ML20138C954
| ML20138C954 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/01/1989 |
| From: | Dipalo A NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8908110256 | |
| Download: ML20138C954 (65) | |
Text
.;
/ j UNITE STATES
'\'
g
' 5 ., ;p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 {
\, ...../ pypaas W
@L ?" J Rm , C August 1, 1989 fiEMORANDUM FOR: Public Document Room FROM: Anthony J. DiPalo, Leader Regulatory Analysis Section Regulation Development Branch Division of Regulatory Applications, RES
SUBJECT:
STATUS OF RES RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES--AUGUST 1989 Attached is the monthly report on the status of rulemakings underway in the Office of Huclear Regulatory Research. The information contained in this report is current as of July 27, 1989.
- - t Anthony J. DiPalo, Leader Regulatory Analysis Secti.g,n Regulation Developmgt Brepch Division of Regulatory Appications, RES
Attachment:
g As stated c m cc: NUDOCS (R-2914.03) y 3- ,
'/
280036 REs -a A 0F, e*m w-s y ,>' ~
(19 ors uges@sep %
a .
O p,'g, n'a', 3: d d' PDR REPORT 07/18/89 DN60!NS RES RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES Page RDB CFR
- 8 istle Citation Division / Branch Contact Phone he.
1 RM141 Codes and Standards for Nuclear Poner Plants 10 CFR 50 DE/EMEB Millaan, 6. 49-23848 (ASME Code, 1986/1997/1988 Addenda) 3 RM129 Amendaent of the Pressurized Thereal Shock 10 CFR 50 DE/MEB Randall,P. 49-23842 Rule 5 RM06B Prisary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing 10 CFR 50 DE/SSEB Arndt,6. 49-28314 for Water-Cooled Power Reactors (Appendia J) 7 RM136 Codes and Standards for Nuclear Poner Plants 10 CFR 50 DE/SSEB Nctris, W. 49-23805 (ASME Code,Section II, Division 1 Subsection !WE) 9 RM079 Elisination of Inconsistencies Between NRC 10 CFR 60 DE/EB Prichard,C. 49-23894 Regulations and EPA Standards .
11 RM100 Criteria for Licensing the Custody and 10 CFR 40 DE/WMB Haisfield,M. 49-23877 Long-Ters Care of Uranius Mill failings Sites 13 RM173 Amendeents to Part 60 to Delineate 10 CFR 60 DE/uMB Prichard,C. 49-23884 Anticipated Processes and Events and unanticipated Processes and Events 15 RM1BB Low-Level vaste Manifest Inforsation and 10 CFR 20, DE/uMB Haisfield,M. 49-23877 Reporting 61 18 RM103 Safety Related and Isportant to Safety in 10 10 CFR 50 DRA/AR6!B Wilson,J. 49-23729 CFR Part 50 20 RM133 Ensuring the Effectiveness of Maintenance 10 CFR 50 DRA/AR6!B Dey,M. 49-23730 Prograss for Nuclear Poser Plants 23 RM077 Personnel Access Authorization Progras
- 10 CFR 50, DRA/RDB Frattali,S. 49-23773 73 25 RMOB1 Requirements for Possession of Industrial 10 CFR 31 BRA /RDB Mate,J. 49-23795 Derices 27 RM095 Basic Buality Assurance Progran for Medical 10 CFR 35 DRA/RDB ise,A. 49-23797 Use of Byproduct Material 29 pan,B Transportation Regulations: Compatibility 10 CFR 71 DRA/RDB Hopkins,D. 49-23784 uith the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
p1 ,
g s '
)
S l
Page N'o. 2' 07/18/89
{
DNEDING RES RULEMAKIN6 ACTIVITIES Page RDB l
CFR
- 6 Title Citation Division / Branch Contact Phone No.
l l
31 RM102 Disposal of Naste Dil by Incineration froa 10 CFR 20 DRA/RDB Mattsen,C. 49-23638 Nuclear Power Plants 33 RM105 Reasserting NRC's Sole Authority for i 10 CFR 150 DRA/RDB Pearson, W. 49-23764 1 Approving Onsite Low-Level Naste Dispcsal in Agreement States 35 RMil2 Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in 10 CFR 50, DRA/RDB Pearson, W. 49-23764 nRC-Approved Storage tasks at Nuclear Power 72,170 Reactor Sites 37 Rn!!6 Amendment to 10 CFR 51.51 and 51.52, Tables 10 CFR 51 DRA/RDB Turel,S. 49-23739 ;
S-3 and S-4, Addition of Radon-222 and '
Technetius-99 Radiation Values, and Addition of Appendia B -
39 RM119 fuenty-Four Hour Notification cf Incidents 10 CFR 20 DRA/RDB Mate,J. 49-23795 41 RM125 Night Firing Qualifications for Security 10 CFR 73 DRA/RDB Frattali,S. 49-23773 Guards at Nuclear Power Plants 43 RM135 Minnr Amendments to Physical Prctection 10 CFR 70 DRA/RDB polins S. 49-23745 Requirements 72, 73, 75 45 Rn162 Cosprehensive cuality Assurance in nedical 10 CFR 35 DRA/RDB Tse,A. 49-23797 Use and a Standard of Care 46 RM165 Ea vgency Response Data Systes 10 CFR 50 DRA/RDB Au, R. 49-23749 48 RM186 Pa!!adius-103 for Interstitial Treatment of 10 CFR 35 DRA/RDB ist,A. 49-23797 Cancer 50 Rn!B9 Day Firing evalification and Physical 10 CFR 73 DRA/RDB Hopkins,D. 49-23784 Fitness Prograes for Security Personnel at
- Category I Fuel Cycle Facilities (Appendia H) 52 Rn033 Standards for Protection Against Radiation 10 CFR 20 DRA/RPHEB Peterson, H. 49-23640 54 Rn051 Criteria for an Estraordinary Nuclear 10 CFR 140 DRA/RPHEB Peterson, H. 49-23640 Occurrence 56 Rn053 Safety Requirements for Industrial 10 CFR 34 DRA/RPHES Nellis,D. 49-23628 Radiographic Equipment
i' . .
, C Cs Page Nc'. 3' 07/11/09 DN60!N6 RES RULEMAKIN6 ACTIVITIES Page gg CFR
- 8 Title Citation Division / Branch Contact Phone Mc.
58 Rn128 Licensing and Radiation Safety Requirements 10 CFR 36 DRA/RPHEB McGuire,S. 49-23757 for Large Irradiators 60 RM148 Nuclear Plant Licenn Rennal 10 CFR 50 DSIR/RPS!8 Cleary,D. 49 23936 4
m
.,- a
V, .
O O RDB NUMBER: RM141 LATEST UPDATE: 07/25/89 TITLE:
Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Pl ants (ASME Code, 1986/1987/1988 Addenda)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Gilbert C. Millman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3848 ABSTRACT: .
The proposed rule would incorporate by r ef erence the 1986 Addenda, the 1987 Addenda, the 1988 Addenda, and the 1989 ~
Edition of Section III, Division 1, and Section XI, Division 1, with a specified modification, of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code). Also, the proposed amendment would impose augmented examination of the reactor vessel and would separate the requirements for inservice testing from those for inservice inspection by placing the requirements for inservice testing in a separate paragraph. The ASME Code provides rules f or the construction of light-water-reactor nuclear power plant components in Section III, Division 1, and provides rules for the inservice inspection and inservice testing of those components in Section XI, Division 1.
The proposed rule would update the existing reference to the ASME Code and would thereby permit the use of improved methods for the constructi,on, inservice inspection, and inservice testing of nuclear power plant components.
Incorporating by reference the latest addenda of.the ASME Code would save applicants / licensees and the NRC staff both time and ef f ort by providing unif orm detailed criteria against which the staff could review any single submission. In addition, the proposed rule would require licensees to augment their reactor vessel examination by implementing the expanded reactor vessel shell weld examinations specified in the 1989 Edition of Section XI and would clarif y the existing requirements in the regulation f or inservice inspection and inservice testing.
1 n_
f' '
i
] p j
This action will be handled as a routine updating of $50.55a of the NRC regulations. There is no reasonable alternative ,
to rulemaking action. The proposed amendment will be issued i for public comment. The task to develop and publish the !
proposed amendment is scheduled for a period of 7.5 months !
with an estimated staff effort of 400 p-hrs. This is a priority A rulemaking. i CURRENT STATUS:
A memorandum was received from NRR requesting inclusion of the 1988 Addenda, and an additional request was received to include the augmented reactor vessel examination, in the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment and supporting regulatory analysis was modified to accommodate these requests.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 07/25/88 Proposed Action to Divisions for Review 09/27/88 Division Review of Proposed Action Completed 11/07/88 Proposed Action. to Divisions f or Review 07/03/89 .'
I l SCHEDi' LED ACTIONS:
L vision Review of Propo ~.d Action Completed (08/11/89)
Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 10/27/89 l Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR (12/15/89) l Proposed Action to EDO 01/15/90 ,
Proposed Action to Commission--Not Applicable !
Proposed Action Published 02/15/90 ;
! Final Action Published 11/20/90 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates. i d
e 2
na
. ,_ . .. - - - . . _ _ ~ . . - - - - - - - . . .
. a, ,
a RDB NUMBER: RM129 LATEST UPDATE:- 07/25/89 TITLE: ,
Amendment of the Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 5841 ,
EFFECTS ON SMALL DUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No .
AGENCY CONTACT-Pryor N. Randall Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3842 ABSTRACT:
The Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) Rule, published July 23, 1985 %
- established a scr eening criterion, a limit on the degree of i radiation embrittlement of PWR reactor vessel beltline materials ^
beyond which operation cannot continue without additional plant-specific analysis. The rule prescribes how to calculate the degree of embrittlement as a function of.the copper and nickel contents of the controlling material and the neutron fluence. The proposed amendment revises the calculative procedure to be consistent-with that given in Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.99.
The guide provides an updated ccrrelation of embrittlement data, which received CRGR approval for publication in final form on December 9, 1987.
The need to amend the PTS rule to be consistent with the guide became apparent when it was found that for some medium-copper, .
high-nickel materials embrittlement is worse than now predicted using the PTS rule. A number of PWRs will reach the screening criterion sooner than previously thought, and three plants will need_to make plant-specifi,c analyses in the next 10 years.
Therefore, a high priority is being given to this effort. ,
An unacceptable alternative to this amendment from the safety standpoint is to leave the present PTS rule in place. The staf f 's plant-by-plant analyses found four plants whose reference .
temperatures are 52 to 68 F higher than previously thought, based on the present rule. This is beyond the uncertainties that were felt to exist when the present rule was published. Another unacceptable alternative that has been evaluated is to change the calculative procedure for the reference temperature and also change the screening criterion. Failure probabilities for the most critical accident scenarios in three plants, when
___,__n_.
,~
(,.h v k l
i recalculated using the new embrittlement estimates, were somewhat lower, but were quite dependent on the plant configuration and the-scenario chosen. Furthermore, the screening criterion was based on a variety of considerations besides the probabilistic analysis.
Reopening tha question of where to set the screening criterion was not considered producti ve because of plant-to plant differences.
It is better to have a conservative " trip wire" that triggers j plant-specific analyses, l
Immediate costs to industry will be those required for each l utility to update the January 23, 1986, submittal required by the PTS rule, using fluence estimates that take account of flux ;
reduction efforts in the interim and using the new procedure for i In addition, three to five plants will need to I calculating RT [hu. re of an estimated 2.5 million dollars for the make the expend plant-specific analysis in the 1990's instead of 10 to 15 years later. I l
CURRENT STATUS:
The Federal Register notice is being modified to include the CRGR's recommended changes. A memorandum, RES to EDO, is being prepared, recommending publication of the proposed rulemaking 6dr ,
public comment.
TIMETABLE: I COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 02/17/88 Proposed Action for Division Review 06/02/88 i ACRS Approved Proposed Action 04/11/89 i Proposed Action to CRGR 05/09/89 CRGR Approved Proposed Action 07/12/89 .
SCHEDULED ACTIONS: l Proposed Action to EDO 08/04/89 Proposed Action to Commission--To Be Determined Proposed Action Published 09/08/89 Final Action f or Division Review (12/15/89)
Final Action to ACRS--To Be Determined Final Action to CRGR (02/15/90)
Final Action to EDO 04/15/90 Final Action to Comm(ssion--To Be Determined Final Action Published 06/15/90 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
I 4
C
3 C RDB NUMBER: RMO68 LATEST UPDATE: 07/25/89 TITLE:
Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50, Appendix J LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
E. Gunter Arndt Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3014 ABSTRACT: .
The proposed rule would update and revise the 1973 criteria for preoperational and periodic pressure testing for leakage of primary containment boundaries of water-cooled power reactors. Problems have developed 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 revision is urgently needed to resolve continuing conflicts between licensees and NRC inspectors over interpretations, current regulatory practice which is no longer being reflected accurately by the existing rule, and endorsement in the existing regulation of an obsolete national standard that was replaced in 1981.
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.
A detailed analysis of costs, benefits, and occupational exposures is available in the Public Document Room, and indicates possible savings to industry of $14 million to $300 million and an increase in occupational exposure of less than j 1 percent per year per plant due to increased testing.
5 n_
. . I T
O 1 l
[
i CURRENT STATUS:
The extended public comment period for the proposed rule !
closed on April 24, 1987.- Fifty-two letters were received l
and are.being evaluated. EDO concurrence was sought for the i continuation of this rulemaking based on a qualitative saf ety l analysis of the rule rather than the usual cost benefit. I analysis, prescribed by the Backfit Rule. The EDO approved continuation of the rulemaking on February 15, 1989, with ]
expeditious resolution of public comments.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONE:
Rulemaking Initiation Date 02/21/86 Proposed Action to EDO 03/31/86 Proposed Action Published 10/29/86 51 FR 39538 Proposed Action Comment Period End 01/26/87 Proposed Action Comment Period Extended to 04/24/87 52 FR 2416 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action for Division Review Undetermined Final Action to Offices for Concurrence Undetermined
- Final' Action to CRGR/ACRS Undetermined .
Final Action to EDO Undetermined Final Action to Commission Undetermined -
Final Action Published Undetermined I NOTE:' Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. . Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
=
6 o
n G 1 ,
O O RDB NUMBER: RM136 LATEST UPDATE: 07/25/89 T11LE:
Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (ASME Code,Section XI, Division 1. Subsection IWE)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENDA CONTACT:
Wallace E. Norris Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3805 ABSTRACT:
- The proposed rule would incorporate by reference Subsection IWE,
" Requirements for Class MC Components of Light-Water Cooled Power Plants," of Section XI (Division 1) of the American Society of l Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code).
Subsection IWE provides the rules and requirements for inservice inspection, repair, and replacement of Class MC pressure retaining components and their integral attachments, and of metallic shell and penetration liners of Class CC pressure retaining components and their integral attachments in light-water cooled power plants.
Incorporating by reference Subsection IWE will provide systematic !
examination rules for containment structure for meeting l Criterion 53 of the General Design Criteria (Appendix A of 10 CFR l Part 50) and Appendix J of 10 CFR Part 50. Ag e-r tel at ed degradation of cont ainments has occurred, and add!tional and I potentially more <grious degradation mechanisms can be anticipated i as nuclear power dants age. l If the NRC did not take ac' tion to endorse the Subsection IWE rules, the NRC position on examination practices for containment i structures would have to be established on a case-by-case basis I and improved examination practices for steel containment j structures might not be implemented. The other alternatives of incorporating these detailed examination requirements into the American National Standard ANSI /ANS 56.8-1981 or into Appendix J are not feasible.
Incorporating by reference the latest edition and addenda of ;
Subsection IWE will save applicants / licensees and the NRC staff l both time and ef f ort by providing unif orm detailed criteria 7
m
f-s
, i \ )
G' G against which the staff can review any single submi ssion.
Adoption of'the proposed amendment would permit the use of improved methods for containment inservice inspection. .
CURRENT STATUS:
The proposed rulemaking package was submitted to the CRGR for review on June 13, 1989.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 06/09/88 i Proposed Action for Division Review 07/01/88 l Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 11/14/88 l Proposed Action to CRGR 06/13/89 Proposed Action to ACRS--Not Applicable SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
CRGR Meeting (08/09/89)
Proposed Action to EDO Undetermined !
Proposed Action to Commission--Not Applicable Proposed Action Published Undetermined Final Action Published Undetermined NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
i
=
8
.- _ , - -_-_ - ._ -. - ,_ . . . ~ . - _ _ -
2 ,
) \
l h
RDB NUMBER: RMO79 LATEST UPDATE: 07/25/89 .
TITLE:
Elimination of Inconsistencies Between NRC Regulations and ;
EPA Standards s
CFR CITATION: '
10 CFR 60 l LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10101 l I
b EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No I AGENCY CONTACT:
Clark Prichard !
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
, Washington, DC 20555 :
301 492-3884
] ABSTRACT: .
, l The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 directs NRC to promulgate criteria for the licensing of HLW geologic -
i repositories. Section 121 (c) of this act states that these criteria must be consistent with standards to be developed by ,
EPA for the disposal of HLW in deep geologic repositories.
The proposed rule is needed in order to eliminate'several 4 inconsistencies with the EPA standards, thus fulfilling the statutory requirement. i i -
i
. Because the NWPA directs NRC to eliminate inconsistencies :
between Part 60 and the EPA standard, the alternatives to the :
l proposed action are limited by statute.
- The public, industry, and NRC will benefit from eliminating inconsistencies in Federal HLW regulations. NRC resources needed would be several staff years but will not include contract resources.
Because the Federal Court ' invalidated the EPA standards, action on this rule, which is in response to the EPA standards, is undetermined.
CURRENT STATUS:
A Commission paper transmitting the final rule was forwarded to ,
the EDO on July 20, 1987. The EDO did not sent it to the Commission f ollowing OGC review of the recent court decision striking down the EPA standard. OGC recommendad that the l rulemaking be held up pending EPA's development of a revised HLW standard (40 CFR~ 191). Tentatively, EPA plans to issue a proposed ;
rule in December 1989. The staff 1s monitoring EPA progress and plans to publish a proposed rule soon after EPA does. !
n_i
ID V k_)
4 TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date 08/07/85 Proposed Action Published 06/19/86 51 FR 22288 Proposed Action Comment Period End 08/18/86 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 07/15/87 Final Action to EDO 07/20/87 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Acti on--On Hol d NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
I l
e
=
10 a_
~/ <-)
RDB NUMBER: RM100 LATEST UPDATE: 07/27/89 TITLE:
Criteria for Licensing the Custody and Long-Term Care of Uranium Mill Tailings Sites CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 40 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Mark Haisfield Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3877 ABSTRACT: .
The proposed rulemaking would amend Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40 (Domestic Licensing of Source Material), to include a procedure f or licensing a custodian for the post-closure, long-term control of uranium mill tailings sites required by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). This amendment would establish a general license for custody and long-term care of uranium mill tailings by the Department of Energy, other designated Federal agency, or States when applicable. The general license would be formulated so that it would become effective for a particular site when (1) NRC concurs in the determination that the site has been properly reclaimed or closed and (2) a Surveillance and Maintenance Plan that meets the requirements of the general license nas been received by NRC. No significant impact to the public or industry is expected as a result of this proposed action.
CURRENT STATUS: .
On May 26, 1989, a memorandum was sent from RES to the EDO requesting that this rulemaking be placed on hold until final EPA groundwater standards for inactive mill tailings sites .
are completed. A decision was made by senior management to continue with this rulemaking. The proposed rulemaking package was forwarded to the EDO on July 26, 1999.
11 o_
- .~ - - . - . - - . _ . - . . - . -
l
', , i i
TIMETABLE: '
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date 02/17/87 ;
Proposed Action for Division and Office Review 11/09/87 [;
Proposed Action to CRGR/ACRS--Not Applicable Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed e 02/10/88 l
' Proposed Action to EDO O2/10/88 ,
Revised Proposed Action to EDO 03/10/88 l Proposed Action to Commission 03/17/88 SECY-88-83 '
Commission Meeting 05/18/88 ;
ANPRM Published 08/25/88 53 FR 32396 e l ANPRM Public Comment Period End 10/24/88 !
Detailed Analysis of Comments Completed 01/13/09 ;
Proposed Action to Divisions and Offices for Concurrence 03/06/89 .
Proposed Action to EDO 07/26/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to Commission (08/11/89)
Proposed Rule Published (10/13/89) l Final Rule Published (10/12/90) .
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates._ Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent ,
task leader estimates. !
l 2
$. l l- l 3
9 I 9
12 i
C:
i E
L o(/ .
RDB NUMBER: RM173 LATEST UPDATE: 07/25/89 !
TITLE:
Amendments to Part 60 to Delineate Anticipated Processes and i Events and Unanticipated Processes and Events
- CFR CITATION: ;
10 CFR 60 i LEGAL AUTHORITY:
Public Law 97-425, 42 USC 10101 .
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No '
i AGENCY CONTACT: '
Clark Prichard ,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research i Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3084 ABSTRACT: a' .
In 10 CFR Part 60, licensing requirements for disposal of radioactive wastes in geologic repositories, certain ;
performance requirements for the repository are based on an j assumption of the occurrence of anticipated processes and' ,
events. The specific meaning and use of this term, and i unanticipated processes and events, needs further clarification. This rulemaking would modify the definition '
of these terms in Section 60.2, modify Section 60.113, which describes the use of these terms, and modify the definition of " geologic setting" in Section 60.2, and modify the use of
- that term in Section 60.102.
The objective of the rulemaking is to improve the licensing process for the geologic repository program. It would have no adverse effects on the licensee or the public. It is expected that the resources expended by NRC on the rulemaking would be more than offset by resources saved during the licensing process. .
CURRENT STATUS:
The-proposed rulemaking was approved for initiation by the EDO on April 27, 1989. The staff is evaluating the possibility of accelerating the schedule for issuance of a proposed rule in response to an EDO request. A draft Commission paper and Federal Register notice are being developed f or division review.
m 13
7g i
V) $U)
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 04/27/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to CRGR and ACNW (02/28/90)
Proposed Action to EDO 04/10/90 Proposed Action to Commission 04/17/90 Proposed Action Published 05/31/90 Final Action Published 06/28/91 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
4 i
m 14 m
,-k
/ \
f3 N) O) i 4
RDB NUMBER: RM188 LATEST UPDATE: 07/25/89 TITLE:
Low-Level Waste Manifest Information and Reporting CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 20; 10 CFR 61 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and Section 553 of Title 5 of the United States Code EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes Disposal site operators already operate computer recordkeeping systems at existing disposal sites. Thus, the rule would codify and standardize existing practice.
Nonetheless, the rulemaking will require modification of these existing computer systems. Staff expects that the ;
costs for these modifications will be passed on to disposal l site customers, which will include small engities. These l additional costs may be as much as $0.10/ft , which are small .
in comparison to today's base cost of $50-60/ft" (not l including transportation costs and surcharges).
AGENCY CONTACT: )
Mark Haisfield/G. W. Roles Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research i Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards j Washington, DC 20555 l 301 492-3877/0595 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rulemaking will amend Parts 20 and 61 tos (1) augment and improve information contained in manifests accompanying shipments of waste to low-level waste (LLW) disposal facilities licensed under Part 61; (2) require that operators of these disposal facilities store portions of this manifest information in ensite computer recordkeeping systems; and (3) require that operators periodically submit, in an electronic format, reports of shipment manifest information.
To assure safe disposal of LLW, we must understand the mechanisms and rates by which radioactivitiy can be released from LLW and into the environment. To do this, we must understand the chemical, physical, and radiological characteristics of LLW. This task is greatly complicated by the heterogeneous nature of LLW; it exists in a variety of chemical and physical forms and contains roughly 200 different radionuclides in concentrations that can range from 15 C
/n m I
\v) V) a few microcuries to several hundred curies per cubic foot.
Each year there are thousands of shipments to LLW disposal sites.
Pursuant to Section 20.311, a manifest must accompany each shipment of LLW to a disposal facility. Unfortunately, existing manifests do not describe the waste in detail sufficient to assure compliance with the Part 61 performance objectives. In addition, NRC's regulations do not require that disposal site operators develop and operate computer systems for storage and manipulation of shipment manifest information. We believe that such onsite computer systems are necessary for safe disposal facility operation. We also believe that a national data base is needed which contains information on LLW disposed at all sites.
A rulemaking to upgrade shipment manifests and require disposal site computer recordkeeping systems will assure that technical infermation on LLW is available and in a form which can be used 4or performance assessments, technical analyses, and other activities. A requirement to report electronic manifest information will ensure that the regulatory staff, .
as well as the site operators, have the ability to perform safety and environmental assessments, and to monitor compliance with regulations and license conditions. DOE has agreed to establish and operate a national LLW data system based on their mandate under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. This rulemaking will provide necessary data. The DOE data system will provide NRC staff with the ability to manipulate tt e electronic manif est information.
A rulemaking is needed, in contrast to an alternative such as a regulatory guide, because it can most effectively ensure data that is technically complete and standardized at a i national level. The rulemaking will help ensure the '
availability of a complete, detailed national LLW computer data base, operated by DOE, and containing information about waste disposed in all LLW sites, those regulated by NRC as j well as by Agreement Statqs.
We expect that the rulemaking will slightly increase disposal !
costs. The rulemaking is a budgeted activity cited in the NRC 5 year plan.
CURRENT STATUS:
The rulemaking was approved for initiation by the EDO on April 26, 1989.
l i
i l
l l
16 i l
d
p n U U TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation (EDO Approval) 04/26/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to Division for Review (12/15/89)
Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence (02/15/90)
Proposed Action to CRGR/ACRS (To Be Determined)
Proposed Action to EDO 04/16/90 Proposed Action to Commission 04/30/90 Proposed Action Published 06/29/90 Final Action Published 05/31/91 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
l k
=
17
_ n_J
? ,
9 RDB NUMBER: RM103 LATEST UPDATE: 07/25/09 TITLE:
Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Jerry N. Wilson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3729 ABSTRACT: '
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to clarify its -
regulations on the use of the terms "important to safety" and
" safety related" by adding definitions of these two terms and -
of " facility licensing documents" 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 effect on quality, assurance requirements, thereby resolving these issues.
Rulemaking was chosen as the method of resolving this issue as a result of toe Commission's directive to resolve the issue by rulemaking contained in the Shoreham licensing decision (CLI-84-9, 19 NRC 1323, June 5, 1984).
A position paper requesting approval of the staff proposed definitions and additiona( guidance from the Commission was signed by the EDO on May 29, 1986. In addition to rulemaking, the position paper discusses the alternative of the Commission issuing a policy statement concerning the definitior.s and their usage.
Since the proposed rule is only clarifying existing requirments, there is no impact on the public or the industry as a result of this rulemaking. It is anticipated that the NRC will expend 3.2 to 4.4 staff years in developing the final rule over a 2-year period. The manpower and time frame will depend on Commission guidance received on the extent to which 10 CFR usage of the terms is to be consistent, i.e.,
10 CFR Part 50 only or all of 10 CFR. 18
~
f L) Lj CURRENT STATUS:
A package suggesting an approach to rulemaking was signed by the EDO and forwarded to the Commission on May 29, 1986 (SECY-86-164). Staff is currently awaiting a Commi ssi on decision.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/85 Proposed Action--Suggested Approach (SECY-86-164) to Commi ssi on 05/29/86 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Commission Decision on SECY-86-164 Undetermined NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
j 1
1 i
l i
l 19 a
y U
RDB NUMBER: RM133 LATEST UPDATE: 07/25/89 TITLE:
Ensuring the Effectiveness of Maintenance Programs for Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECi' ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Moni Dey Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research '
Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3730 ABSTRACT: .
On March 23, 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ;
published a Final Policy Statement on Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (53 FR 9430). In the policy statement, the Commission stated that it expected to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the near future and has directed the staff to develop such a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
As directed by the Commission, the staff will develop a general rule that specifies functional requirements for the maintenance of nuclear power plants and allows industry initiatives to develop the details of maintenance programs to l meet such requirements. The scope of maintenance activities l addressed in the rule will be within the framework of the l Commission's Policy Statement on Maintenance of Nuclear Power l Plants. The rule will apply to all components, systems and I structures of nuclear power plants and will be applicable to l existing and future plants. The rule will also require each !
licensee to develop, i mpl e, ment and maintain a maintenance program, and to formally commit to follow the program.
Compliance with the rule will be determined by audit by NRC inspectors. A recommended position on whether the rule l should include a requirement to report maintenance performance indicators to the NRC will be developed as a part i of developing the rulemaking.
In support of the proposed rule, the staff will develop a regulatory guide that will summari:e state-of-the-art methods j and procedures for nuclear power plant maintenance and reliability assurance programs that the staff considers acceptable ways to meet the functional requirements in the 20 a
, e.
V U rule. This regulatory guide will provide the guidance to the industry regarding staff views on the content and functions of an acceptable maintenance program. The regulatory guide will also provide the results of a staff evaluation of the acceptability of industry standards, initiatives and programs against the functional requirements proposed in the rule.
As directed by the Commission, the staff, in developing the rule, will consider maintenance practices in other countries (Japan, France, and FRG), and other industries (aviation and chemical) in this country in which human performance, maintenance and equipment reliability play an important role in the safety of operations. These considerations will be 4
documented in a supporting NUREG report along with other factors considered important to document the development of the rule and regulatory guide.
It is estimated that about 3 staff-years of effort and $600K for contract services will be required to process the final rule.
CURRENT STATUS: .
The draft final rule was submitted to the Commission on April 28, 1989 (SECY-89-143). By memorandum dated June 26, 1989, the Commission has directed the staff to hold the draft final rule for a period of 18 months and to monitor industry l progress and determine the need for a rule at the end of the 18-month period.
l TIMETABLE:. j COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (Commission Mandate) 02/25/88 Proposed Action to ACRS 08/26/88 Proposed Action f or Division Review 08/26/88 Proposed Action to CRGR 09/02/88 Proposed Action to RES Director 08/29/88 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 09/06/88 Proposed Action to EDO 09/26/88 Proposed Action to Commission 09/30/88 SECY-88-277 Proposed Action Publi,shed 11/28/88 53 FR 47822 Proposed Action Public Comment Period Extended 12/29/88 53 FR 52716 Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 02/27/89 Final Action to ACRS 04/07/89 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 04/10/89 Final Action to CRGR 04/12/89 Final Action to EDO 04/21/89 Final Action to Commission 04/28/89 SECY-89-143 Commission Briefing 05/31/89 21 m
_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ .._._...________._____________.-_.._.m.... . _ _ _ . _ . .-_.._._m_
SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Recommend Necessity for Rulemaking 01/91 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect Commission directives. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
l t
l l
O I
l f
22 1
l_ ._ _ , _ _ . . - . - - - L
, .. . - . _ . = - - _ - - - - - _- _-_ - _ --- - . - - -.
( '
L .
e f
V U !
4 [
l l :
!- RDB NUMBER: RMO77 ~
LATEST UPDATE: 07/25/89 !
. TITLE:
l Personnel Access Authorization Program i
CFR CITATION: ;
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT- '
Dr. Sandra Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Commission ;
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l Washington DC 20555 l 301 492-3773 i
ABSTRACT: ,
The Commission has concluded that it is appropriate for each a' , !
licensee who operates a nuclear power plant to establish an j access authorization program to ensure that individuals who -
1 require unescorted access to protected areas or vital areas of their facilities are trustworthy, reliable, emotionally ,
stable, and do not pose a threat to commit radiological l sabotage. Accordingly, the NRC published a proposed rule on !
August 1, 1984, which would require an access authorization j program at nuclear power plants (49 FR 30726). j i
An alternative proposal by the Nuclear Utility Management and Resource Committee (NUMARC) was submitted as a public comment on this proposed rule. The alternative proposed a voluntary industry commitment to implement an access authorization program at nuclear power plants based upon industry guidelines. Major provisions of this program include background investigation, psychological evaluation, and behavioral observation. 1 On June 18, 1986, the Commission approved developing a policy ,
statement endorsing industry guidelines as an alternative to l the proposed rulemaking. Commitments to adhere to these guidelines would be formalized through amendments to the
- physical security plans and be subject to inspection and enforcement by NRC.
i
- On March 9, 1988, the NRC published a proposed policy l statement endorsing the NUMARC guidelines. In the Federal Register notice, the Commission specifically requested public comments as to whether the access authorization program should be a rule or a policy statement.
i
=
23 l 1
- . , l 0 i i
i l !
l On Apri1~19, 1989, the Commission decided to go forward with s a final rule which would. require all licensees to have an j
' access cuthorization program and would specify the. major i attributes of the program. !
The NRC would also issue a regulatory guide which would endorse, with appropriate !
exceptions, the applicable industry guidelines, as an l acceptable way of complying with the rule. l CURRENT STATUS:
A final rulemaking and a regulatory guide have been prepared. l The office concurrence package is being finalized. A j copy of the final package, which had received branch j concurrence, was forwarded to ACRS on July 10, 1989. j TIMETABLE: !
COMPLETED ACTIONS: l Rulemaking Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/85 -
Proposed Policy Statement / Guidelines to CRGR 11/10/86 l Proposed Policy Statement Effort Transferred i to RES from NMSS 06/05/87 l Office Concurrence on Proposed Policy Statement !
- Completed 10/30/87 .
l Proposed-Policy Statement / Guidelines to ACRS-- ;
Not Applicable (ACRS reviewed the guidelines as part of the Insider Rule Package 02/13/86)
Proposed Policy Statement / Guidelines to EDO 12/07/87 j Proposed Policy Statement / Guidelines to Commission. !
12/15/87 SECY-87-306 Proposed Policy Statement Published 03/09/88 53 FR 7534 ,
Proposed Policy Statement Public Comment Period End i 05/09/88' Options Paper to Commission 03/22/89 SECY-89-98 i Final Action Package to ACRS 07/10/89 !
SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action Package to CRGR (09/01/89) {
2 Final Action to EDO 09/25/89 Final Action to Commission 10/25/89 Final Action Published 11/30/89 ,
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved :
due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates, j i
I 1
f
! )
l 24 !
d
,m n
/
k h
/
( \ l 1
i V 'Vf l
1 RDB NUMBER: RMO81 LATEST UPDATE: 07/25/89 TITLE:
Requirements for Possession of Industrial Devices CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 31 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2114; 42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Joseph J. Mate Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3793 ABSTRACT: [
Industrial devices that contain byproduct material are used in.' ,
many manufacturing processes where it would be inconvenient or ha:ardous to perform necessary measurements by other meanu. There have been cases in which devices were improperly maintained, improperly transferred, or inadvertently discarded. When a device is transferred to a scrap metal processor, during reprocessing the sealed source capsule can be breached, resulting in the contamination of the entire batch of scrap metal with subsequent unnecessary radiation exposure to the public from the re-used metal. This problem is urgent because of the potential radiation exposure and expense incurred when it is necessary to retrieve manufactured items fabricated from contaminated metal. The scrap metal industry is helping by teaching reprocessors how to identif y potential sources of radiation that could be found in incoming scrap metal. However, the NRC does not believe this voluntary effort is sufficient because this effort only identifies the problem after loss of the device by the general licensee. Because of the large number of general licensees (35,000) using about 400,000 devices, a substantial NRC inspection program would not be an efficient use of staff resources. A reporting program under which the device user periodically reports to the NRC that the device is still in use, or reports to whom it has been transferred, appears to be the most efficient method for assuring that devices are not improperly transferred or inadvertently discarded. The periodic report would be a small burden on device users and NRC, but would save reprocessors and public health and l safety agencies significant amounts of staff time by reducing the l chance of a device being improperly transferred or inadvertently L discarded. NRC will need about one prof essional staff year to complete the final rule.
25
\ raw
. f t
CURRENT STATUS:
.The proposed' rulemaking' package is under development. l j
i TIMETABLE: j COMPLETED ACTIONS _ .
l Rulemaking Initiation (EDO Approval) 05/26/89 i SCHEDULED ACTIONS: l Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence (12/29/89) l Proposed Action to CRGR.and ACRS--Not Applicable l Proposed Action to EDO 03/30/90 (
Proposed Action to Commission--To Be Determined i Proposed Action Published 04/30/90 Proposed Action Public' Comment Period Ends (06/29/90) !
Final . Action to EDO 04/30/91 i Final Action to Federal Register 05/31/91~ )
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
l t
w 26
a .e--a , M 2 s A> 4- n 4&,,e d+ r + . - - ~ ~ e,J w u-b s,- :-e ww4 m -** J A- -m -- 'm 4 -. M-I
- * ('
\
i 1
- i l , l
)
RDB NUMBER: RMO95 LATEST UPDATE: 07/25/89 l TITLE: j Basic Quality Assurance Program for Medical Use of Byproduct l Material !
)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 35 l l
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 1
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT: I Anthony Tse )
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3797 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend i ts ,
regulations concerning the medical use of byproduct material. '
The proposed amendments would require its medical licensees to establish and implement a written basic quality assurance j program to prevent,. detect, and correct the cause of errors in the administration of byproduct material. The proposed action is necessary to provide for improved patient safety.
The proposed amendment, which is intended to reduce the potential for and severity of therapy misadministrations, would primarily affect hospitals, clinics, and individual physicians. Modification of reporting and recordkeeping requirements for diagnostic and therapy events or misadministration are also proposed in this rulemaking.
CURRENT STATUS:
The proposed rulemaking package was submitted to the Commission on June 7, 1989 (SECY-89-171 ) .- The Commission was briefed by the staff on Ju,ne 13, 1989. A staff requirements memorandum, dated June 30, 1989, was received by the staff and requested modifications of the proposed rulemaking package.
)
i I
27 n_
s [ T l O
J
. l TIMETABLE: l COMPLETED ACTIONS: i Proposed Rule on Basic OA (Prescriptive) Published )
l 10/02/07 52 FR 36942 l Options Paper to Commission 06/03/88 SECY-88-156 l SRM Issued Directing Re-Proposal of Basic OA Rule l 07/12/88 )
OA Subcommittee meeting held on 11/07/88 '
Proposed Action for Draft Rule and Guide Sent for Division Review 12/05/88 Workshop on Basic DA Rule and Draft Regulatory Guide i 01/00-31/89 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 03/29/89 l Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable i Proposed Action to EDO 06/01/89 ,
Proposed Action to Commission 06/07/89 SECY-89-171 l Commission Briefing 06/13/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Revised Proposed Action to Commission 08/15/89 Proposed Action Sent to ADM for Publication l (09/15/89) -
. 1 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect Commission-directed due dates. Dates included in l parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates. l I
l 28 m
p) p l
(
(_/ V)
(
RDB NUMBER: RMO98 LATEST UPDATE: 07/25/89 TITLE:
Tr ansportation Regulations; Compatibility With the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (Priority 1)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 71 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5G42 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Donald R. Hopkins Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3784 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would, in conjunction with a corresponding rule change by the U.S. Department of Transportation, make the United States Federal regulations f or the saf e transportation of radioactive material consistent with those of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA regulations can be found in IAEA Safety Series No. 6,
" Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material,"
1985 Edition. Consistency in transportation regulations throughout the world facilitates the free movement of radioactive materials between countries for medical, research, industrial, and nuclear fuel cycle purposes, j Consistency of transportation regulations throughout the l world also contributes to safety by concentrating the efforts of the wcrld's experts on a single set of safety standards and guidance (those of the IAEA) from which individual )
countries can develop their domestic regulations. Perhaps as j important, the accident egperience of every country that l bases its domestic regulations on those of the IAEA can be j applied by every other country with consistent regulations to j improve its safety program. The action will be handled as a ,
routine updating of NRC transportation regulations. There is j no reasonable alternative to rulemaking action. These l changes should result in a minimal increase in costs to l affected licensees. Proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 71, based on current IAEA regulations, has been issued for public ;
comments. The task will be scheduled over a 2-year interval !
ending June 1989 and will consume 2-3 staff years of effort depending on the number and difficulty of conflicts to be l resolved. l l
4 m
i d
i 4
. /^\ ?
i CURRENT STATUS:
The proposed f*ule 'was published for public comment on June 8, 1988 (53 FR 21550). In order to afford the public the !
opportunity to review the NRC proposed rule at the same time !
as the DDT proposed rule which supplements it, NRC has '
extended its public comment peried. The comment period is currently scheduled to end 60 dayu af ter publication of the )
DDT proposed rule. Accordi ngl y, this task is on hold until '
DDT publishes its proposed rule for comment. I TIMETABLE: l COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 01/09/87 ,
Proposed Action for Division Review 09/04/67 I Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Complutt -
02/12/88 l Proposed Action to ACRS--Not Applicable Proposed Action to CRGR 03/23/08 Proposed Action to EDO 05/11/88 3 Proposed Action to Coramission--Not Applicable !
Proposed Action Published 06/08/88 53 FR 21550 Correction Published 06/22/88 53 FR 23484 -
Proposed Action Public Comment Period Extended tt 03/06/89 53 FR 51281 -
SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action Public Comment Period Extended to 60 days after publication of DOT proposed rule 04/04/89 54 FR 13528 Final-Action to Offices for Review Undetermined l Final Action to ACRS--Not Applicable l Final Action to CRGR Undetermined l Final Acti on to EDO Undetermined !
Final Action to Commission--Not Applicable Final Action Published Undetermined i
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved l due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent ;
task leader estimates. j i
i 30 C
s ..
i i
r I
RDB NUMBER: RM102 LATEST UPDATE: 07/25/89 TI'LE:
ll Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration from Nuclear Power Plants (Priority 1)
CFR CITATION: i 10 CFR 20 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2167; 42 USC 2073 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Catherine R. Mattsen ;
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 t
-301 492-3638 e
ABSTRACT: .
The proposed rule, which is being initiated in partial ,
response to a petition filed by Edison Electric Institute and - l Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (PRM-20-15, dated July 31, 1984), would amend NRC regulations to allow onsite .i incineration of waste oil at nuclear power plants subject to specified conditions. Currently, the only generally approved j
'di sposal method for low-level, radioactively contaminated waste oil f rom nuclear power plants involves absorption or l solidification, transportation to, and burial at a licensed i disposal site. There is a clear need to allow, for very low l activity level wastes, the use of alternative disposal l methods which are more cost effective from a radiological l health and safety standpoint and which conserve the limited i disposal capacity of low-level waste burial sites.
Increased savings to both the public and the industry could [
thereby be achieved without imposing additional risk to the !
t public health and safety. ,There would be an estimated j L industry-wide economic savings of approximately $3 million to .!
l $12 million per year if such a rule were promulgated.
Alternatives to this rulemaking action are to maintain the l
status quo or.to wait until the Environmental Protection ;
Agency develops standards on acceptable levels of radio- i activity which may be released to the environment on an l unrestricted basis. It is estimated that approximately 1-2 person-years of NRC staff time will be required to process this rule.
e 31
= - _ . _ _
._ ~
s ,
,. i
, a e A {
f i
CURRENT STATUS:
- The schedu1E for this rulemaking was previously on hold '
pending task leader assignment to the exemption policy task.- l Evaluation of comments and development of the final '
rulemaking package is now underway. ,
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS-Rul emaki ng Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 05/19/87 ;
Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable l' Proposed Action to EDO 06/21/88 Proposed Action to Commission
~
07/12/88 SECY-88-198 !
Proposed Action Published 08/29/88 53 FR 32914 '
Public Comment Period End 10/28/88 l SCHEDULED ACTIONS: !
Final Action to Offices for Concurrence (09/29/89) ,
Final Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable !
Final Action to EDO (11/03/09) I Final Action to Commission (11/17/89) !
Final Action Published (12/22/89) f NOTE: ' Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved .
due' dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent !
task leader estimates. -
i l
4 I
t i
i i
32
~
%) '
l l
RDB NUMBER: RM105 LATEST UPDATE: 07/25/89 TITLE:
Reasserting NRC's Sole Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 150 i LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201: 42 USC 2021; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
William R. Pearson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3764 ABSTRACT: .
This rulemaking would establish NRC as the sole authority for approving onsite disposal of very low-level waste oc all NRC- -
licensed reactors and at Part 70 facilities. There is a need to amend 10 CFR Part 150.15 to authorize one agency (the NRC) to regulate all such onsite disposal of low-level waste in order to provide a more comprehensive regulatory review of all onsite waste management activities and to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. Uniform review by the NRC will provide for greater assurance that the radioactive material will not present a health hazard at a later date '
after the site is decommissioned.
CURRENT STATUS:
A meeting with NRR, NMSS, GPA, and OGC was held in June 1989 to resolve the issues raised during office concurrence. The revised draft rulemaking was circulated among the cognizant individuals for comment.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 05/19/87 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 03/31/88 Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable l Proposed Action to EDO 06/08/88 l Proposed Action to Commission 06/14/88 SECY-88-166 l Proposed Action Published 08/22/88 53 FR 31880 Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 10/21/88 l
- Analysis of Public Comments Completed 11/30/88 j Final Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable l Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 02/15/89 l
l 30 i n_J
l (~ C 'y Lj O SCHEDUL.ED ACTIONS:
Final 4ction to EDO 08/18/89 (Undetermined)
Final Action to Commission 09/22/89 (Undetermined)
Final Action Published 10/27/89 (Undetermined)
! NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
l 1
i 4
0 I
I i
l o
I 34
s m e
RDB NUMBER: RM112 LATEST UPDATE: 07/25/89 TITLE:
Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 170 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10153; 42 USC 10198 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
William R. Pearson Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research i Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3764 i i
ABSTRACT: .
l The proposed rule is in response to the Nuclear Waste Policy }
Act (NWPA) section 218 (a) which states, in part, that the -
1 Secretary of DOE shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the Commission may, by rule, approve for use at sites of civilian nuclear power reactors. The NWPA also requires ,
that the NRC establish procedures for the licensing of any I technology approved by the Commission under section 218 (a) for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.
l The staff anticipates a significant increase in the demand for use of dry spent fuel storage casks starting in the early 1990s, thus processing of this proposed rule would be timely.
NRC resource requirements are anticipated to be about two staff-years.
CURRENT STATUS:
The proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on May 5, 1989 (54 FR 19379). The public comment period ended June 19, 1989. As of July 10, 1989, 254 comments have been received.
I 1
i I
i 35 l
l C
L) Lj TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 12/14/87 Proposed Action for Division Review 03/02/88 Proposed Action to ACNW 06/28/88 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 07/26/88 Proposed Action to CRGR 11/09/88 and 12/14/88 Proposed Action to EDO O2/14/89 Proposed Action to Commission 03/08/89 SECY-89-084 Proposed Action Published 05/05/89 54 FR 19379 l
Proposed Action Public Comment Period Ends 06/19/89 '
SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Fi nal Action to ACNW and CRGR (04/13/90)
Final Action to EDO 05/10/90 Final Action to Commission 06/15/90 )
Final Action Published 07/27/90 1
1 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved I due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent .
task leader estimates.
i l
l i !
! l i
F l
e 36
t l
, t f
1 I
r RDB NUMBER: RM116 LATEST UPDATE: 07/26/89 TITLE:
Amendment to 10 CFR Part_51, Sections 51.51 and 51.52, Table S-3 and Table.S-4, Addition of Radon-222 and Technetium-99 ,
Radiation Values, and Addition of Appendi: B, " Table S-3 i Explanatory Analysis" 1 CFR CITATION: l 10 CFR 51 l LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2011; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 4321; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Stanley Turel Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 .
301 492-3739 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 proposed rule amends Section 51.52 to modify the enrichment value of U-235 and the maximum level of average fuel irradiation. The narrative explanation also addresses important fuel cycle impacts and the cumulative l impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle for the whole nuclear power I industry so that it may be possible to consider these impacts !
generically rather than repeatedly in individual licensing proceedings, thus reducinq litigation time-and costs for both NRC and applicants. 1 I
The proposed rule revisions of Section 51.51 and addition of Appendix B was published for public review and comment on March 4, 1981 (46 FR 15154). The final rulemaking was j deferred pending the outcome of a suit (Natural Resources l 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 of April 27, 1982, invalidated the entire Table S-3 rule. The Supreme Court reversed this decision on June 6, 1983.
37 i
C
. . _ _ - - _ _ ~ _ ._ . .-- .. - .--. . - - . . . - , . . - -. - -_
I *
- m n ,
r-
- h, ,
I l
I The proposed rule to provide an explanatory analysis for .
Table S-3 has been revised to reflect new developments during l the time the rulemaking was deferred. Final action on the i Table S-3 rule was held in abeyance until new values for ;
radon-222 and technetium-99 could be added to the table and covered in the narrative explanation. The rule is being reissued as a proposed rule because the scope has been !
l expanded to include radiation values for raden-222 and l technetium-99 and the narrative explantion has been !
l extensively revised from that published on March 4, 1981 (46 FR 15154).
The staf f 's estimate is that the completion of a final Table i
S-3 rule covering the new values for raden-222 and technetium-99, and the revised explanatory analysis will be completed in FY 1989. A Commission Paper presenting the final rulemaking plan and schedule was submitted on August 18, 1986 (SECY 86-242). On September 8, 1986, SECY-86-242 was approved by the Commission. '
CURRENT STATUS:
. NRR has assigned personnel to help in the review of the .'
package, incleling updating the health physics calculations. !
Contractual support is required from ORNL to complete these -
i calculations. ,
i TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (Two Rulemakings Integrated) 07/30/87 ,
Proposed Action for Division Review 05/27/88 1 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 06/30/89 (10/16/89)
Proposed Action to ACRS/roGR--Not Applicable Proposed Action to EDO v//31/89 (11/30/89)
Proposed Action to Commission 08/30/89 (12/29/89)
Proposed Action Published 09/29/89 (01/31/90)
Final Action to Commission 07/31/90 (12/31/90)
Final Action Publishe,d 08/30/90 (01/31/91)
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
1 38
__ n_
- - -. . . - . - - . . - - . - - . .. . . _ . _ . . - ~- -.
b c)
. i I
4 4
RDB NUMBER: RM119 LATEST UPDATE: 07/25/89
. TITLE:
Twenty-Four Hour Notification of Incidents i
, CFR CITATION:
'> t LEGAL AUTHORITY: i 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 l
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No I i
1
., AGENCY-CONTACT: )
l Joseph J. Mate Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research j' Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3795 3
- ABSTRACT
This rulemaking would amend 10 CFR Part 20.403(a) and (b) to -
. I I
clarify the licensees' reporting requirements. In addition,
, a new section in Parts 30, 40, and 70 will be developed. ~
l 4
While Sections 20.403(a) and (b) are reasonably clear in terms of licensee reporting requirements for events involving
" exposures" and " releases" of radioactive materials, these
- sections are not clear concerning event. involving " loss of j operation" and " damage to property." " Loss of operations" should be clarified in terms of loss of use of facilities, devices or equipment. " Damage to property" should be clarified to include contamination clean-up if the corrective action is equal to or greater than a certain cost. In addition, the rulemaking should also define "immediate" in actual time, e.g., within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />, for reporting requirements.
This rulemaking action will clarify a current Commission l regulation; there is no other appropriate procedure to accommodate the clarification. This rulemaking activity is
, considered to be a high pr.iority item by NMSS. l i !
The health and safety of the public will be better protected l 1
because improved reporting requirements will reduce the '
s potential risk of exposure to radiation. Clarifying the reporting requirements will simplify regulatory functions and free the staff from unnecessary additional investigation and, at the same time, protect the industry from unnecessary and j unexpected fines.
i 4
- 39
~
i O
l U !
i CURRENT STATUS:
l The proposed rulemaking package has been finalized and
! sent to NRR for review. Comments are due by c.o.b. j l Wednesday, July 26. The package is expected to be processed i
for office concurrence by August 3, 1989.
l TIMETABLE: l l COMPLETED ACTIONS: I Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 02/17/88 [
Action by DRA Division Director 12/16/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS: .
l Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence (08/03/89) .
Proposed Action to CRGR and ACRS--Not Applicable l
Proposed Action to EDO 08/18/89
- Proposed Action to Commission--To Be Determined l i
- Proposed Action Published 09/29/89 ;
l Proposed Action Public Comment Period End (11/24/89) '
I Analysis of Public Comments Completed (12/22/89) .
l Final Action for Division Review (01/19/90) !
! Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 03/02/90 Final Action to CRGR and ACRS--Not Applicable Final Action to EDO 06/15/90 (04/06/90) .
j Final Action to Commission--To Be Determined Final Action Published 07/16/90 (05/25/90)
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved l due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent j
, task leader estimates. I l
e I
l !
i I .
40 i
i ai
. . . - . .- . - . - - . _ ~ . ._ ~. . . . - .
f f
~
d V RDB NUMBER: RM125 LATEST UPDATE: 07/25/89 TITLE:
Night Firing Qualifications.for Security Guards at Nuclear Power Plants (Priority 2)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 73 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Dr. Sandra D. Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3773 ABSTRACT: .
The proposed rule would ensure that security force ;
ef f ectiveness at nuclear power plants is not dependent on the -
time of day. Security guards currently are required to l perform night firing for familiarization only. There is no '
requirement for standards to measure their effectiveness. )
The proposed rule would change that by requiring that ;
security guards at nuclear power plants qualify for night l firing. The only alternative to rulemaking is to retain the l current status, i Part 73, Appendix B, Part IV,-will be amended to require reactor security guards to qualify annually in.an NRC-approved night firing course with their assigned weapons.
The proposed amendment will standardize training and qualification in night firing and prepare power reactor guard forces to more effectively respond in the event of an incident. occurring in limited lighting. conditions. The cost to industry should be relAtively modest since licensees already operate daylight firing training and qualificaiton facilities and programs. The costs to NRC will also be j minimal because it will only require minor licensing, inspection and other regulatory actions. There is no occupational exposure.
It is estimated that 0.4 staff-years of effort over 2 years by the NRC will be required for the rulemaking.
CURRENT STATUS: I The rulemaking package is on hold.
41 L
(~
(-
TIMETABLE: <
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 05/18/88 ;
SCHEDULED ACTIONS: {
Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence i Undetermined ;
Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR--To Be Determined l Proposed Action to EDO Undetermined l Proposed Action to Commission--Not Applicable i Proposed Action Published Undetermined Final Action Published Undetermined NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved l due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent I task leader estimates. '
i j
l 4
I s
42 l nJ
h v
)
RDB NUMBER: RM135 LATEST UPDATE: 07/25/89 TITLE:
Minor Amendments to Physical Protection Requirements (Priority 2)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 75 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Stan Dolins Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3745 ABSTRACT: -
The Safeguards Interoffice Review Group (SIRG) of the NRC has been conducting a systematic review of the agency's -
saf eguards regulations and guidance documents. This review has identified areas in the regulations that are out of date, susceptible to differing interpretations, or in need of clarification. In addition, the staff has identified other areas in the regulations where minor changes are warranted.
In response to these efforts, specific amendments to the regulations are being proposed. The proposed changes will:
(1) add definitions for common terms not currently defined, (2) delete action dates that no longer apply, (3) correct outdated terms and cross references, (4) clarify wording that is susceptible to differing interpretations, (5) correct typographical errors, and (6) make other minor changes.
The alternative to rulemaking would be to allow the status quo to continue. These minor amendments affect the public, industry and the NRC only ,in so far as they make the regulations easier to understand, implement, and enforce. It is estimated that 0.4 staff years of NRC effort over 2 year will be required for the rulemaking. This is a low priori 1 rulemaking.
CURRENT STATUS:
The proposed rulemaking package is currently under revision for submittal to the EDO.
43 m
r
<s g O d i
l TIMETABLE:
! COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 04/04/08 Proposed Action to DRA Division Director 12/29/88 Proposed Action to RES Director 01/04/89 Proposed Action to Office Directors 01/24/89 Proposed Action to CRGR and ACRS--Not Applicable Proposed Action Resubmitted for Office Concurrence 05/26/89 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Received 06/14/89 Proposed Action to EDO 06/27/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Revised Proposed Action to EDO (08/11/89)
Proposed Action to Commission--Not Applicable Proposed Action Published 07/31/89 (08/31/89)
Final Action to Federal Register 04/04/90 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
e 44
__ _ _ n_
. . . - - - - - - . - . . - - . . ~ - . - - -- . _ - - - - .
D
. . m J
- RDB NUMBER
- RM162 LATEST UPDATE: 07/25/89 1
! TITLE:
4 Comprehensive Quality Assurance in Medical Use and a Standard of Care
- CFR CITATION
LEGAL AUTHORITY: i 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841
, EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT: I Anthony Tse Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555
- 301 492-3797 ABSTRACT
- -
. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering whether to !
i amend its regulations to require a comprehensive quality ~
l j assurance program f or medical licensees using byproduct )
) materials. The purpose of this rulemaking action is to address each source of error that can lead to a i misadministration. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking 9 was published to request public comment on the extent to which, in addition to the basic quality assurance procedures 4
(see " Basic Quality Assurance in Radiation Therapy"), a more
, comprehensive quality assurance requirement is needed and invites advice and recommendations on about 20 questions that will have to be addressed in the rulemaking process.
CURRENT STATUS:
This rulemaking is on hold.
TIMETABLE:
l COMPLETED. ACTIONS: .
ANPRM Published 10/02/87 52 FR 36949 ANPRM Public Comment Period End 12/31/87 Options Paper Completed 06/03/88 SECY-88-156 i Staff Requirements Memorandum Issued 07/12/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Scheduled actions currently on hold.
Work on proposed rule will start 06/90 Proposed rule (if needed) will be submitted to the Commission 06/91 l l 1
45
~
s .
~
^)
RDB NUMBER: RM165 LATEST UPDATE: 07/25/89 TITLE:
Emergency Response Data System CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201 (Sec. 161); 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
M. L. Au Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 1 301 492-3749 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would require the implementation of the .
NRC-approved Emergency Response Data System (ERDS) at all licensed nuclear power plants. The. primary role of the -
Nuclear Regulatory Commission during an emergency at a licensed nuclear power f acility is one of monitoring the licensee to assure that appropriate recommendations are made with respect to necessary offsite actions to protect public health and safety. In order to adequately perform its role during an emergency, the NRC requires accurate and timely data on four types of parameters: (1) the reactor core and coolant system conditions to assess the extent or likelihood of core damage; (2) the conditions inside the containment building to assess the likelihood of its failure; (3) the '
radioactivity release rates to assess the immediacy and degree of public danger; and (4) the data from the plant's meteorological tower to assess the distribution of potential or actual impact on the public.
The Emergency. Response Data System is a licensee-activated computer data link between the electronic data systems at licensed nuclear power facilities and a central computer in ]
the NRC Operations Center. Current experience with l voice-only emergency communication link, utilized for data {
transmission, has demonstrated it to be slow and inaccurate. :
Simulated site tests of the ERDS concept in emergency )
planning exercises have demonstrated that ERDS is effective l between the NRC Operations Center and affected licensees.
i t
46 no
_ _ , _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . ~.._ _.
^ *
/N U }
I The rule would require that the licensees provide the required hardware and software to transmit the data in a
- format specified by the NRC. The NRC would require that the licensee activate the ERDS as soon as possible f ollowing the j declaration of an alert condition. Based on a site survey of 80 percent of license <, facilities, the current estimates of
. licensee costs are $2ct.-50K for software and $0-100K for hardware. The current estimated cost to NRC is $2.6 million.
The proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 50 will be issued for
, public comment. The rulemaking task will be scheduled over a a
2-year period ending March 1991.and will consume 2-3 staff
, years of effort depending on the number and difficulty of
- conflicts to be resolved.
CURRENT STATUS:
The proposed rulemaking is currently under preparation for DRA review.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 05/26/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS: .' ,
Proposed Action to DRA Division Director (09/15/09) ,
Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence (10/31/89)
Proposed Action to CRGR and ACRS (11/30/89)
Proposed Action to EDO 03/30/90 Proposed Action to Commission 04/30/90 Proposed Action Published 05/31/90 Final Action to Federal Register 03/29/91 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved )
due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
i l
47
.C
~
r
\
V
) \w) i 1
RDB NUMBER: RM18,6 LATEST UPDATE: 07/25/89 l TITLE: I Palladium-103 for Interstitial Treatment of Cancer I CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 35 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No ;
i AGENCY CONTACT: '
Dr. Anthony N. Tse Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3797 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its .
regulations governing the medical uses of byproduct material.
The proposed regulation would add Palladium-103 sealed source -
as seeds to the list of sources permitted in 10 CFR Part 35 for use in cancer treatment. Under current NRC regulations, users must have their licenses amended before they may use Palladium seeds in brachytherapy. The proposed rule, developed in response to a petition for rulemaking (PRM-35-7), would allow the use of Palladium-103 seeds by each potential user (about 700 licensees) with either a simplified amendment or no amendment, depending upon the individual license. An evaluation of potential radiation hazards to hospital personnel and the public showed a minimal risk if the seeds are used in accordance with the manufacturer's radiation safety and handling instructions.
CURRENT STATUS:
The proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on April 6, 1989 (54 FR 14892). The public comment period clos's May 8, 1989. To date, one comment has been received.
The final rulemaking package is under development.
i i
l
=
48
- = - - _..- . .. . .- . - . _ - - . -..
- TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED A6TIONS:
Rul emaki ng Initiation Date (PRM-35-7 Docketed) 12/09/88 Fast-track Processing Determination Made 01/12/89 Draft FRN to Cognizant Individuals for Review 01/19/89 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 02/14/89 Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable Proposed Action to EDO 03/23/89 Proposed rection to Commission--Not Applicable Proposed Action Published 04/06/89 54 FR 13892 Proposed Action Public Comment Period Ends' 05/08/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action to Offices for Concurrence (09/29/89)
]
Final Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable i Final Action to EDO (03/06/90) i Final Action to Commission--Not Applicable Final Action Published 04/09/90 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
I I
l I
I l -
l 4
l 49 C
) 0 J G RDB NUMBER: RM189 LATEST UPDATE: 07/27/89 TITLE:
Day Firing Qualifications and Physical Fitness Programs for Security' Personnel at Category I Fuel Cycle Facilities ,
i CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 73, . Appendi:: H LEGAL AUTHORITY:
To Be Determined EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Donald R. Hopkins Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3784 ABSTRACT: .
The proposed rule would require that security personnel qualify and requalify annually on specific standardized day -
firing courses using all assigned weapons. Current regulations require day firing qualification using a ne'.ional police course or equivalent for handguns and an NRA or nationally recognized course for semiautomatic weapons. A firing course is specified f or shotguns, which is in need of revision. Recent amendments to Part 73 added'a requirement for night firing qualification using specific, designated firing courses. To ensure uniformity, the current day firing requirements should be compatible.
Additionally, current regulations specify that security l personnel shall have no physical weaknesses that would j adversely affect their performance of assigned job duties.
However, no regulatory standards exist for assuring that security personnel are physically fit to perform their duties. Requirements for,a physical fitness program and fitness standards at Category I fuel cycle f acilities f or security' personnel need to be added to the regulations in order to provide a uniform, enforceable program. Guidance will be developed to assure that such a program will not, at the same time, endanger the health of those participating in it.
i 50 ,
l w
1 r
\v) \v i i i
The proposed rule change would amend 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix H, to include day firing qualification courses in each type of required weapon as well as a standardized physical fitness training course and fitness standards for security personnel. Alternatives to the rulemaking would be to allow the status quo to continue. Standardization of day firing courses to be consistent with those established for night i firing would be of negligible cost to the 3-4 affected licensees !
and to the NRC since day firing lification using a variety of firing courses is already being - -
Physical fitness training programs would incur moderate cassa to the licensees in the area of personnel time and limited physical fitness equipment. The cost to the NRC would be in the area of licensing and inspection activities. Neither area of rulemaking affects occupational exposure. It is estimated that 0.5 staff-years of effort over 2 years will be required for this rulemaking of high priority.
CURRENT STATUS: !
The EDO approved the rulemaking for initiation on April 25, 1989. NMSS is developing the substance for the rulemaking i and has contracted for technical assistance. A coordination meeting between NMSS and RES was held on July 26, 1989. .' ,
TIMETABLE: -
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 04/25/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to Offices for Review 11/30/89 (02/28/90)
. Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable Proposed Action to EDO 02/28/90 (03/30/90)
Proposed Action to Commission (04/30/90)
Proposed Action Published 05/31/90 )
Final Action to EDO 02/28/91 Final Action to Commission (03/29/91)
Final Action Published 04/30/91 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates. ,
W 51 C
o 4 ,
l J
I RDB NUMBER: RMO33 LATEST UPDATE: 07/25/89 TITLE:
Standards for Protection Against Radiation (Priority 1)
CFR CITATION:
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 l l
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Harold Peterson Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 j 301 492-3640 ABSTRACT: '
Radiation protection philosophy and technology have changed -
markedly since tne present Part 20 was promulgated nearly 30 years ago. Since Part 20 contains the NRC standards for j protection against radiation that 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 actions occur through licensing actions <
independent of Part 20. A complete revision is necessary to provide better assurance of protection against radiation; ]
l establish a clear health protection basis f or 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 i other regulatory actions taken to protect public health; be consistent with recommendations of world authorities (ICRP);
and apply to all licensees in a consistent manner.
1 Alternatives to the complete revision considered were no 1
! action; delay f or f urther guidance; and partial revision of j the standards. They were rejected as ignoring scientific ,
advancements; being unresponsive to international and j 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 I
- knowledge and radiation protection philosophy; implementing regulations which reflect the~ICRP risk-based rationale; 4
52 1 t r uj
0 0 i l
i i
reducing lifetime doses to individuals receiving the highest exposures; implementing provisions for summation of doses from internal and external exposures; providing clearly identified dose limits for the public; and providing an understandable health-risk base for protection. I Initial estimates of the cost of implementing the revision is about $33 million for all NRC and Agreement State licensees in the the initial year and about $8 million in each subsequent year. This cost does not include any savings which might also be realized by the revision.
CURRENT STATUS:
The final rulemaking was submitted to the EDO on September 27, 1988. An EDO briefing was held on October 27, and a Commission briefing was held on November 11. An ACNW briefing was held on December 21, and a Commissioners' Assistants' briefing was held on December 22.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
ANPRM 03/20/80 45 FR 18023 ANPRM Comment Period End 06/18/80 45 FR 18023
- Rulemaking Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/85 Proposed Action Published 12/20/85 50 FR 51992 Proposed Action Comment Period End 05/12/86 51 FR 1092 Proposed Action Comment Period Extended to 10/31/86 Schedule for Development of Final Rule to Commission 10/08/87 Preliminary Report / State Meeting 11/16-17/87 Division and Regional Review Completed 02/15/88 ACRS Subcommittee Meeting 05/31/88 ACRS Full Committee Meeting 06/03/98 Final Action to CRGR 06/07/88 CRGR Meeting 06/22/88 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 06/30/88 Final Action to EDO 09/27/88 Final Action to Commission 11/03/88 SECY-88-315 Commission Briefing 11/10/88 Meeting with NUMARC 02/22/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS: .
Second Commission Paper to EDO (07/30/89) l Final Action Published 07/30/89 (09/29/89)
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved l due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates. !
i 53 l
Am
a D RDB NUMBER: RM051 LATEST UPDATE: 07/25/89 TITLE:
Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (Priority 2)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 140 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 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3640 ABSTRACT:
The final rule will revise the END criteria to eliminate the
- problems that were encountered in the Three Mi.'e Island END
- determination. It is desirable to get revised criteria in place in the event they are needed. -
There are no alternatives to this rulemaking, as the current ENO criteria are already embodied in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 140. The only wity to modif y them, as this rule seeks to do, is throug;h rulemaking.
There is no saf ety impact on public health or saf ety. The i END criteria provide legal waivers of defenses. Industry (insurers and utilities) claims that a reduction in the END criteria could cause increases in insurance premiums. The final rule would also be responsive to PRM-140-1.
It is estimated that approximately 1.0 staff years of NRC staff time will be required to process the final rule.
CURRENT STATUS: .
This action has been placed on hold. The final rule package has been concurred on by NMSS, NRR, and ARM. A potential i difficulty in the impact of the revised criteria has arisen which requires detailed reanalysis. This reanalysis by a contractor has been delayed due to problems with the MACCS Code and higher priority work relating to the revision of 10 l CFR Part 20. In addition, recent personnel changes at the l contractor have added to the delay. Also, there are additional time demands on the task leader due to the ;
revision of 10 CFR 20 (see RDB No. RM033), multiple briefings l on Part 20, and preparatory work for revising a large number of regulatory guides.
54 C
1
. a
\
, .' , I TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED AC,TIONS:
Proposed Action Published 04/09/85 50 FR 13978 '
Rulemaking Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/85 Proposed Action Comment Period End 09/06/85 Final Action For Division' Review O2/17/87 Final Action to ACRS 10/08/87 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 11/25/87 Final Action to CRGR--Not Appli cabl e Meeting with Contractor (EGLG) 06/15/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action.to EDO Undetermined Final Action to Commission Undetermined .
Final Action Published Undetermined NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates.
~
Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
l l
l
. i i
1 l
l 1
55
_ _ . _. . . _ _ , ._ , .- - - U
p (m ,
. . . I i
1 RDB NUMBER: RMO53 LATEST UPDATE: 07/25/89 i'
TITLE:
1 Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Equipment I (Priority 1) i CFR CITATION:
.; LEGAL AUTHORITY:
.42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233 i
j EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes
. AGENCY CONTACT:
t Donald O. Nellis
! Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
. Washington, DC 20555
! 301 492-3628
' ABSTRACT:
j' *
~
The proposed rule would amend the present regulations to -
j establish performance standards for industrial radiography ;
exposure devices. Overexposures of radiographers-(and -
accasionally the general public) are more than double that of other radiation workers and have been a concern to the NRC for some time. Approximately 40 percent cf the radiography overexposures are associated with equipment malfunction. The issue of safety requirements for these devices is a primary concern since the devices use relatively high intensity, high energy gamma-ray emitting sources with the potential for serious overexposures. Although a consensus standard for radiographic exposure devices was published in 1981 (American National Standard N432), it is not clear that all manufacturers are adopting the standard.
The alternatives considered were to take no action at this time; amend the regulations to require performance standards f or radiographic devices plus a requirement f or radiographers to wear alarm dosimeters and simultaneously issue a regulatory guide endorsing the consensus standard, supplemented by such other performance standards deemed necessary; and to incorporate the consensus standard by reference in the regulations supplemented by such other performance standards as deemed necessary, plus a requirement for radiographers to wear alarm dosimeters.
56 l
A_
-.- -- . - - _ . _ . - -. - - . - - . . ~ . - - . -- . - . .. .
. e j
4 a
e c' ,
(
, The proposed rule would require licensees to modify radiographic, devices to meet the performance standards through design changes and quality control procedures. Costs of incorporating the proposed changes are estimated to be a one-time cost of $1,625 per licensee to purchase alarm dosimeters and $830 annually for replacement of devices and
, alarm dosimeters, annual calibration of dosimeters and annual 4 maintenance costs. Determination of the benefits to be i
- derived f rom the proposed rule are dif ficult to determine on j j~
a monetary basis but the potential hazards that might be 1 averted include radiation sickness, injury, and even death. l
< NRC resources required for processing this rule to final j publication are estimated to be 0.4 person years.
CURRENT STATUS:
4 The final rulemaking package was submitted to the Commission l on June 28, 1989 (SECY-89-194).
1 i TIMETABLE:
1 COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date 12/31/85 Proposed Action for Division Review 12/22/86 j Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed -
j 12/23/87 l Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable d
Proposed Action to EDO 12/30/87 Proposed Action to Commission 01/13/88 SECY-88-10
- Commission Approval on Proposed Action 02/22/88
) Proposed Action Published 03/15/88 53 FR 8460 Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 05/16/88 ,
2 Proposed Action Public Comment Period Extended to 08/16/88 53 FR 18096 Final Action for Division Review 12/28/88 4
Final Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable l Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 04/06/89
. Final Action to EDO 06/12/89
! Final Action to Commission 06/28/89 SECY-89-194 i SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
, Final Action Published 08/10/89 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
i j
4 t i
. I na
. ._ __ __m ~ ._ __. .. .. .- . _ _ _ _ - . ._
. s
'N s.
Ls v %)-
s ,e .
RDB NUMBER: RM128 LATEST UPDATE: 07/25/89
~
TITLE:
Licensing and Radiation Safety Requirements for Large Irradiators (Priority 1)
'CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 36 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:
Stephen A. McGuire Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of. Nuclear Regulatory Research 1 Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3757 ABSTRACT: .
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is developing regulations to specify radiation safety requirements and license -
requirements for the use of licensed radioactive materials in l arge irradiators. Irradiators use gamma radiation to 1 irradiate products to change their characteristics in some I way. The requirements would apply to large panoramic irradiators (those in which the radioactive sources and the material being irradiated are in a room that is accecsible to personnel while the source is shielded) and certain large self-contained irradiators in which the source always remains under water. The rule would not cover small self-contained 1 irradiators, instrument calibrators, medical uses of sealed sources (such as teletherapy), or non-destructive testing (such as industrial radiography).
The alternative to a regulation is continuing to license irradiators on a case-by-case basis using license conditions.
The. formalization would make the NRC's requirements better understood and possibly speed the licensing of irradiators.
Development of the rule will require 2 staff-years of NRC effort.
-CURRENT STATUS:
The proposed rulemaking package was f orwarded to the EDO on l July 19, 1989.
, 58
.~
,e **
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED QCTIONS:
Rulemaking-Initiation Date'(EDO Approval) 05/05/8P Proposed Action for RES Director Review' 01/11/89 Proposed Action for Office Review 01/18,'89 Proposed Action to ACRS 01/18/89 Proposed Action to CRGR--Not Applicable Proposed Action to EDO .07/19/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to' Commission 07/31/89 Proposed Action Published 08/31/89
. Final Action Published 05/05/90 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates.- Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader. estimates.
l l-l ..
l l
d
~
. ..*. . . '
- v k~
s s s . .
RDB NUMBER: RM148 LATEST UPDATE: 07/27/89 ;
t
~~
TITLE:
Nucl ear Plant '.icense Renewal .
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 l LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 l
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No f AGENCY CONTACT:
Donald P. Cleary i Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research i Washington, DC 20555 l 301 492-3936 j ABSTRACT: j License renewal rulemaking to provide regulatory requirements '
i for extending nuclear power plant licenses beyond 40 years -
was initiated in response to the Commission's 1986 and 1987 policy and planning guidance. Current regulatory provisions -
permit license renewal but do not provide requirements for the form and content of a license renewal application nor the ,
standards of acceptability against which the application will be reviewed. This rulemaking is scheduled for_ completion i prior to the anticipated submittal of license renewal applications for Yankee Rowe and Monticello in 1991. The ;
rule will provide the basis f or development and review of these two " lead plant" applicants and the concurrent development of implementing regulatory guidance._ Timely completion of the rule is critical for establishing standards for continued safe operation of power reactors during the license renewal term and providing the regulatory stability desired by utilities in determining whether to prepare f or license renewal or pursue alternative sources of generating capacity.
CURRENT STATUS:
An advance notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on August 29, 1988 (53 FR 32919). A summary of' comments was published as NUREG/CR-5332 in March 1989.
Drafts of the proposed rule, the regulatory analesis, and the environmental assessment are undergoing staff review. By direction of the EDO, the staff has revised the schedule to provide for an expended setpe and content. On June 22, 1989,
'the Commission was briefed on the status of this rulemaking and current staff plans.
60 l 1
l
~
- * *- , ,~, l 4
,.,+
&9 4 a (m)
'v (j) s i
l TIMETABLE: I COMPLETED ACTIONS: j ANPRM Published 08/29/88 53 FR 32919 i ANPRM Public Comment Period End 10/28/88 I Commission Briefing 06/22/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS: l Proposed Action to ACRS and CRGR 07/02/90 j Proposed Action to EDO 09/03/90 1 Proposed Action to Commission 10/01/90 l Proposed Action Published 12/03/90 j Final Action Published 04/30/92 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
1 e i e +
l l
i l
l l
t l
61 C