITIONER: Wisconsin Electric Power Company, et al.

PART: 73 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 16, 1982 (47 FR 6657)

SUBJECT:

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

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request that the Commission 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 preventing insiders from sabotaging the plant. The petition includes proposed amendatory text that would achieve this requested change.

Objective. To eliminate the required search of hand-carried personal effects of screened employeet entering a protected area of a nuclear power plant.

Background. The comment period closed April 19, 1982.

Ten comments on the petition were received. Action on the petition is delayed pending resolution of policy questions in current rulemakings.

l TIMETABLE: Commission action on the petition will follow l publication of the final " Insider Rule." The proposed l rule was published in the Federal Register on August 1,

, 1984 (49 FR 30738), and the comment period for the rule l was extended to March 7, 1985 (49 FR 48200). Commission l

actior on the final rule is scheduled for' September 1985.

CONTACT: Kristina Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-7687 139

l 1

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-140-1  !

l l

PETITIONER: Public Citizen Litigation Group and Critical Mass Energy Project PART: 140 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: August 28, 1979 (44 FR 50419)

SUBJECT:

Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence

SUMMARY

Descri ) tion. The petitioners request that the NRC (1)  ;

find tlat the accident at Three Mile' Island was an extraordinary nuclear occurrence (ENO) and (2) amend Subpart E of Part 140 to make less stringent the criteria used for determining that an extraordinary nuclear occurrence has occurred. Part 140 of the Commission's regulations provide procedures and requirements for determining the financial protection required of licensees and from the indemnification and limitation of liability of licensees. Subpart E of Part 140 sets forth the procedures the Commission will follow and the criteria the Commission will apply in determining whether there has been an EN0.

Objective. To change the criteria used by the Commission to make a determination that an EN0 has occurred.

Background. The comment period closed on December 31, 1979. One comment was received. The petitioners are property owners in the vicinity of TMI and contend that their property was sharply decreased in value as a result of the accident. In addition, the petitioners contend that "the Commission's' established criteria have been easily met" in that the damages resulting from the accident exceed those levels necessary to be considered an-ENO. This portion of the petition was considered to be a public comment on the Commission's request for information on the TMI EN0 determination and was resolved by the i Commission's EN0 decision of April 16, 1980. Finally, the petitioners request that additional criteria be added to p Part 140 to permit accidents of much smaller proportions than-TMI to be considered EN0s.

TIMETABLE: A proposed rule addressing the unresolved issues for this petition is scheduled to be published in April 1985.

CONTACT: Harvid T.~ Peterson, Jr.

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research i301) 427-4578 140

)

h'

)

i 1

(C) - Petitions pending staff review t j

e h

3. -

4' A

l I.

1 h

t i

i 4

i 5

h i

i.

I a

+

f n - - - -

4_ .__A...- A - u 1

4 4

i J

i i

1 J

i 1

i i

i l

e l'

I r

1 l

l l

l l

I C .

i

\

l PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-7-2 PETITIONER: John L. Nantz PART: 7 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: October 26, 1984 (49 FR 43070)

SUBJECT:

Comission Decisions Regarding Closure of Advisory Committee Meetings

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to establish a formal procedure to allow interested persons to petition the Comission regarding closure of advisory committee meetings or portions of those meetings.

The petitioner states that, at the present time, the Comission has delegated the responsibility for making closed meeting determinations to the Assistant Secretary without Comission review. The present practice regarding advisory committee meeting closures, according to the petitioner, contains none of the safeguards to ensure adequate consideration of the public interest that exist for the Commission's own meetings.

Objective. The petitioner proposes amendments that would establish a procedure for seeking reconsideration of decisions to clost advisory committee meetings within seven days after the date of public announcement of the decision and before the meeting in question is held. These amendments, states the petitioner, provide an established mechanism to invoke Commission

-review of advisory committee closure determinations that should enhance the probability that the Comission's delega+.e will oive adequate attention to the public interest in open deliberations.

Background. The comment period expired on December 26, 1984.

l TIMETABLE: Comission action on the petition is unscheduled.

! CONTACT: Marjorie S. Nordlinger i Office of the General Counsel (202) 634-3214 141

1 iPETITION' DOCKET-NUMBER: PRM-20-6 PETITIONER: Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

1

'PART: 20-TOTHER AFFECTED PART(S): 'None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: October 29, 1975 (40 FR 50327)

SUBJECT:

Radiation' Protection Standards

SUMMARY

-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

-(1) that for individuals under the age of 45, the whole_ body radiation exposure limit would not exceed 0.5. rem in any calendar year'and 0.3 rem in any calendar quarter and (2) that individuals over 45 years of-age may receive up to 3 rems per quarter whole body dose-as lon dose-does not exceed:0.5(M-18) + X(N-M)g as:the whole bodyrem (whe 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 the 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 radia_ tion 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 alternative 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 was included in the hearing on occupational radiation protection that was jointly' sponsored by EPA, NRC, and'0SHA.

The 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 has deferred its final recommendation pending the following actions. Proposed EPA guidance was published in the Federal Register on January 23, 1981. EPA /NRC/ OSHA 142

c e

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. -This petition has been combined with PRM-20-6A from Rosalie Bertell 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.

TIMETABLE: Commission action on the proposed rule is scheduled for December 1985.

CONTACTi Robert E. Baker Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 427-4570 143

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-20-6A PETITIONER: Rosalie Bertell PART: 20 OTHERAFFECTEDPART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: August 21, 1978 (43 FR 37018)

SUBJECT:

Standards for Protection Against Radiation

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission (1) amend its Standards for Protection Against Radiation as they apply to the maximum whole body dose equivalent for-occupational exposures to ionizing radiation, (2) include in 10 CFR Part 20 those diseases that indicate above-normal susceptibility to leukemia or radiation damage, and (3) review in one hearing this' petition consolidated with the petition (PRM-20-6) filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The petitioner states that the requested.

amendment in item (1) would have the same effect, measured by. the reduction of the individual?s biological ability to cope with chronic and malignant disease, as would be achieved by reducing the current maximum whole body dose for occupational exposure by a factor of 50.

Objective. To reduce the current permissible whole body dose equivalent for occupational exposure by a factor of 50.

Background. The comment period expired October 20, 1978.

Four comments were received, one favoring and three opposing the petition. This petition has been combined with an earlier petition (PRM-20-6) from the National Resources Defense Council, Inc., that addresses the same issues. The issue of occupational dose limits is presently being addressed by the staff in work on the revision of 10 CFR Part 20. A response to this petition and PRM-20-6 will be prepared following Commission action on the revised Part 20 rule.

TIMETABLE: Comission action on a proposed rule is scheduled for December 1985.

CONTACT: Robert E. Baker Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 427-4570 144

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-20-7 PETITIONER: Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

PART: 20 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): 61 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: September 23, 1976 (41 FR 41759)

SUBJECT:

Shallow Land Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission 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 solidi-fication 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 ccmpelling potential health and safety l hazard existed to warrant immediate NRC reassumption o#

regulatory authority from the states, or immediate implemen-tation of 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 were considered as part of a comprehensive rulemaking affecting 10 CFR Part 61 entitled

" Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radinactive Waste."

The final rule addressing these issues was approved by the Commission on October 28, 1982, and published in the Federal Register December 27, 1982 (see 47 FR 57446). The final Environmental Impact Statement was published in November 1982.

145

• e

(

l -

?

TIMETABLE: "A Federal Register notice addressing the disposition of- this petition is scheduled for publication in April 1985'

~

. CONTACT: : Kenneth Jackson Office of Nuclear Material Safety and. Safeguards

. (301) 427-4500 I

r a

5 y'

l L

4 6

1 c

146 f 1

t a , .,.n.-.w,., <-. , s,n. ,. . ~ , . , , . , , , , - , , . . , , + . . . e e,.. e- .-+

I PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-20-14 PETITIONER: The University of Utah PART: 20 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: January 30, 1984 (49 FR 3667)

SUBJECT:

Disposal of Very low Concentrations of Short-Lived Radionuclides

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner proposed an amendment of $20.306 and the addition of 920.307 to alleviate a number of problems that many' licensees are experiencing under current regulations with the disposal of. experimental animal waste material and certain radionuclide components. The petitioner states that the changes would substantially reduce nonradiological risks related to the collection, storage, packaging, and shipping of certain biological and chemical wastes without compromising or reducing radiation protection.

Objective. To obtain additional options for the disposal of very low concentrations of short-lived radionuclides.

Background. The comment period closed March 30, 1984.

Forty-five coment letters were received, including one from the petitioner that revised the initial petition and offered a second version that was based on the petitioner.'s analysis of the comment letters. Most of the coment letters favored the petition. Approximately one-fourth of the coment letters contained data that was solicited when the notice of receipt of the petition was published. This data will be used to help evaluate the merit of the petition. The staff is currently

-analyzing the data, the petition, the revised petition, and other coment letters.-

TIMETABLE: The staff proposal in response to this petition is scheduled for completion in June 1985.

CONTACT: Harold Peterson '

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 427-4578 147

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-20-15 PETITIONER: Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (UNWMG)

PART: 20 0THER AFFECTED PART(S): NONE FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: September 19, 1984 (49 FR 36653)

SUBJECT:

New Methods of Disposal of Radioactively Contaminated Waste Oil from Nuclear. Power Plants

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request that the Commission issue a regulation governing the disposal of radioactively contaminated waste oil from nuclear power plants by estab-lishing radionuclide concentrations in waste oil at which disposal may be carried out without regard to the radioactive material content of the waste. Each year, the petitioners state, quantities of waste oil containing very low levels of radioactive contamination are produced at nuclear power plants. The petitioners maintain that the currently used method of disposal (which is absorption or solidification, transportation to, and burial at a licensed disposal facility) is costly, inconsistent with NRC's policy ir favor of volume reduction, and represents an inefficient use of resources. In order to provide efficient, environmentally acceptable, and cost beneficial methods, the' petitioners propose six disposal methods with specific gross activity limits for itemized radionuclides to be included in a new Appendix E to Part 20.

Objective. To develop a de minimis standard of 1 mrem /yr for disposal of waste oil generated in nuclear power plants which is consistent with Commission and ACRS support for the development of regulatory cutoff levels.

Background. The comment period closed November 19, 1984.

< TIMETABLE: Staff action on this petition is unscheduled pending evaluation of the conments received.

CONTACT: Don Harmon Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 427-4577 148

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-30-55 PETITIONER: State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection PART: ~30 -

OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): 31, 32, 33 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: August 11, 1977 (42 FR 40791)

SUBJECT:

Radiation Standards for Uses of Byproduct Material

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Comission initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the purpose of adopting new national standards for users of radioactive byproduct materials. The petitioner states that the Comission Radiation Standards for byproduct material facilities and nuclear power plants differ drastically.-

The' petitioner states that a nuclear power plant's sophis-ticated 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 mater.al facility (e.g., radiopharmaceutical plant) does not have the same capabilities. Furthermore, the petiticner 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 accident.

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 achievab'e emission reduction policy for major facilities using byproduct materials from man-made fission reactions and require existing plants to meet i these r-iteria. 2. Establish siting criteria for these

! facilitias that would form a basis for evaluating the accep-l tability of new plant locations in terms of radiation doses to the public 3. Require new and existing byproduct facili-ties to develop and implement offsite environmental surveil-lance programs to provide information on levels of radio-activity in the environment around these facilities.

Background. The coment period closed October 11, 1977.

Six coments were received, all opposing the petition. The staff is developing a final position on the petition. This petition was combined with an earlier petition (PRM-50-10) from the State of New Jersey that dealt with similar issues.

PRM-50-10 was withdrawn on September 15, 1983 (48 FR 41429).

149

~

~

l

-i

.d- , , .

iu $ TIMETABLE: Disposition _ of.this petition is pending ongoing discussions

~

with the petitioner. ,

LCONTACT:- Richard P. Grill

. 0ffice of, Nuclear.. Regulatory'Research (301) 443-7629 y,

d[

I E A P

P

+

T 4'

't .

t J

t

• W f

150-1.

._m

-PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-34-3 PETITIONER: Chicago Bridge and Iron Company PART: 34 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDfRAL REGISTER CITATION: ' November 23, 1984 (49 FR 52722)

SUBJECT:

Final Radiation Survey of a Radiographic Exposure Device

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner proposed an amendment that

'would require the licensee to survey and record the survey results whenever the exposure device was placed in storage. This is in addition to the survey made at the end of each exposure. Based on comments-received on the petition..the staff agrees that this change should be made.

The present 934.11(d) requires that.the licensee conduct an in-house inspection of radicaraphers and radiography assistants every 3 months. The current regulation is not specific and a clarification of this section is needed.

Objective. To require that a licensee survey an exposure device after it is placed in storage and record the results of the survey.

Background. A proposed rule addressing these subjects was published October 4, 1984 (49 FR 39168). The comment period expired November 18, 1984.

TIMETABLE: Th'e final rule is scheduled to be published in October 1985.

i-CONTACT: Donald O. Nellis Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l (301) 427-4588 i

l I

i l

151

4

~

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-35-2 1 PETITIONER: 'The American Association of Physicists in Medicine

. PART

'35 0THER AFFECTED PART(S): .None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: January 29, 1982'(47 FR 4311)'

SUBJECT:

. Intervals Between Required Dosimetry System Calibrations r

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner proposes 1that the Commission amend its regulations to permit a longer interval between required calibrations of teletherapy dosimetry systems.

Current regulations = require calibration by the National L JBureau of' Standards or an accredited Regional Calibration

' Laboratory every two years. The petitioner' indicates that the waiting period for instrument calibration is currently about six months'and is expected to increase, and that dosimetry systems-do not have to be calibrated that frequently.

Objective. The petitioner proposes a regulation that would allow a longer interval between calibrations while providing'

, for suitable dosimetry system constancy checks. The

petitioner's proposed alternative .is intended to reduce the six-month waiting period for instrument calibration'without adversely affecting dosimetry-system reliabuity.

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. Pending

. final resolution, affected licensees will receive relief in the form of cas benefit by not ghaving by-case variances.

to have ' Medical dosimetry licensees equipment may calibrated t

so frequently. -In response to the petition, a proposed rule, similar to that suggested'in-the petition, is being

i. incorporated into a' proposed revision of 10 CFR Part 35,

" Medical Use of Byproduct Material"; NRC resources are noted there.

152

_ . . ~ . . . , . . . _ . _ _ , . . . . . . _ _ __._ _ _._.._,_...._._ _______ .~__. _.____a,. . .

r TIMETABLE: The proposed rule is scheduled to be published in April 1985.

f CONTACT: ~ Norman L. McElroy.

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (302) 427-4108 a

153

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: 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

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request that the Commission amend its regulations (1) in 650.34(c) to include plant security information within the definition of Restricted Data, or, alternatively, within the definition of National Security Information; (2) in 62.905 to ensure that discovery of plant security information is subject to the protections of Subpart I of Part 2; (3) in Subpart I of Part 2 to explicitly recognize that the protections required by the Subpart extend to information not under Connission control; and (4) to delete 62.790(d)(1) that currently could permit disclosure of plant security information without the protections of Subpart I of Part 2.

Objective. To protect plant security information from' unauthorized disclosure and to ensure 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 4

Bill) that amended the Atomic Energy Act by adding Secticn 147, " Safeguards Information," which directs the Commission to prescribe regulations or issue orders to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of safeguards information that.

specifically identifies the licensees' or applicants' detailed security measures, etc.

' TIMETABLE: Disposition of this petition is pending ongoing discussions with the petitioner.

CONTACT: Kristina Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-7687 154

W

- PETITION DOCKET-NUMBER: PRM-50-25, PRM-50-25A

. PETITIONER: State of Illinois and the Porter County Chapur of the Izaak Walton League of America, Inc., et al.

PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL-REGISTER CITATION: February 4, 1980 (45 FR 7653)

SUBJECT:

Extension of Construction Completion Date

- SU N RY:. Description. The. petitioners filed essentially ident'ical petitions which request thatithe Commission amend its regulations in Part 50, 550.55, to require that a " good

.cause" proceeding concerning a requested. amendment of a-construction permit ~to exceed the latest construction completion date-must consider whether a permittee has shown good cause for the continued construction of a nuclear- power plant in light of all -the circumstances at the time the application is considered. The petitioners further request that the Comission determine that " good cause" is not limited to the reasons why construction was not completed by the latest completion date in the construc-tion pennit.

Objective. To prevent frustration of the statutory

. purposes of Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, which permits the extension of the completion date for construction of a nuclear power-plant only for.

good cause shown.

Background. The comment period closed April 4, 1980. 'Six comments were received, including two from the petitioners on jurisdictional issues. Coments filed by parties other than the petitioners opposed the petition. The Atomic-Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) and the Commission have ruled on-the " good cause" issue which is the subject of this petition.

The matter was alluded to in the Bailly case before the U.S.

Court of Appeals. The staff is preparing a proposal- for the Commission.

TIMETABLE: The staff proposal is scheduled for submission to the Commission in June 1985.

CONTACT: -Linda Gilbert Office of the Executive Legal Director (301)492-7678 155

l PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-31 PETITIONER: Citizens' Task Force l l

PART: 50  !

OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): 70'  ;

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: March 24, 1982 (47 FR 12639)

SUBJECT:

Emergency Preparedness.

SUMMARY

' Description. The petitioner requests that the-Commission amend its regulations to require that (1) the present ten-mile emergency planning zone radius be extended to twenty miles partially within andthis include any(towns zone; bordering on

2) all connunities with ora 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 May 1985 ~(to be coordinated with the severe accident research program).

CONTACT: Stephen A. McGuire Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-7695 156

. . _ _ -.. ..- .-~ . . ._ _ _ __ _ -, __ ._ .

k PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-36 PETITIONER: Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group (NUBARG)

PART: 50

- 0THER AFFECTED PART(S): 73 FEDERAL REGISTER: CITATION: June 21, 1983-(48 FR 28282)

SUBJEC1: Reporting Requirements in NRC Regulations and Documents SUPMARY: Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations in 10 CFR Parts 50 and 73 to eliminate what the petitioner believes are duplicative and unnecessarily-burdensome reporting requirements. The petitioner also

' requests that the Commission amend the technical;specifica-tions ~in licenses of nuclear. power plant licensees and

-revise. existing NRC guidance documents to reduce what the petitioner feels are duplicative reporting provisions .

e

contained in those documents. The petitioner specifically requests that revisions be made to l950.54(p), 50.54(q),

50.55(e), 50.59(b), 73.71, and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50; NUREG-0103,--0123, -0212, and -0452; and 1icensees' technical specifications. In support of its proposed amendments, the petitioner states that the requested revisions would pennit ifcensees to make more efficient use of their personnel resources and allow licensees' employees to concentrate their attention on matters of public health

~

and safety.

r Objective. To reduce the regulatory burden on nuclear power plant licensees through amendment of existing reporting requirements to eliminate duplicative and unnecessarily burdensome provisions.

Background. The comment period closed August 23, 1983.

The comments on this petition ~and the petitioner's request will be considered in the NRC's' ongoing. evaluation and revision of the reporting and recordkeeping burden required of NRC licensees.

TIMETABLE: The staff proposal in response to this petition is

.- scheduled for completion in August 1985.

. CONTACT: R. Stephen Scott r Office of Administration (301) 492-8585 157 1

-v~,. , , - . . , , . . , , , , , --- ,..-w,,,. .,-v_ ,,y~...m 1,-,,,y, , , - , . - , .. y,. ,y,c.w,,,,.y--,m.,-,1c-x----w- , , . , w-3 - --- - . - -w

'[ r 1 l

.1

' PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-37 PETITIONER: LLillian McNally

o - PART

-50 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S)': 'None r

. FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: October 31, 1983 (48 FR 50083)

SUBJECT:

Standards for the Levels of Deuterium and Tritium in Water.

Circulated-In:and"Around Nuclear Power Plants-

SUMMARY

: Description. -The petitioner requests 1that_new standards be. set for all water circulated in and around nuclear power

' plants.- The petitioner'specifically proposes that water -

circulated in and around nuclear power plants not contain .

. levels of deuterium and tritium which' exceed the natural "

environmental concentration of_these elements.for a period-of one year;-that one year later the concentration levels' beilimited to-less than one part by weight in'10,000 parts; and:that the level of contaminants be: reviewed annually-thereafter to determine the _ attainable' purity of circulating

. water.

Objective. 'The petitioner' requests the limit on deuterium .

.to reduce the formation of. tritium form-deuterium by neutron -

absorption._

Background._The comment period closed ~ December 30, 1983.

These' comments are being analyzed and a response is being prepared.

TIMETABLE: Commission' action'on this petition is scheduled for x- June 1985.- ,

CONTACT: Harold T. Peterson, Jr. 1 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research-

(301)'427-4578 _j i

T s

158 e,v ,-vr,,-.,,w.- r--, -

. m PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: .PRM-51-6 4 PETITIONER: Catherihe.Quigg

~PART: 51 ,

J0THER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: April 15, 1980 (45 FR 25557)

SUBJECT:

Environmental Assessment for High Burnup Nuclear Fuel SUMARY:'- Description. The petitioner requests that the Comission amend its regulations 'to require the preparation of 'a generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) for high .

burnup nuclear fuel as used in commercial- nuclear reactors, stored in spent fuel-pools or cooling racks, or, poten-tially, processed in reprocessing plants or disposed of in permanent sites. The petitioner states that, with.the

- decision not'to reprocess nucl_ ear fuel, the. Federal-government and the utilities want to use more uran _ium in j _ existing nuclear fuel in reactors across-the country. The-petitioner expresses. concern that cited experiments in high

fuel burnup will lead to a national program of high burnup

of. nuclear fuel in reactors without adequately consideHng potential long- and short-term environmental effects.

Objective. Thepetitionerproposes(1)thattheCommission

amend 10 CFR Part 51 to require that a GEIS be prepared'and n (2) that the Commission require a generic environmental

i. impact statement for high burnup nuclear fuel. The U petitioner believes this regulation is necessary to

adequately protect public health and safety. The' t petitioner believes an' environmental statement. is necessary .

l to adequately examine the following significant effects that use of high'burnup' fuel could-have on the environment:

L (1) greater fission gas releases from nuclear reactors; (2)

L increased fission gas releases from spent fuel pools; (3) production of inferior grade spent' nuclear fuel; (4) ,

l . potential for greater radiological impact 'in reactor and t l

spent' fuel pool accidents; and (5) increased radioactive releases during reprocessing. .

V

! Background. The comment period closed June 16, 1980.

Fourteen coments were received, the majority in opposition to the petition. The petitioner believes that studies and

+ reports based.on low burnup fuel-may not be relevant when applied to high burnup fuel and that the Comission has no adequate basis for its negative declaration that higher o burnups would have-no significant environmental impact. '

i- <

?

159

_n, ,.. ..u . . _ , _ , _ - . _ _ . , _ . ~ . . _ _ . . . . . ~ . , , , . . _ . , , , , _ . _ _ . _ , _ . , , . . _ --, _ , ,._ . __ _

7_ - _ .

.9

. TIMETABLE: Environmental Assessment is scheduled for completion by-July 1985. ~

1

CONTACT:C.'Prichard

. 0ffice'of:. Nuclear Regulatory Research

,. (301) 427-4586 t s 1

1 I

s u

(

4 1

3 160'

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: .PRM-71-10 PETITIONER: State of-Wisconsin PART: 71 OTHERAFFECTEDPART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 4, 1985 (50 FR 4866)

SUBJECT:

Transportation of Irradiated Reactor Fuel (Spent Fuel)

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission establish a regulatory process that would provide an-opportunity for public participation in the evaluation-and approval of proposed shipments of irradiated reactor fuel (spent fuel). The petitioner points out that the transportation of irradiated reactor fuel is an increasingly significant activity because nuclear reactor facilities are reaching maximum capacity of their spent fuel storage pools. The petitioner, a State through which numerous shipments of irradiated reactor fuel have passed and through which future shipments are scheduled, has an interest in protecting its citizens by ensuring that tn nsporters of spent fuel have adequately prepared for potential emergencies. The petitioner alleges that there has been no Federal agency considering the risks associated with the shipping routes. The petitioner points out that the Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, and the NRC could potentially influence transportation decision-making. The petitioner concludes that the NRC has the primary responsibility to protect against the risks of radiation exposure and~that the NRC adopt the proposed amendments that will provide the NRC and the public the opportunity to evaluate the propriety of spent fuel shipments.

Objective. To protect against the risks of radiation exposure associated with the transportation of irradiated reactor fuel and to provide the public the opportunity to evaluate the propriety of spent fuel shipments.

Background. The comment period closes April 5,1985.

TIMETABLE: Staff action on this petition is unscheduled, pending closure of the comment period.

CONTACT: -James J. Henry Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7614 161

c..

m l

i PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-73-6

. PETITIONER: Wisconsin Electric Power Company, et al.

PART: 73

~0THER.AFFECTED PART(S): None

. FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 16,1982.(47FR6659)

SUBJECT:

Modification of Qualifications for Security, Personnel of Nuclear Power Plants and Other Special Nuclear Material Licensees

SUMMARY

Description. .The petitioners request that the Commission

eliminate the requirement that armed security personnel at nuclear. power plants-or other facilities. licensed to handle special nuclear material (1) carry an extra pair.of eye-,

glasses-and (2) unJergo an annual medical examination _within

- the preceding 7,0 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 plants. The petition includes proposed amendatory. text which would achieve these

. modified requirements.

Objective. To eliminate. requirements for-security personnel that the. petitioner contends are " excessive and

-unreasonable."

. Background. The comment. period closed April 19, 1982.

Nine comments-on the~ petition were received. Action on the

. petition.is delayed pending publication of a revision to a regulatory guide on training, equipping, and qualifying of guards'and watchmen.

TIMETABLE: Commission action on the' petition will follow publication i of a revision to Regulatory Guide'5.20 scheduled for June 1985.

1 CONTACT: Stanley Turel . .

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 443-7679 .

I l

162 .

4 N k

(D) - Petitions with deferred action

,-.w -a- , - - A +

4 i

i l

l J

l 4

l l

l l

l 4

l 1

l l

I i

11 l

1

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

May 2, 1983 (48 FR 19722)

SUBJECT:

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

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Consnission amend its regulations to license the possession of uranium mill tailings of inactive storage sites. 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 programs; (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. On March 23, 1983, the petitioner filed an amendment to the original petition. In the amendment, the petitioner requests that, in the event that NRC denies the earlier requests, NRC take further action to ensure that the management of byproduct material located on or derived from inactive uranium processing sites is conducted in a manner that protects the public health and safety and the environment. The petitioner also requests that the NRC take action to govern the management of byproduct material not subject to licensing under section 81 of the Atomic Energy Act.

Objective. To license the protection of uranium mill tailings at inactive storage sites or take other regulatory action to protect the public health and safety and the environment from the radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with the tailings. The petitioner believes that this action is necessary if NRC is to adequately fulfill its statutory responsibilities under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, 163

' Background .The comment period closed April 27, 1981. Three comments were received, all stating the petition should be denied. The comment period on the amendment to the petition-closed June 30, 1983. Uranium mill tailings are regulated under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (Pub. L.95-604, 42 U.S.C. 7901, et seq.). Title I of the Act directs that the Department of-Energy, in consul-

-tation with NRC, conduct a remedial-action program at certain inactive 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.

TIMETABLE: Action on the petition is to be considered in the revision-of uranium mill tailings regulations.

CONTACT: John Stewart Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 427-4609 164

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-40-24 PETITIONER: Union Carbide Corporation PART: 40 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: November 30, 1982 (47 FR 53889)

SUBJECT:

Revised Criteria for Operation of Uranium Mills and Disposition of Tailings or Wastes -

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner proposes that the Commission amend its regulations ~ setting out criteria for the operation of uranium mills and the disposition of tailings or wastes resulting from uranium milling activities. The petitioner suggests specific amendments to the criteria governing the selection of new tailings disposal sites or the adequacy of existing tailings disposal sites, the seepage of toxic materials into the groundwater, the earth cover to be placed over tailings or wastes to prevent the surface exhalation of radon, and the charge imposed on each mill operator to cover the cost of long-term surveillance.

The petitioner supports its suggested amendments with information it says was not available to the Commission at the time the regulations were issued.

Objective. To significantly reduce the compliance costs incurred by the petitioner in the operation of its uranium milling facilities while continuing to adequately protect public health, safety, and the environment.

Background. The comment period that originally closed January 31, 1983, was extended until May 2, 1983. The petitioner is a New York-based corporation engaged in uranium exploration, milling, and mining. The regulations the petitioner seeks to amend were issued as part of NRC's regulations implementing the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (Pub. L.95-604, 42 U.S.C.

7901,etseq.). These regulations were published in the Federal Register on October 3, 1980 (45 FR 65531).

TIMETABLE: Action on the petition is to be considered in the revision of uranium mill tailings regulations.

CONTACT: John Stewart Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 427-4609 165

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

Descri) tion. The petition requested that the Commission amend ' art 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 ensure 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 and some 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 PRM-50-19 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 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.

Subsequent action on the safety goal resulted in issuance of a Policy Statement on Safety Goals for the Operation of 166

(

Nuclear Power Plants and information about the Safety Goal Development Program for public comment on March 14, 1983 (48 FR 10772). A two-year trial implementation and evaluation period of the preliminary goals and objectives in the statement is planned after which development of revised siting regulations may be resumed.

TIMETABLE: Development of demographic criteria will resume in March 1985.

CONTACT: William R. Ott Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301)427-4631 167

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

SUBJECT:

Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Comission initiate a rulemaking to amend its sumary of environmental considerations'in the uranium fuel cycle presented in Table S-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 radionuclides, particularly thorium-230 which decays into radon gas; (2) the health effects of krypton-85 and tritium releases from fuel reprocessino 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; 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 post-ponement of all pending applications for construction or operating authority until final resolution of the issue by the Comission.

Objective. The petitioner proposes action to ar..end Table S-3 in ways that they claim will more accurately reflect the impact of the long-term effects of certain long-lived radionuclides on human health and safety. The petitioner also proposes to suspend all activities related to nuclear power plant construction and operation until the Comission reassesses the health and safety effects of mine tailings.

Background. The Comission acted on all items of the petition on April 14, 1978 (46 FR 15613) except 'or a ,

future rulemaking proceeding to amend the Table S-3 value J for radon. The Federal Register notice of April 14, 1970, removed the radon value from Table S-3 and made it subject 1

168 I

l e -- - .-- . - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

to litigation in individual licansing proceedings.

Litigation on the radon environmental impacts in cases pending before the Comission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board was heard in a combined hearing in February 1980. The Appeal Board's initial decision (ALAB-640 May 13,1981) upheld the staff's estimates of radon releases from the nuclear fuel cycle, and the final decision (ALAB-701,Novenber 19,1982) affirmed the staff's conclusion that radon releases would not cause significant health effects. This decisicn was appealed to the Comissioners for review, and the Comissioners deferred their review until the new EPA standards for radon have been analyzed and the NRC's milling regulations revised as necessary to conform to them.

Rulemaking to add the new value for radon-222 in Table S-3 will be affected by the new EPA standards that were promul-gated October 7, 1983. NRC must revise its uranium n.ill tailings regulations to conform to the new EPA standards.

The rulemaking to add a new estimate.for radon-222 to Table S-3 can be undertaken after the revision of the NRC's uranium mill tailings regulations. The purpose of the Table S-3 rule is to consider the environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle generically to eliminate repetitive analyses of these same effects in individual nuclear oower plant licensing cases. This will reduce the time required for public hearings in the licensing process and will shorten the time and reduce the cost of licensing nuclear power plants. On April 27, 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decided a case filed by the Natural Resources Defense Cot.ncil challenging the NRC's evaluation of the environmental impacts of nuclear power plants. The decision invalidated the entire Table S-3 rule. The NRC appealed the decision to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court reversed the Appeals Court decision on June 6, 1983, eliminating this holdup to the revision of the radon-222 estimate.

TIMETABLE: New radon-222 estimate to be added to Table S-3 after NRC's milling regulations are revised to confonn to new EPA standards.

CONTACT: William E. Thompson Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (301) 427-4211 169

s PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-100-2 PETITIONER: Public Interest Research Group, et al.

PART: 100 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: July 1, 1976 (41 FR.27141)

SUBJECT:

Population Density Criteria Near Nuclear Power Plants

SUMMARY

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 t 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 coments were received. An NRC staff paper (SECY-78-624) was submitted to the Comission on December 4, 1978. In a memorandum to the Executive Director for Operations dated February 15, 1979, the Comission deferred action on the population density siting criteria

,~

issue pending submission of the Siting Policy Ta:k 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. Petitioners were notified by letter on January 26, 1982, that the proposed rule on siting criteria will be delayed until sumer 1983 to await safety goal implementation and source tenn reevaluation. Subsequent action on the safety goal resulted in issuance of a Policy Statement on Safety Goals for the Operation of Nuclear Power Plants and information about the Safety Goal Development Program for public coment on March 14, 1983 (48 FR 10772). A two-year trial implementation and evaluation period of the preliminary goals and objectives in the statement is planned after which development of revised siting regulations may be resumed.

170 l

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

. ,_. . . ,,___,__..~.._.-___..,..-e . _ - . - _ _ . _

P TIMETABLE: A schedule for resuming the development of demographic criteria is expected to be submitted to the Commission in March 1985.

CONTACT: William R. Ott Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 427-4615 ,

171

noC ,v.,....,.,,

g, **= = g ut uco.....uuroa,co .. i .<O.a wou w .,a I".',"3E BIBLIOGRAPHIC CATA SHEET NUREG-0936 Vol. 4, No. 1 a .1.uctio~. o t.. .. ..a 3 Taf Lt ANQ Sutflf LE 3 LE AV4 SLANE NRC Regulatory Agenda Quarterly Report ,,,,,j,,,,,,,,,y, January - March 1985 ,,,,

. uv oaisi April,,,,,!,, 1985

f. o... . .o , inu.o MayI.1. l 1985

7. Ptacomwegg onGamigas som NAug amrs its%G ADDatSS , sac 8vse to Cams 8 PROJE i ASK visORK UNif huMetR Division of Rules an . Records I Office of Administrat n ' ' ' " ' " ' ' ' * * " "

U.S. Nuclear Regulator sCommission Washington, DC 20555

t. YvetOFREPOR7 10 SPON50R44G ORGANi2 AflON 4 Ave aNO MAsuNG *ti$ ,tardisse to Com./ i Quarterly Same as 7. above. ,

, ,, ,,,o o co, ,,, , , ,,,, . , ,

January - March 1985 13 SUPPLtutNf amv 40745 o ..u..c1, ,

The NRC Regulatory Agenda is a corpi tion f all rules on which the NRC has proposed or is considering action and 11 etitions for rulemaking which have been received by the Commission and ar$ nding disposition by the Commission.

The Regulatory Agenda is updated and is 'ed each quarter. The Agendas for April and October are published in the. ntirety in the Federal Register while a notice of availability is pub sh in the Federal Register for the January and July Agendas.

.. oocu.....~.L,..... ....o o....L .,,0.. -

.. .,,. g ; .

compilation of rules petitions for rulemaking - -

Unlimited

't ..Cumet? Chalis.lCatION

, te.e n

. iu ~ , , . . . . . . . . ~ o . o t . .. UncTassified or.. .

l Unclassified i ,, U....o...o..

i$ mitt meno see

NUCLEAR REGU T RY OMMISSION u' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666 WASH 0;g_

Section 1 - Rules ,,u ,t E n ,M 7 ,T ,,,3,o Action Completed Rules Proposed Rules Advance Notice - Proposed Rulemaking l

P Unpublished Rules Section ll - Petitions for Rulemaking 4

i Petitions Final or Denied Petitions Incorporated into Proposed Rules Petitions Pending Petitions Deferred Action

. .. . .