ML20147J260
| ML20147J260 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/29/1988 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0936, NUREG-0936-V06-N04, NUREG-936, NUREG-936-V6-N4, NUDOCS 8803090295 | |
| Download: ML20147J260 (115) | |
Text
- - - - - - - - -
NUREG-0936 Vol. 6, No. 4 NRC Regulatory Agenda Quarterly Report October - December 1987 i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornmission Office of Administration and Resources Management n
,s,
f '
e.
l ke,2es N
s NOTICE j
Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources:
- 1. The NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20555
- 2. The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Post Office Box 37082, j
Washington, DC 20013 7082
- 3. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications, it is not intended to be exhaustive.
Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Docu-ment Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation notices; Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and licensee documents and correspondence.
The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the GPO Sales Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceedings, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances.
Documents available from the National Technical Information Service include NUREG series reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Feders/ Register not:ces, federal and state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.
Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations,and non NRC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited.
Single copies of NRC draft reports are available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request to the Division of Information Support Services, Distribution Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, and are available there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the American National Standards Institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.
NUREG-0936 Vol. 6, No. 4 NRC Regulatory Agenda Quarterly Report October - December 1987 Manuscript Completed: February 1988 Date Published: February 1988 Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration and Resources Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
,,>. ~. s, s
/
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I - RULES (A) Rules on which final action has been taken Page since September 30, 1987 i
Update of Freedom of Information Act Procedures and Other Minor Amendments (Parts 2, 9)............................................
1 Fee Schedule Change for NRC "U" and "Q" Access Authorizations (Parts 11, 25).....................................................
2 Completeness and Accuracy of Information Provided to the Comission (Parts 30, 40, 50, 55, 60, 61, 70, 71, 72, 150)....................
3 Regional Nuclear Materials Licensing for the U.S. Navy (Parts 30, 40, 70).................................................
4 Revision of List of Non-Agreement States in Region III (Parts 30, 40, 70).................................................
5*
Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Ground Water Protection and Other Issues (Part 40)...................................................
6 Broad Scope Modification of General Design Criterion 4 Requirements For Protection Against Dynamic Effects of Postulated Pi Ruptures (Part 50).................................pe 7
Consideration of Emergency Planning Rule Changes to Deal With Lack of Governmental Cooperation in Offsite Emergency Planning (Part 50)..........................................................
8 Minor Nomenclature Amendment (Part 150).................................
9*
(B) Prcposed Rules Revision to Ex Parte and Separation of Functions Rules Applicable to Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings (Parts 0, 2)....................
11 Procedures Involving (the Equal Access to Justice Act:
Implementation Parts 1, 2)........................................
12 Hodifications to the NRC Hearing Process (Limited Interrogatories and Factual Basis for Contentions) (Part 2)........................
13 iii
fa2' a
Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings-- Procedural Changes in Hearing Process (Part 2)................................
14 Issuance or Amendment of Power Reactor License or Permit Following Initial Decision (Part 2)................................
15 Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste (Parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 51, 70, 72, 73, 75, 150)...............................................................
16 Retention Periods for Records (Parts 4, 11, 21, 25, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35,40,50,60,61,70,71)........................................
18 Standards for Protection Against Radiation (Part 20)....................
20 Informal Hearing Procedures for Materials Licenses Proceedings (Parts 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 50, 61, 70, 71, 72).................
22 General Requirements for Decomissioning Nuclear Facilities
' (Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, 72).....................................
23 Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive Materials Licensees (Parts 30, 40, 70).............................
25 Control of Aerosols and Gases (Part 35).................................
26 Basic Quality Assurance in Radiation Therapy (Part 35)..................
26-a Station Blackout (Part 50)..............................................
27 Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors (Part 50, Appendix J).............................e.
29 Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) for Light Water Nuclear Power Reacters (Part 50).......................
21 Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (Part 50)..................
33 Backfit Requirement for Senior Operators at Nuclear Power Plants (Part 50)..........................................................
34 Table S-3, Addition of Radon-222 and Technetium-99 Radiation Values and Addition of Appendix B "Table S-3 Explanatory Analysis" (Part 51)..........................................................
35 iv
.P qg JL Elimination of Inconsistencies Between NRC Regulations and EPA Standards (Part 60)................................................
37 Criteria and Procedures for Emergency Access to Non-Federal and Regional Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities (Part 62)......................
38 Safeguards Requirements for Fuel Facilities Possessing (Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material Part 73).........
39
- Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (Part 140).............
40 (C) - Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern: Generic Rulemaking (Parts 2, 20)......................................................
41 Comprehensive Quality Assurance in Medical Use and a Standard of Care (Part 35).....................................................
42 Degree Requirement for Senior Operators at Nuclear Power Plants (Parts 50, 55).....................................................
43 Definition of High-Level Radioactive Waste (HLW) in 10 CFR Part 60 (Part 60)..........................................................
44 (D) - Unpublished Rules Revised Rules of Practico for Domestic Licensing Proceedings (Parts 0, 1, 2, 9, 50).............................................
45 C~ange of Region I Address (Parts 1, 20, 30, 40, 55, 70, 73)............
46
- n Availability of Official Records (Part 2)...............................
47 Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC Approved Casks at Civilian Nuclear Power Reactor Sites (Parts 2, 51, 72)......................
48
- i i
i i
i l
l v
i
P.ag_e a
Negotiated Rulemaking on the Submission and Management of Records and Documents Related to the Licensing of a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste (Parts 2, 60).........
49 Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Federal Assisted Programs (Part 4)........................................
50
- Deletion of Part 11 Requirement for Renewal of "R" Clearances (Part 11 ).........................................................
51 Residual Radioactive Contamination Limits for Decommissioning (Part 20)..........................................................
52 Disposal of Low-Level Radioactively Contaminated Waste Oil from Nuclear Power Plants (Part 20).....................................
53 Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance (Parts 21, 50)..............
54 Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Exposure Devices CPart 34)..........................................................
56 Diagnostic Misadministration Report Form (Part 35).....................
58
- Criteria for Licensing the Long-Term Custody and Maintenance of Uranium Mill Tailings Sites (Part 40)..............................
59 Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 (Part 50)..........................................................
60 Amendment to Clarify Equivalent Control Capacity for Standby Liquid Control Systems (SLCS) (Part 50),..................................
62
- Alternative Methods for Leakage Rate Testing (Part 50)..................
63 Personnel Access Authorization Progran (Part of Insider Package)
(Parts 50, 73).....................................................
64 Part 51; Conforming Amendments (Parts 51, 60)...........................
65 Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licensees for Nuclear Power Reactors (Part 52).....................
66 l
vi
i
.P__agt Transportation Regulations:
Com Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)patibility With the International (Part 71)..............................
67 General Criteria for Security Personnel (Part 73)......................
68
- Amendment to Assign NRC Sole Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal (Part 150)..........................................
69 vii
SECTION II - PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING (A) - Petitions incorporated into final rules or petitions denied since September 30, 1987 Fire Protection Standards for Graphite Reactors (PRM-50-44)...................................................
71 (B) - Petitions incorporated into proposed rules NONE (C) - Petitions pending staff
- view Reactor Safety Measures (PRM-50-20)................................
73 Establishing an Employee Concerns Program and Resolution of Employee-Identified Concerns at Nuclear Facilities (PRM-50-47).....
75 Population Density Criteria Near Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-100-2)...................................................
76 (D) - Petitions with deferred action Licensing the Possession of Uranium Mill Tailings at Inactive Storage Sites (PRM-40-23)......................................
79 l
Revised Criteria for Operation of Uranium Mills and Disposition of Tailings or Wastes (PRM-40-24)..............................
81 Regulations Governing Unimportant Quantities of Source Material (PRM-40-25)...........................................
82 Emergency Preparedness (PRM-50-31)..................................
83 Extending the Emergency Planning Zone (PRM-50-45)...................
84 Emergency Planning (PRM-50-46)......................................
85
}
iX l
Preface The Regulatory Agenda is a quarterly compilation of all rules on which the NRC has proposed, or is considering action as well es those on which it has recently completed action, and all petitions for rulemaking which have been received and are pending disposition by the Comission.
Organization of the Agenda The agenda consists of two sections. Both sections have been u) dated through December 31, 1987.Section I, "Rules" includes:
(A) Rules on w11ch final action has been taken since September 30, 1987, the closing date of the last NRC Regulatory Agenda, (B) Rules published previously as proposed rules on which the Commission has not taken final action, (C) Rules published as advance notices of proposed rulemaking for which neither a proposed nor fir.a1 rule has been issued; and (D) Unpublished rules on which the NRC expects to take action.
Section II, "Petitions for Rulemaking" includes: (A) Petitions denied or incor-porated into final rules since September 30, 1987, (B) Petitions incorporated into proposed rules, (C) Petitions pending staff review, and (D) Petitions with deferred action.
In Section I of the agenda, the rules are ordered from lowest to highest part within Title 10_C_ ode of Federal Regulations (10 CFR).
If more than one rule appears under the same part, the rules are arranged within the part by date of most recent publication.
If a rule amends multiple parts, the rule is listed under the lowest affected part.
In Section II of the agenda, the petitions are ordered from lowest to highest part of 10 CFR and are identified with a j
petition for rulemaking (PRH) number.
If more than one petition appears under the same CFR part, the petitions are arranged by PRM numbers in consecutive order within the part of 10 CFR.
The dates listed under the heading "Timetable" for scheduled action by the Comission or the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) on particular rules or petitions are considered tentative and are not binding on the Commission or its staff.
They are included for planning purposes only. This Regulatory Agenda is published to provide increased notice and public participation in the rule-making proceedings included on the agenda.
The NRC may, however, consider or act on any rulemaking proceeding even if it is not included in this Regulatory Agenda.
Rulemakings Approved by the Executive Director for Operations (EDO)
The Executive Director for Operations (EDO) initiated a procedure for the review of the regulations being prepared by staff offices that report to him to ensure that staff resources were being allocated to achieve most effectively NRC's regulatory priorities. S is procedure requires EDO appreval before staff resources may be expended on the development of any new rulemaking. Furthermore, all existing rules must receive EDO approval prior to the comitment of additional resources.
xi
1 Rules that have received ED0 approval to date are ident$fied as indicated 1-RULES -
below. As additional rules receive EDO approval, they will be identified in subsequent editions of this agenda.
Those unpublished rules whose further development has been terninated will be noted in this edition of the agerta l
and deleted from subsequent editions. Rules whose termination was directed l
subsequent to publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking will be remcVed from the agenda after publication of a notice of withdrawal.
Spbols l
l Rules that appear on the agenda for the first time are identified by an l
asterisk (*).
Rdles that have been approved by the EDO are identified by the
)
synbol (+).
Public Participation in Rulemaking 1
Comments on any rule in the agenda may be sent to the Secretary of the Comission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch.
Coments may also be hand delivered to Room 1131, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC between 8:15 a.m. and 5:15 Comments received on rules for which the coment period has closed will
).m.
se considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to coments received on or before the closure dates specified in the agenda.
The agenda and any coments received on any rule listed on the agenda are available for public inspection, and copying at a cost of five cents per page, at the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Single copies of this agenda may be purch. sed from the l
U.S. Government Printing, Office (GPO).
Customers may call (200 275-2060 or (202) 275-2171 or write to the Superintendent of Documents, U $. Government Printing Office, Post Office Box 37082, Washington, D.C. 20013-FNA.
i Additional Rulemaking Information For further information concerning NRC rulemaking procedures or the status of
{
any rule listed in this agenda, contact Alzonia Shepard, Rules and Procedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone (301) 492-7086; persons outside the Washington, DC metropolitan area may call toll-free: 800-368-5642. For further information on the substantive content of any rule listed in the agenda, contact the individual listed under the heading "contact" for that rule, i
a xii
?
(A) Rules on which final action has'been taken since i
SeptembeF 30, 1987 l
i f
l V,
a
-a,--m--a-a m
-a--_---
maama_a-.-L-,,-am-s
--aua-e aAmm aA
.---,A
.,2- - --
A 1
i l
l t
i l1 i
I e
d l
1 I
1
'l g.
i 9
l i
e i
b a
i i
4 k
t e
t i
i a
i i
1 l
l TITLE
+ Update of Freedom of Information Act Procedures and Other Minor Amendments CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2; 9 ABSTRACT:
k The final rule revises Parts 2 and 9 to reflect changes in j
the Freedom of Information Act.
This action is being taken to comply with Pub. L.99-570, "Freedom of Information Reform Act of 1986,"
signed into law by the President on October 1986. These amendments also reflect current NRC onganizational structure, current agency practice and delegation.
The revision will also reduce the repetition of statutory requirem nts.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 12/31/87 52 FR 49350 Final Action Effective 02/01/88 52 FR 49350 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 5 USC 552; 31 USC 9701; 5 USC 552a; 5 USC 552b FFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Donnie H. Grimsley Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Administration and Resources Management Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7211 1
TITLE:
Fee Schedule Change for NRC "U" and "Q" Access Authorizations CFR CITATION:
(
10 CFR 11, 25 ABSTRACT:
The final rule increases the fees for NRC "U" and "Q" access authorizations charged to NRC licensees and others applying for access authorizations which require full field background investigations.
The final amendments also require that the title of the NRC point of contact, in the event a request for an incividual's access authorization is withdrawn or cancelled, be changed to read Chief, Personnel Security Branch, NRC Division of Security.
The final amendments are in response to the Office of Personnel Management's Notification of an increase in cost to conduct back-ground investigations.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 11/20/87 52 FR 44513 Final Action Effective 11/20/87 52 FR 44593 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 2273 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Duane G. Kidd Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration and Resources Management Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4124 2
I l
l
TITLE:
Completeness and Accuracy of Information Provided to the Commission CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 55; 10 CFR 60; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 71; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 150 ABSTRACT:
TJe final rule requires all licensees and applicants for li'enses to provide the Commission with complete and accurate in?.rmation, to provide for disclosure of information identified by licensees as significant for licensed activities and to define those circumstances when inaccurate or incomplete information will be considered by the Commission as material false statements.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 12/31/87 52 FR 49362 Final Action Effective 02/01/88 52 FR 49362 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2021a; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5851; 42 USC 10141; 42.USC 2273; 42 USC 2201(o)
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTilER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Mary Wagner Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1683 3
l
TITLE:
Regicaal Nuclear Materials Licensing for the U.S. Navy CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70 ABSTRACT:
The final rule amends provisions concerning the domestic licensing of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials.
The final rule is intended to provide information about the further implementation of NRC's decentralized licensing program. This amendment implements another phase of the process by transferring the newly consolidated U.S. Navy license to Region II.
The final rule does not have any cost impact on NRC, the licensee or the public.
l TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 10/16/87 52 FR 38391 Final Action Effective 12/01/87 52 FR 38391 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: N/A AGENCY CONTACT:
George J. Deegan Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4114 4
TITLE:
- Revision of List of Non-Agreement States in Region III l
CFR CITATION 10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70 i
ABSTRACT:.
The final rule amends the Commission's regulations to reflect the removal of Illinois and towa from the list of non-Agreement States in Region III because Iowa became an Agreement State in 1986 and Illinois became an Agreement State in 1987. These amendments are necessary to inform the public and affected licensees of the change in status of the two States.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 12/18/87 52 FR 48092 Final Action Effective 12/18/87 52 FR 48092 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Donnie H. Grimsley Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration and Resources Management Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7211 5
TITLE:
+ Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Ground Water Protection and Other Issues CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 40 ABSTRACT:
The final rule incorporates groundwater standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency for uranium mill tailings into NRC regulations. This action is necessary to make NRC regulations conform to EPA standards as required by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 11/13/87 52 FR 43553 Final Action Effective 12/14/87 52 FR 43553 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 7901 Note EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Kitty S. Dragonette Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, D.C. 20555 301 427-4763 1
6 1
l
i TITLE:
+ Broad Scope Modification of General Design Criterion 4 Requirements For Protection Against Dynamic Effects of Postulated Pipe Ruptures CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The final broad scope modification of General Design Criterion' 4 (GDC 4) allows demonstration of piping integrity by j
analyses to serve as a basis for excluding consideration of l
dynamic effects associated with pipe ruptures. A final rule published April 11, 1986 (51 FR 12502) was limited to the primary l
loops of pressurized water reactors (PWRs), whereas this final rule would cover-all high energy piping in all light water reactors (LWRs). The modification permits the general but selective removal of pipe whip restraints and jet impingement shields and other related changes in operating plants, plants under construction, and future plant designs, but will not impact other design requirements for containment design or ECCS performance. Alternative equipment qualification requi'ements developed by industry based on leak-before-break may be submitted to the NRC for review and approval in a limited number of applications.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 10/28/87 52 FR 41288 Final Action Effective 11/27/87 52 FR 41288 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
John A. O'Brien Nuclear Regulatory Conynission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3928 I
l 7
TITLE:
Consideration of Emergency Planning Rule Changes to Deal With Lack of Governmental Cooperation in Offsite Emergency Planning CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The final rule, in limited circumstances, allows a full power nuclear plant operation to begin when there is a lack of State or local government cooperation in offsite emergency planning.
In earlier regulations, the Commission published revised emergency planning regulations which required that emergency plans be developed by licensees in cooperation with State and local governments.
Although the Commission acknowledged the possibility that some governments might not cooperate, the Commission premised the new rules on a coordinated effort among all parties. Because this coordination has proved impossible to achieve in a few isolated cases, this final rulemaking is intended to cover those cases not contemplated by the 1980 amendments. The amendments will probably not impact on NRC resources.
Industry may experience a positive financial effect in the earlier operation of nuclear power plants already completed but currently non-operational due to local and/or state government non-cooperation. The public may be affected in that there may be less coordinated offsite emergency 31anning as compared to sites where full coordination has been ac11eved.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 11/03/87 52 FR 42078 Final Actin Effective 12/03/87 52 FR 42078 LEGAL AUTHORITY 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Peter Crane Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 634-1465 8
1
TITLE:
- Minor Nomenclature Amendment CFR CITATI0ll:
10 CFR 150 ABSTRACT:
The final rule amends the Commission's regulations to correct an oversight that was made when a final rule regarding the NRC's organizational structure was recently published in the Federal Register. The amendment corrects references to a now defunct unit of the agency and informs the public and affected licensees of the nomenclature changes.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 10/30/87 52 FR 41699 Final Action Effective 10/30/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SHALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Donnie H. Grimsley Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration and Resources Managenent Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7211 i
l l
9
l l
% Proposed guye, 1
1
_a...
a2...-
A-..
.-.-- _.amh-.aA+hma
_e_..
.-.6 a__
__h_4aaam_namhq.ma h,m.aa.a.
_m_w.Am.h-_Je4-.a.
.w.4hm.m.a._A. _
- _.wa..-_
a, a
1 i
I 4
h I
I J
s l
t l
I L
l l
I I
i 6
b l
l l
I i
i
TITLE:
Revision to Ex Parte and Separation of Functions Rules Applicable to Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings CFR CITATION:
The proposed rule would amend the Comission's regulations dealing with ex parte comunications and separation of adjudicatory and nonadjudicatory functions in formal adjudicatory proceedings by updating the ageiicy's rules of practice and incorporating requirements imposed by the Government in the Sunshine Act. Changes are proposed in both the form and the substance of the existing rules to clarify their meaning and to aid agency adjudicatory officials in maintaining effective communication with NRC staff personnel and persons outside the agency while at the same time ensuring that proceedings will be conducted fairly and impartially.
This proposed rule supersedes a prior proposed rule entitled, "Ex Parte Communications and Separation of Adjudicatory and Non Adjudicatory Functions," published March 7, 1979 (44 FR 12428).
TlHETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 03/26/86 51 FR 10393 Proposed Action Ccmment Period End 06/26/86 51 FR 19067 Final Action 02/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
5 USC 554(d); 5 USC 557(d)
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Paul Bollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-3224 i
l l
i 11 1
TITLE:Procedures Involving the Equal Access to Justice Act:
Implementation CFR CITATION:
ABSTRACT:
The p(roposed rule would implement the Equal Access to Justice Act EAJA) by providing for the paynent of fees and expenses to certain eligible individuals ard businesses that prevail in in agency adjudications when the agency's position is determined not to have been substantially justified. This proposed regulation is modelled after rules issued by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) and have been modified to conform to NRC's established rules of practice.
The proposed rule would further the EAJA's intent to develop government-wide, "uniform" agency regulations and would describe NRC procedures and requirements for the filing and disposition of EAJA applications.
A draft final rule was sent to the Cerenission in June 1982, but Commission action was suspended pending a decision by the Comptroller General on the availability of funds to pay awards to intervenor parties.
This issue was also the subject of litigation in Business and Professional People for the Public Interest v. NRC, 793 F.2d 1356 (D.C. Cir. 1956).
This litigation is being evaluated to determine what if any changes may be necessary in the proposed rule.
Additionally, in August 1985, the President signed into law an enactment renewing the EAJA after its expiration under a statutory sunset requirement. This legislation, Pub. L. No. 99-80, revises the EAJA and these revisions are being evaluated to determine whether further conforming changes may be necessary in the proposed rule.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 10/28/81 46 FR 53189 Proposed Action Corrnent Period End 11/28/81 46 FR 53189 Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
5 USC 504 4
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Paul Bo11werk Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-3224 12
TITLE:
Modifications to the NRC Hearing Process (Limited Interrogatories and Factual Basis for Contentions)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would expedite conduct of NRC adjudicatory proceedings by requiring intervenors in formal NRC hearings to set forth the facts on which contentions are based and the sources or documents used to establish those facts and limit the number of interrogatories that a party may file in an NRC proceeding. The proposed rule would expedite the hearing arecess by, among other things, requiring intervenors to set forti at the outset the facts upon which their contention is based and the supporting' documentation to give other parties early notice of intervenor s case so as to afford opportunity for early dismissal of contentions where there is no factual dispute. Expediting the hearing process should ultimately provide cost savings to all participants in the process. The content of this rule is being considered as part of the regulatory reform rulemaking package.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 06/08/81 46 FR 30349 Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2239 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Trip Rothschild Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 l
202 634-1465 z
l 13 l
1
TITLE:Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings-- Procedural Charges in Hearing Process CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) is considering amendments to its rules of practice which address the following aspects of the hearing process: admission of contentions, discovery against NRC staff, use of cross examination plans, timing of motions for surrnary disposition and limitations on matters and issues that may be included in proposed findings of fact or conclusions of latt, or in an appellate brief submitted by a person who does not have the burden of proof or who has only a limited interest in the proceeding.
These proposals were initially developed by the Regulatory Reform Task Force and published for public coment, together with a number of other proposals, as suggestions for p(rocedural changes in the licensing of nuclear power plants 49 FR 14698; April 12, 1984). The Comission las decided not to proceed with the April 1984 proposals, except to the exteht that they were included in this proposed rule.
Therefore, the April 1984 proposals have been deleted from the regulatory agenda.
The NRC is also considering related amendments on the process of intervention that were developed by Cemissioner Asselstine.
The staff is analyzing pubic corsnents recehed on the proposals and expects to forward a recomendation for the Comission's consideration.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 07/03/86 51 FR 24365 Proposed Action Cement Period Extended to 10/17/86 51 FR 31340 Final Action 07/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
i Jane R. Mapes i
Nuclear Regulatory Comission i
Office of the General Counsel 3
Washington, DC 20555 301 492-6142 14 i
TITLE:
Issuance or Amendment c.f Power Reactor License or Permit Following Initial Decision CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend the Comission's "imediate effectiveness" regulation that specifies when an initial adjudicatory decision authorizing the issuance or amendment of a license or permit becomes effective.
The proposed rule would (1) remove the existing provision governing the effectiveness of initial decisions regarding power reactor construction permits and (2) revise the Comission's existing practice regarding "effectiveness reviews" for full-power operating licenses.
The proposed rule also would delete language in the existing reculation emanating from Three Mile Island-related regulatory policies, action upon which has now been completed.
l The proposed rule supersedes two prior proposed rules entitled l
"Possible Amendments to 'Immediate Effectiseness' Rules," published May 22, 1980 (45 FR 43279), and "Commission Review Procedures for Power Reactor Construction Permits; Immediate Effectiveness Rule," published Octcber 25, 1982 (47 FR 47260).
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 02/04/87 52 FR 3442 Proposed Action Coment Period End 05/06/87 52 FR 11475 Final Action 04/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Paul Bollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel Washingten. DC 20555 202 634-3224 l
15
TITLE:
+ Licensing Requirements for the~ Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 19; 10 CFR 20; 10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 75; 10 CFR 150 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would revise existing regulations to establish specific licensing requirements for the storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a monitored retrievable storage installation (MRS). This revision is intended to ensure that the Comission has in place the appropriate regulations to fulfill the requirements contained in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 concerning the licensing of facilities which could be part of the MRS program.
Paragraph (d) of Section 141 of the NWPA provides that any monitored retrievable storage installation pursuant to Section 141 shall be subject to licensing by the Comission. The Comission could await further development of the MRS option before proposing its MR$ rules. However, this approach could result in unnecessary delay in reviewing a license application if Congress authorizes construction of an MRS.
There is no ap3ropriate alternative to rulemaking, the vehiclo used by NRC to esta>11sh its licensing procedures.
The basic requirements for storage of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) currently codified in 10 CFR Part 72 are not being changed, thus no incremental impact on NRC, industry, or the health and safety of the public is anticipated.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 05/27/86 51 FR 19106 Proposed Action Coment Period End 08/25/86 Final Action to EDO 11/30/87 Final Action to Comission 12/15/87 Final Action Published 02/29/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2021; 42 USC 2071; 42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2077; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2099; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2234; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2237; 42 USC 2282 i
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No 16 i
4 e
TITLE:
+ Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste AGENCY CONTACT:
Keith Steyer/ Charles Nilsen Nuclear Regulatory Comission 4
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research i
Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3824/3834 1
l I
t r
t 1
r i
t i
L 1
17 I
TITLE:
Retention Periods for Records CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 4; 10 CFR 11; 10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 25; 10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 31; 10 CFR 32; 10 CFR 34; 10 CFR 35; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 60; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 71...
A85 TRACT:
This proposed rule would establish a specific retention period for certain NRC-required records. It would also provide a uniform standard acceptable to the NRC for the. condition of a record throughout a specified retention period. Further, the rule would establish throughout NRC regulations, with some exceptions, uniforn retention periods of three years, five years, ten years, and the life of a license. This rule would bring NRC regulations into ccmpliance with the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR 1320.6) that requires a specified retention period for each required record. It also implements NRC's 1982 comitment to OMB to establish a record retention period of determinable length for each required record.
Amending twenty one parts of NRC regulations to specify cicarly what records to retain, how long to retain them, and the condition of a record useful for NRC inspection, will be mutually beneficial to applicants and licensees and to the NRC.
Recordkeeping labor for NRC's approximately 6,700 licensees who would be affected by the rule can be divided into four functions: (1) files, and (4) preparing the report, (2) storing the report, (3) retrieving the report information.
The principal savings to the licensee, dispersed over the l
period licensed, would be in physical storage space and associated storage equipment and materials. The burden of recordkeeping would be reduced approximately 10 percent annually for these licensees by the proposed rule. An estimated 466,323 hours0.00374 days <br />0.0897 hours <br />5.340608e-4 weeks <br />1.229015e-4 months <br /> associated with recordkeeping or $28,000,000 annually would be saved. Preparing and publishing this rule would cost NRC approximately 3000 hours0.0347 days <br />0.833 hours <br />0.00496 weeks <br />0.00114 months <br /> of staff time at $60 per hour for an estimated total of $180,000.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 10/28/87 52 FR 41442 Proposed Action Comment Period End 12/20/87 52 FR 41442 Final Action Published 02/28/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201 18 l
F TITLE:
i Retention Periods for Records EFFECTS Off SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Brenda Shelton Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Administration and Resources Management Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8132
- l i
h i
)
l l
i s
I
'f P
i f
I I
19
TITLE:
+ Standards for Protection Against Radiation CFR CITATION-10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:
i Radiation protection philosophy and technology have changed markedly since the present Part 20 was promulgated nearly 30 years ago. Since Part 20 contains the NRC standards for 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 i
actions occur through licensing actions independent of Part 20. A Jl complete revision is necessary to >rovide better assurance of protection against radiation; este>11sh a clear health protection basis for the limits; reflect current information on health risk, j
dosimetry, and radiation protection practices and experience; provide NRC with a health protection base from which it may consider other regulatcry actions taken to protect public health; be consistent with recomendations of world authorities (ICRP);
i and apply to all licensees in a consistent manner, i
i i
Alternatives to the complete revision considered were no i
action; c'elay for further guidance, and partial revision of the standards.
These were rejected as ignoring scientific i
i advancements; being unresponsive to international and national i
guidance; and correcting only some of the recognized problems j
]
with the present Part 20.
)
Benefits wculd include u) dating the regulations to reflect i
i contemporary scientific (nowledge and radiation protection philosophy; implementing regulations which reflect the ICRP risk-based rationale; reducing lifetime doses to individuals i
receiving the highest exposures; implementing provisions for sumation of doses from internal and external exposures; i
providing clearly identified dose limits for the public; providing an understandable health-risk base for protection; and j
j placing constraints on collective dose evaluations at levels where risks are trifles.
Initial estimates of the cost of implementing the revision is about $33 million for all NRC and Agreement State licensees in l
the initial year and about $8 million in each subsequent year.
1 This cost does not include any savings which might also be realized j
by the revision, i
i
)
20
TITLE!
+ Standards for Protection Against Radiation TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 03/20/80 45 FR 18023 ANPRM Comment Period End 06/18/80 45 FR 18023 Proposed Action Published 12/20/85 50 FR 51992 Proposed Action Connwnt Period End 05/12/86 51 FR 1092 Proposed Action Connent Period Extended to 10/31/86 Final Action for Division Review 01/15/88 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 04/21/88 Final Action Package to EDO 06/15/88 Final Action to Commission 06/30/88 Final Action Published 07/30/88 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 58al; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SFMLL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Harold T. Peterson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washingten DC 20555 301 492-3738 i
I 21 I
l TITLE:
Informal Hearing Procedures for Materials Licenses Proceedings CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 32; 10 CFR 33; 10 CFR 34; 10 CFR 35; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 71; 10 CFR 72 ABSTRACT:
This proposed rule, being prepared at Cemission direction, would l
provide comprehensive treatment of hearing procedures to be l
implemented by the Comission for materials licensing proceedings.
In addition, the proposed rule would encompass the objective of the proposed rule, "Jurisdiction of Adjudicatory Boards," identified as 3150-AA53, which has been deleted from i
OM8's Unified Agenda.
There are no reasonable alternatives to rulemaking for implementing these informal hearing 3rocedures.
1 The procedures are expected to reduce the economic aurden imposed on a participant in a proceeding.
l TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 05/29/87 52 FR 20089 i
Proposed Action Comment Period End 08/28/67 52 FR 27821 Final Action 03/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2111 EFFECTS ON SHALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
ho AGENCY CONTACT:
l Paul Bo11werk Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-3224 22
TITLE:
+ General Requirements for Decomissioning Nuclear Facilities 3
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72 ABSTRACT:
i The proposed rule is intended to protect public health and safety )y providing assurance that licensees fulfill their responsibility to dispose of licensed material including any associated contamination when they cease Itcensed activity.
The propored rule also intends to provide the' applicant or licensee with appropriate regulatory guidance for implementing and accomplishing nuclear facility decomissioning.
It is necessary to address this issue by amending the regulations in or' der to achieve appropriate assurances that funds for decomissioning will be availabic and the decomissioning will be carried out in an orderly manner. The Comission has indicated a need for this rulemaking in other previous rulemakings.
The major cost impact of the proposed rule would involve proper planning at all stages of nuclear fccility operation. Proper planning includes providing for (1) financial assurance that funding will be availeble for decomissioning, (2) maintenance of records that could affect decomissioning, and (3) careful planning of procedures at the time of decomissioning. For non-reactor facilities affected by financial assurance requirements, it is estimated that the major impact will result in an aggregate expenditure of 21 staff-years ($1.6 million) spread over 5 years (or $320,000 per year).
j For the approximately 110 nower reactors estimated to be affected 1
(i.e., those with operating licenses and those under construction which are at least two-thirds complete) plus 75 research and test 4
reactors, it is estimated that the major impact will result in an aggregate expenditure of 3.8 staff-years ($288,000) spread over 3 years. These expenditures will ensure that adequate measures have been taken to protect the health and safety of occupational workers, the public, and the environnent within the confires of optimum cost benefit consideration.
TIMETABLE:
ANFRM 03/13/78 43 FR 10370 Proposed Action Published 02/11/85 50 FR 5600 Proposed Action Coment Perind End 07/12/85 50 FR 23025
)
Final Action for Division Review 11/15/86 i
Office Corcurrence on Final Action Ccmpleted 03/27/87 Final Action to E00 08/26/87 Final Action to Comission 12/15/87 Final Action Published 01/31/88 23 l
l
=-.
i TITLE.
+ General Requirements for Decomissioning Nuclear Facilities t
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201 l
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
Yes AGENCY CONTACT Keith G. Steyer/ Frank Cardile Fuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 1
Washington, DC 20555 i
301 492-3824/3817 i
3 L
I t
4 4
W l
4 4
1 n
1 i
i 24 d
y.
I TITLE:
+ Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive Materials Licensees CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would require about 30 fuel cycle and other
)
radioactive materials licensees to submit an emergency plan that would, among other actions, require the notification of local authorities in case of an accident and that the licensee recomend protective actions for the public.
The proposed rule is intended to further protect the public frem accidental exposure to radiation. The affected licensees are those whose rossessico
^'
limits indicate the potential for an accident that could delivei' a radiation dose offsite exceeding one rem effective dose eovivalent or 5 rems to the thyroid or could cause a soluble uranium inhalation of 2 milligrams (a chemical toxicity hazard).
Currently the proposed requirements are, for the most part, required by order. However, the Comission decided that a regulation was 1
needed for the long term.
Tht cost of the rule to licensees was estimated to be between $26,000 and $73,000 per year per licensee.
The cost to NRC was estimated to be $4,000 per year per licensee.
The NRC will expend about 2 staff-years of effort to promulgate the rule.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 06/03/81 46 FR 29712 ANPRii Coment Period End 08/03/81 46 FR 29712 Proposed Action Published 04/20/87 52 FR 12921 Proposed Action Coment Period End 07/20/87 52 FR 12921 Final Action to EDO 02/00/88 l
Final Action to Corsnission 02/00/88 Final Action Published 03/15/88 LEGAL AUTHCRITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 i
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
3 Michael Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 11ashington, DC 20555 301 492-3918 1
25 i
i
TITLE:
+ Control of Aerosols and Gases CFR CITATION:
30 CFR 35 s
ABSTRACT-The proposed rule.is in response to PRM-35-6 which requests that the Commission remove'the requirements in Part 35 that radioactive aerosols be administered in rooms that are at negative pressure relative to surrounding rooms.
The petitioner states that the imposition of the negative room pressure requirement could have an adverse impact f
ini the delivery of health care to certain patients with pulmonary J
Utsee.se and that this requirement is unnecessary to protect workers and public health and safety.
The staff agrees and has developed a proposed rule change tu remove the' negative room pressure requirement for aerosols, r
TIMETABLE:
2 Proposed Action Published 12/16/07 52 FR 47725 Froposed Action Comment Period End 01/15/38 52 FR 47726 Final Action to EDO 06/30/88 Final Action Published 07/31/88 4
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 5841 I
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHEn ENTITIES:
No l
AGENCY CGhTACT:
Alan Roecklein Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Kegulatory Research j1 !
Washingten DC 20555 301 492-3740 l
l f
a l
4 1
1 F
26 l
i
TITLE:
Basic Quality Assurance in Radiation Therapy CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations,,
concerning the medical use of byproduct material.
The proposed amendments would' require its medical licensees to implement certain quality assurance steps that would reduce the chance of therapy misadministrations.
The proposed action is necessary to provide for improved r;Lient safety ar.d serve as a basis for enforcement action in case of a th(rapy misadministration. The proposed amendment, which is intended to reduce, the potential for and severity of therapy misadministrations, would primarily affect hospitals, clinics, and individual physicians.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 10/02/87 52 FR 36942 Proposed Action Comment Period End 12/01/87 52 FR 2G642 Fiilal Action to EDO 04/22/88 Final Action to Commission 04/30/88 Final Action Published 07/30/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No
/
f AGENCY CONTACT:
Anthony Tse Nuclear Regulatory Commission
/
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research f
Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3797 s
i t
1
\\
il l
/
/
'f I
//
I h
11
)
i i
i 26-a f
I f
\\
I
.b,
A A 4
.M-A 4-d E
4*.
a M'MJe 44S 4+% o s-
,h}
4 a
J4-
,h e.4Jw 4a.&J-a4 4
6--e+6km J
e
-9 7"'umsps E
r r
k t
6
' I a
E C
+
i o
e i
n
[
e t
f I
0 4
5 I
i k
. i1.
o I
w i
e 5
4 Y
1 4
I e
l, t
?
[---=....-...-.-.
TITLE:
+ Station Blackout CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
NRC is proposing to amend its regulations to require light water nuclear pcW r plants to be capable of withstanding a total loss of alternating current (AC) electrical power, called station blackout, to the essential and nonessential switchgear buses for a specified duration. A draft regulatory guide (RG 1.155), "Station Blackout", has been prepared and provides guidance on how to evaluate plant coping-capsbility for a specified duration. The proposed rule and Regulatory Guide were issued for comments and revised as necessary in response to coments.
In eddition, NUMARC has prepared guideline and technical basis for addressing station blackout (NUMARC-8700).
The staff has reviewed this report and has referenced use of the report for providing guidance acceptable to the staff for assessing station coping capability as required by the proposed rule (10 CFR 50.63) and the guidance provided in RG 1.155.
The propo:ed requirements were developed in response to information generated by the Comissien's study of Unresolved Safety Issue A-44, Station Blackout. The proposed rule is intended to provide further assu"'ce that a loss of both off-site, and emergency on-site electric AC tr systems will not adversely affect the public health and safety.
A regulatory analysis has been prepared for the proposed rule. The estimated public risk reduction is 145,000 person-rem over 25 years, and the estimated total cost for industry to comply with the proposed rule is
$60 million. This results in an overall cost benefit ratio of about 2,400 person-rem per million dollars.
The alternatives to this proposed rulemaking Ere to take no action or to provide only guidance for plants to be able to cope with a station blackout period for a specified period.
To take no action would not yield any reduction in public risk from station blackout events. To provide guidance only, since there is presently no requirement for nuclear power plants to be able to cope with a total loss of AC power, would not result in any basis for enforcement. The proposed rule is the recomended alternative based on its enforceability and, in part, on the favorable cost / benefit ratio.
l 27
TITLE:
+ Station Blackout TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 03/21/86 51 FR 9829 Proposed Action Coment Period End 06/19/86 51 FR 9892 Final Action for Division Review 03/05/87 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 04/06/87 Final Action to EDO 12/02/87 Final Action Published '03/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES N/A AGENCY CONTACT:
Alan Rubin /A. W. Serkiz Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8303/7487 i
l 28
\\
TITLE:
+ Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50; Appendix J 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.
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 greator 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, end occupational exposures is available in the Public Document Room, cnd indicates possible savings to industry of $14 million to $300 million and an increase in occupational exposure of less than 1 percent per year per plant due to increased testing.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 10/29/86 51 FR 39538 Proposed Action Comment Period Extended to 04/24/87 52 FR 2416 Final Action for Division Review 02/15/88 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 03/15/88 Final Action to ED0 05/15/88 Final Action Published 06/15/88 l
29
l TITLE:
l
+ Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Gunter Arndt Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301-492-3945 1
30
TITLE:
+ Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) for Light Water Nuclear Power Reactors CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend regulations concerning acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems (ECCS) by allowing the use of realistic methods to demonstrate that an ECCS would protect the nuclear reactor core during a loss-of-coolant accident.
This action is proposed because research has shown that calculations performed under current requirements greatly underestimate the ability of the ECCS to protect the core.
This restricts the operation of some nuclear reactors unnecessarily and increases the costs of generating electricity.
The proposed rule would allow use of the best information currently available to demonstrate that the ECCS would protect the reactor core dur;ng a loss-of-coolant accident.
Use of the proposed acceptance criteria could result in a 5 percent power upgrade for affected plants.
The present value of energy replacement cost savings resulting from a potential upgrade would range from $13 to $147 million depending on the location and age of a specific plant.
The proposed rule would apply to all applicants for and holders of construction permits for light water reactors.
Because the proposed rule represents a significant change in a regulatory requirement, the staff prepared and issued on May 15, 1987, a sumary of ECCS research performed over the last 10 years which identifies the technical basis for the proposed rule. A regulatory guide was also prepared and issued on April 2, 1987.
This guide provides a definition of what constitutes an acceptable best estimate model and acceptable methods of performing the uncertainty evaluatior,.
The estimated cost to the NRC of this rulemaking is 2-3 staff-years and $200,000 of contractor support.
The only option to rulemaking considered by the staff was the continued use of the current licensing approach. At best, this is viewed as an interim solution because two separate calculations are required to meet the requirements of the current regulation and staff conditions for use of the licensing approach and continued use of the approach risks case-by-case litigation.
31
TITLE:
i
+ Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) for Light Water Nuclear Power Reactors TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 12/06/78 43 FR 57157 ANPRM Comment Period Begin 12/06/78 43 FR 57157 ANPRM Comment Period End 02/05/79 Proposed Action Published 03/03/87 52 FR 6334 Proposed Action Comment Period End 07/01/87 52 FR 6334 Final Action for Division Review 01/15/88 Office Concurrence en Final Action Completed 03/15/88 Final Action to EDO 05/01/88 i
Final Action Published 06/15/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2132; 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2239; 42 USC 2282; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Harry Tovmassian Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 (301) 492-3566 32
TITLE:
+ Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plaats CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The Comission proposes to arnend its regulations to incorporate by reference the Winter 1984 Addenda, Sumer 1985 Addenda, Winter 1985 Addenda, and 1986 Edition.of Section III, Division 1, of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code), and the Winter 1983 Addenda, Sumer 1984 Addenda, Winter 1984 Addenda, Sumer 1985 Addenda, Winter 1985 Addenda, and 1986 Edition of Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME Code. A limitation is placed on the use of paragraph IWB-3640 as contained in the Winter'1983 Addenda and Winter 1984 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1.
This limitation requires that for certain types of welds, IWB-3640 be used as modified by the Winter 1985 Addenda.
The sections of the ASME Code being incorporated provide rules for the construction of light-water-cooled nuclear power plant components and specify requirements for inservice inspection of those components. Adoption of these amendments would permit the use of improved methods for construction and inservice inspection of nuclear power plants.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 06/26/87 52 FR 24015 Proposed Action Comment Period End 08/25/87 52 FR 24015 Final Action for Division Review 12/04/87 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 01/08/88 Final Action to EDO 03/15/88 Final Action Published 03/31/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 l
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Gilbert C. Millman Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3872 i
i i
33
TITLE:
Backfit Requirement for Senior Operators at Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission is considering an amendment to its rule concerning the backfitting of nuclear power plants. This rulemaking action is necessary to bring the existing backfitting rule into unambiguous conformance with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the Union of Concerned Scientist, et al. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (Nos. 85-1757 and 86-1219'(August 4, 1987)).
The rulemaking is intended to clarify when economic factors may be considered in making a decision as to whether or not a backfit requirement is imposed on a nuclear power plant.
TIHETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 9/10/87 52 FR 34223 Proposed Action Cement Period End 10/13/87 52 FR 34223 Final Action to Comission 02/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFCCTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Steven F. Crockett Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-1465 34 i
l
TITLE:
+ Table S-3, Addition of Radon-222 and Technetium-99 Radiation Values and Addition of Appendix B, "Table S-3 Explantory Analysis" CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 51 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule provides.a narrative explanation of the numerical values established in Table S-3, "Table'of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data," that appears in the Comission'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 would also modify or eliminate reference to the enrichment value of U-235 and the average level of fuel irradiation.
The narrative explanation also addresses important fuel cycle impacts and the cumulative impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle for the whole nuclear power industry so that it may be possible to censider these impacts generically rather than repeatedly in individual licensing proceedings, thus reducing litigation time and costs for both NRC and applicants.
The proposed rule regarding revision of Section 51.51 and the addition of Appendix B was published for public review and coment on March 4, 1981 (46 FR 15154). The final rulemaking was deferred pending the outcome of a suit (Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. NRC, No. 74-1486) in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The U.S. Court of A) peals (D.C. Circuit) decision of April 27, 1982, invalidated t1e entire Table S-3 rule. The Supreme Court reversed this decision on June 6, 1983.
The aroposed rule to provide a narrative explanation for Table S-3 las been revised to reflect new developments and the passage of time while the rulemaking was deferred. Final action on the Table S-3 rule was held in abeyance until new values for I
raden-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 extended to include radiction values for raden-222 and technetium-99 and the narrative explanation has been extensively revised from that published on March 4, 1981 (46 FR 15154).
The staff's estimate is that the ccepletion of a final Table S-3 rule covering the new values for raden-222 and technetium-99, and the revised narrative explanation will be completed in FY 1989.
A Comission 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 Comission.
35
TITLE:
+ Table S-3, Addition of Radon-222 and Technetium-99 Radiation Values, and Addition of Appendix B, "Table S-3 Explanatory Analysis" TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 03/04/81 46 FR 15154 Proposed Action Coment Period End 05/04/81 Proposed Action for Division Review 12/18/87 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action 12/31/87 Proposed Action to ED0/Comission 03/25/88 Proposed Action Published 05/05/88 Final Action Published 12/30/88 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:
William Pearson Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3764 4
36
TITLE:
+ Elimination of Inconsistencies Between NRC Regulations and EPA Standards CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 directs NRC to promulgate criteria for the licensing of HLW geologic 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 inconsistencies with the EPA standards, thus fulfilling the statutory requirement.
Because the NWPA directs NRC to eliminate inconsistencies between Part 60 and the EPA standard, the alternatives to the proposed action are limited by statute.
The public, industry, and NRC will benefit from eliminating l
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.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 06/19/86 51 FR 22288 t
Proposed Action Comment Period End 08/18/86 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 07/15/87 Final Action to EDO 07/20/87 i
Final Action Published Undetermined l
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Frank Costanzi/ Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3810/3857 37
TITLE:
+ Criteria and Procedures for Emergency Access to Non-Federal and Regional Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 62 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would establish procedures and criteria for fulfilling NRC's responsibilities associated with acting on requests by low-level radioactive waste generators, or State officials on behalf of those generators, for emergency access to operating, non-Federal or regional, low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities under Section 6 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA).
Section 6 of the LLRWPAA authorizes the NRC to grant emergency access to any non-Federal low-level waste disposal facility, if necessary, to eliminate the imediate and serious threat to the public health and safety or the comon defense and security, provided the threat cannot be mitigated by any alternative.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 12/15/87 52 FR 47578 Proposed Action Comment Period End 02/12/88 52 FR 47578 Office Concurrence on Final Action 05/00/88 Final Action to EDO 06/00/88 Final Action to Commission 07/00/88 Final Action Published 08/31/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2021 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Janet Lambert Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3904 38
TITLE:
- Safeguards Requirements for Fuel Facilities Possessing Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:
In a staff requirements memorandum dated June 8,1987, the Comission directed the staff to publish a proposed rule within 120 days which would implement improved safeguards requirements based on the findings of a review team which compared DOE and NRC safeguards programs (SECY-87-28; CNSI). Primary focus is in the following areas: (1) security system performance evaluations, (2) night firing qualifications for guards, (3) 100 percent entrance searches, (4) armed guards at material access area control points, (5) two protected area fences, and (6) revision of the design basis threat.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 12/31/87 52 FR 49418 Proposed Action Comment Period End 03/30/88 52 FR 49418 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 07/00/88 Final Action to EDO 08/15/88 Final Action to Commission 08/30/88 Final Action Published 10/30/88 Final Action to EDO 04/30/88 Final Action Published 06/30/88 i
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2167; 41 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5844 i
l EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Dr. Sandra D. Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3773 l
39
TITLE:
+ Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 140 ABSTRACT:
The final rule will revise the EN0 criteria to eliminate the problems that were encountered in the Three Mile Island ENO 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 C/R Part 140. The only way to modify these criteria, as this rule seeks to do, is through rulemaking.
There is no safety impact on public health or safety. The Eh0 criteria provide legal waivers of defenses.
Industry (insurers and utilities) claims that a reduction in the ENO 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 year of NRC time will be required to process the final rule. No contract funding is anticipated.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 04/09/85 50 FR 13978 Proposed Action Comment Period End 09/06/85 Final Action For Division Review 02/17/87 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 11/25/87 Final Action Package to EDO 12/15/87 Final Action to Comission 12/31/87 Final Action Published 02/28/88 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 Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3738 i
40 l
(C) - Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking 1
a a
s-m
.w-p 1.
ma a-l l
l
TITLE:
Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern; Generic Rulemaking CFR CITATION:
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeks coments on a proposal to amend NRC regulations to address disposal of radioactive wastes that contain sufficiently low quantities of radionuclides that their disposal does not need to be regulated as radioactive.
The NRC has already published a policy statement providing guidance for filing petitions for rulemaking to exempt individual waste streams (August 29, 1986; 51 FR 30839).
It is believed that generic rulemaking could provide a more efficient and effective means of dealing with disposal of wastes below regulatory concern.
Generic rulemaking would su3plement the policy statement which was a response to Section 10 of t1e Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240).
The public will be asked to coment on 14 questions. The ANPRM requests aublic coment on several alternative approaches the NRC could tace.
Public coment will help to determine whether and how NRC should proceed on the matter.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 12/02/86 51 FR 43367 ANPRM Coment Period End 03/02/87 51 FR 43367 Final Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
Pub. L.99-240 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Undetermined AGENCY CONTACT:
Stanley Neuder Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3737 41
. TITLE:
Comprehensive Quality Assurance in Medical Use and a Standard of Care CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering amendments to its regulations governing the use of byproduct material for radiation and diagnostic uses involving large radiation doses therapy.
In addition to current requirements for quality assurance, the contemplated amendments would require licensees that offer teletherapy or brachytherapy services to implement a comprehensive quality assurance program to reduce the chance of misadministrations. The advance notice requests comment on the extent to which additional radiopharmaceutical quality assurance requirements.are needed and seek recommendations on several questions being addressed in the comprehensive rulemaking effort.
TIllETABLE:
ANPRM Action Published 10/02/87 52 FR 36949 ANPRM Comment Period End 12/31/87 52 FR 36949 Proposed Action Published 09/03/88 Final Action Published 12/30/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Anthony Tse Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3797 E
42
TITLE:
+ Degree Requirement for Senior Operators at Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 55 ABSTRACT:
The Comission is considering an amendment to its regulations to require that applicants for a senior operator license of a nuclear power plant hold a baccalaureate degree in engineering or a related science from an accredited institution after January 1, 1991. Other baccalaureate degrees from an accredited institution may be accepted on a case-by-case basis.
This contemplated rulemaking action is due to a Comission decision to enhance the levels of engineering and accident management expertise on shift.
The Comission is also considering issuing a policy statement i
concurrently with this rule related to utility implementation of the rule.
The staff analysis of coments on the ANPRM has been completed and cptions for rulemaking and/or policy statements to address degree requirements and training for accident management have been developed.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 05/31/86 51 FR 19561 ANPRM Comment Period Extended to 09/29/86 SECY 87-101 to Comission 04/16/87 Comission Approved Preparation of Proposed Rule 06/24/87 Proposed Action for Division Review 01/05/88 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 03/05/88 l
Proposed Action to EDO 06/05/88 Proposed Action Published 08/05/88 Final Action for Division Review 12/30/88 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 02/30/89 Final Action to EDO 06/30/89 Final Action Published 08/05/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SHALL BUSINESS: No i
l AGENCY CONTACT:
I Morton Fleishman Nuclear Regularory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research liashington, DC 20555 301 492-3794 43
TITLE:
+ Cefinition of High-Level Radioactive Waste (HLW) in 10 CFR Part 60 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:
This proposed rulemaking seeks to revise the definition of HLW in Part 60 to reflect certain changes in the legal definition of HLW contained in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. A revision of the definition of HLW would affect DOE's plans for a geologic repository, costs of waste disposal for certain waste generators, and the development of new technologies and facilities to dispose of certain types of wastes. A definition of HLW which clearly identifies these highly radioactivo wastes needing permanent isolation would benefit the radioactive waste management system. NRC staff time for processing this rule is estimated to be 4 staff years.
Alternatives to rulemaking would be to take no action or request Congress to anend the NWPA. The rulemaking would eliminate i
uncertainty and reduce costs for the public, industry, and NRC.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM Action Published 02/27/87 52 FR 5992 ANPRM Coment Period End 04/29/87 ANPRM Comment Period Extended to 06/29/87 52 FR 16403 Proposed Action to EDO 01/15/88 Proposed Action to Comission 01/30/88 Proposed Action Published 02/28/88 Final Action Published 10/31/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Frank Costanzi/ Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3801/3857 44 l
(D) Unpublished Rules
a--,+-
m
-s--
a A
-A l
- l I
'l
-l
)
l J
'l il i
l I
f i
a.
.~n---v.-ar-
- - - - --- - -. - - - - - --,. - - ---..... - ----~~. - - ----
TITLE:
Revised Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 0; 10 CFR 1; 10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 9; 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission has deferred further consideration of this proposal which would have revised the Comission's procedural rules governing the conduct of all adjudicatory proceedings, with the exception of export licensing proceedings.
The proposed rule would comprehensively restate current practice, retitle the hearing office, and revise and reorganize the statement of the Comission's procedural rules to reflect current practice. The changes in this proposed rule would enable the Comission to render decisions in a more timely fashion and reduce the burden and expense to the parties participation in the proceedings.
TIMETABLE:
NPRM Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841; 5 USC 552 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
B.
Paul Cotter, Jr.
Nuclear Regulatory Comission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7787 l
45
TITLE:
- Change of Region i Address CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 1; 10 LFR 20; 10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 55; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:
The final rule amends the Commission's regulations to reflect the change of address for its Region I Office. The amendments are necessary to inform the public and~affected licensees of the change in address.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 01/20/88 Final Action Effective 01/20/88 LEGAL AUTHORITi:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Donnie H. Grimsley Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration and Resources Management Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7211 46
p TITLE
- Availability of Official Records j
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:
The proposed amendment would conform the NRC's regulations pertaining to the availability of official records to existing case law and agency practice. The amendment would reaffirm that the terms of 10 CFR 2.790 (c) provide submitters of information a qualified right to have their information returned upon request.
This amendment informs the public of three exceptions to the the right to withdraw pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(c) of the NRC's.
regulations, i.e., information submitted in a rulemaking proceeding that subsequently forms the basis for the fir.a1 rule, information which has been made available to an advisory comittee or was received at an advisory comittee meeting, and information that is subject to a pending Freedom of Information Act request.
TIMETABLE:
Next Action Undetermined x
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Paul Bo11werk Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-3224 i
47
g.
G 1
t TITLE:
- Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC Approved Casks at Civ111en Nuclear Power Reactor Sites CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 72 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule is??n responsa to the Nutieae Waste Policy Act (NWPA) section 218 (a') which states in part, that the Secretary of DOE shall estab?fsh a demonstration proo' e, 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 nore 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 l
licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under section 218(a) for;use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.
I 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.
TIMETABLE!
Proposed Action for Division Review 01/22/88 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 03/31/88 4
Proposed Action to E00 05/30/88 l
Proposed Action Published 06/30/88 Final Action Published 04/29/89 i
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
C 4? USC 10153; 12 USC 10198 i
?
EFFECTSON$MALLBUSIMESSANDOTHERENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
i William R. Pearson Nuclear Regulatcry Commission Offic e: of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3764 48 l
.g
)
/
h.
I' f,
/
~
TITLE:
/
Negotiated Rulemaking on t e Submission and Management of Recofds and Documents Related to the L censing' jf a Geologic Repository fc ', the,
Disposal of High-Level Radioactive)4aste
/>
j i
CFR CITATION:
TheNuclearWastePolicM,Act(NWPA)3rovidesthreeyear's'fortheNRCto reach a decision on construction aut1orization for a high-level waste repository.
In order for' the JRC to be able to make.its decision within the allotted time, ready' access to all pertinent. records must be assured to all parties in the licensing proceeding. The DOE has corraitted to develop an electronic information management system to be used for the licensing proceeding.
The NRC staff intends to tse the process of nege,tiated rulemaking to dcueW g a proposed rule that would revisc 3he I
Corroissfco's discovery proceat.r,e, and motion practice /r,10 CFR Part 2 for thehigM]evelwastelicensingproceeding.
Tids r: le w',uld require the
~D0D licf dse application and all supporting records to be. gr / tided in a sten erdized electronig format. All partie to,^lhe licent,uig proceeding WWlu'be required to submit'all relevant data to thir,. system.
In turn, all prties would have access to the data base.
/
f'
'f Resource estimates cuitently under, develonner,t.
?
'I TIMETABLE:
e Notice Of Intent Published 12/18/86 / 5','FR 45338 r,
Notice of Intent /Coment Period Ex/ Ns 02/18/81 Notice of Formation of N dotiating q uittee 0WD5/87 52 FR 29024 Proposed Action Published 07/08/88 F#cel Action to Comission 09/19/88 Final Action Published 10/14/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
NWPA, AEA, i
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
To be detetmined AGENCY CONTACT:
Francis X. Cameron Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1623 g' I (,
j
' 'I s
i i,'
3 l
1
TITLE:
- Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Federal Assisted Programs CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 4 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend regulations concerning the enforcement of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, in Federally assisted programs or activities to include a cross reference to the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS).
This action is necessary because some facilities subject to the new construction or alteration requirements under section 504 are also subject to the Architectural Barriers Act. Therefore, reference to UFAS by all government agencies would diminish the possibility that recipients of Federal financial assistance would fac? conflicting enforcement standards.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Edward E. Tucker 3
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization / Civil Rights Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7697 50 i
l
!!TLE:
+ Deletion of Part 11 Requirement for Renewal of "R" Clearances CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 11 ABSTRACT:
The current regulations require licensees to renew "R" clearances every 5 years.
This level of clearance corresponds to the "L" clearances used by NRC and DOE which do not require renewal.
Because of this equivalence, the renewal requirement for the "R" level licensee clearance is deemed unnecessary. This rulemaking would delete that requirenent from Part 11.. The timetable for this rule has been placed on hold pending the publication of Executive Order 10a50, "Security Requirenents for Government Erployees.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201(1), 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Sandra D. Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 (301) 492-3773 l
51
TITLE:
+ Residual Radioactive Contamination Limits for Decomissioning CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would establish residus1 radioactive-contamination limits (including induced and other volumetric radioactivity)as well as removable and fixed surface contamination which must be met before structures and lands can be released for unrestricted use.
Structures and lands with residual radioactive contamination below these limits would be eligible for release without regulatory restrictions from a radioactivity standpoint.
The proposed acendments were considered necessary to provide licensees with quantitative criteria to use during decomissioning relative to cleanup and decontamination of structures and lands.
Alternatives to rulemaking would be continued reliance on the issuence of criteria as guidance. However, the current criterie are incomplete, decisions on implementation and compliance are often required on a case-by-case basis, and criteria issued by guidance may not be enforced in the manner of legally binding regulations.
The proposed rule would relieve the administrative burden on NRC and licensees while providing a consistent and enforceable basis for agency action.
NRC resource requirements were estimated at approximately 2 staff-years and a $237,000 research contract which is ongoing at PNL.
Staff is participating in an EPA-organized interagency working group developing Federal guidance on this subject; however, this activity has been dormant since January 1987.
The timetable for this rule is on hold pending the ED0 decision on the staff's recennended action to terminate this rule.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTH0 CITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Undetermined AGENCY CONTACT:
Dr. Stan Neuder Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3737 52
TITLE:
+ Disposal of Low-level Radioactively Contaninated Waste Oil from
)
Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule, which is being initiated in partial response to a petition filed by Edison Electric Institute and Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (PRM-20-15, dated July' 31, 1984), would amend NRC regulations to allow onsite incineration of waste oil at nuclear power plants subject to specified conditions. Currently, the only approved disposal method for low-level, radioactively contaminated waste oil from nuclear power plants involves absorption or solidification, transportation to, and burial at a licensed disposal site. There Js a clear need to allow, for very low activity level was'es, the use of alternative disposal methods which are more cost effective from a radiological health and safety standpoint and which conserve the limited 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 public htalth and safety. There would be, in a mature reactor economy, ar, estimated industry-wide economic savings of approximately $5 millior to $18 million per year if such a rule were promulgated.
Alternatives so this rulemaking action are to maintain the status quo or to wait until the Environmental Protection Agency develops standards 4
on acceptable levels of radicactivity which may be released to the environment on an unrestricted basis.
It is estimated that approximately 1-2 person-years of NRC staff time will be required to piocess this rule.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to EDO 02/19/88 Proposed Action Published 03/01/88 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 07/15/88 Final Action to ED0 08/19/88 Final Action to Commission 10/15/88 Final fetion Published 12/30/88 LEGAL AUTHOR;TY:
a2 USC 2?91; 42 USC 2167; 42 USC 2073 i
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Catherine R. tiattsen i
Nuclear Regulatory Cuntnission Office of Nuclear R:gulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3638 53
TITLE:
+ Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
This proposed rule would anend Part 21 and sec. 50.55(e), both of which require the reporting of safety defects by licensees.
In addition, Part 21 requires reporting by non-licensees. This J
proposed amendment was prompted by TMI Action Plan Task II, J.4, and NRC staff experience with Part 21 and section 50.55(e) reporting.
The main objectives of the rulemaking effort are: (1) elimination of duplicate evaluation and reporting of safety defects; (2) consist'ent threshold for safety defect reporting in Part 21 and section 50.55(e);
(3) establishment of consistent and uniform content of reporting Linder Part 21 and section 50.55(e) and (4). establishment of time limits within which a defect must be evaluated and reported.
l Approximately 500 reports are submitted to the Comission annually
)
under Part 21. Approximately 1500 reports are submitted to the Comission annually under section 50.55(e).
These reports identify both plant-specific and generic safety for further NRC regulatory i
action. Under current rules, these reports have formed the basis for NRC issuance of numerous NRC information notices and bulletins.
This proposed rulemaking will reduce tne potential for duplicate a
reporting and evaluation of. safety defects which now exist. The 1
rulemaking will establish a more coherent regulatory framework l
that is expected to reduce industry reporting and evaluation burden significantly without reducing safety effectiveness; l
Alternatives to this rulemaking approach which were considered, varied from establishment of a single rule for all reporting
]
of safety defects and operating reactor events to maintaining i
the status quo for defect reporting. All alternatives were rejected since they would not substantially improve the current j
safety defect reporting situation.
Current costs of reporting under Part 21 and section 50.55 (e) are estimated at $10.08 million annually for industry and $1.74 1
million annually for NRC evaluations.
It is anticipated that the industry reporting burden shoulJ be reduced by $1.93 million; whild NRC burden should remain the same. Additional industry burden, though minimal, is anticipated in the area of reissuing i
procedures for reporting and rt'ord keeping.
l The Comission disapproved this propcsed rule on 10/20/86 and provided direction to the s*.aff to revise the preposed rule.
The subsequent effort has proceeded based on Comission direction.
54 l
l
{
t
-c
TITLE:
+ Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Proceduras for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to Commission 12/16/85 Commission Rejected Proposed Action 10/20/86 Revised Proposed Action for Division Review 04/00/87 Office Concurrence on Revised Action Completed 07/24/87 Revised Proposed Action to EDO 01/19/88 Revised Proposed Action to Commission 02/01/88 Revised Proposed Action Published 03/01/88-Final Action Published 09/11/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2282; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
William R. Jones Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4488 i
e P
i l
I 55 4
d
TITLE:
+ Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Exposure Devices CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 34 ABSTRACT:
The )roposed rule would amend the present regulations to esta>11sh performance standards for industrial radiography exposure devices. Overexposures of radiographers (and occasionally the general public) are more than double that of other radiation workers and have been a concern to the NRC for some time. Approximately 25-35 percent of 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 j
emitting sources with the potential for serious overexposures, j
Although a consensus standard for radiographic exposure devices was published in 1981 (American National Standard N432), it is i
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 for radiographic devices plus a requirenent for radiographers to wear alarm dosimeters and simultaneously issue a regulatory guide endorsing the consensus standard, supplemented by such other performance standards deemed necessary; and 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.
The proposed rule would require licensees to modify radiogra3 hic devices to meet the performance standards through design c1anges and quality control procedures. Costs of incorporating the proposed changes are estimated to be a one-time cost of $1,600 per licensee to purchase alarm dosimeters and
$250 per year per licensee to replace existing devices with devices that meet the requirements of the consensus standard.
Determination of the benefits to be derived from the proposed rule are difficult to determine on a monetary basis but the potential hazards that might be averted include radiation sickness, injury, and even death. NRC resources required for processing this rule to final publication are estimated to be 0.4 person-years.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action for Division Review 12/22/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 12/15/87 Proposed Action to EDO 12/30/87 Proposed Action Published 02/15/88 Final Action Published 08/15/88 4
56
(
TITLE:
+ Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Exposure Devices LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Donald O. Nellis l
Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 i
301 492-3628 1
57 J
TITLE:
- Diagnostic Misadministration Report Form CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT:
The final rule amends the regulations governing the medical use of byproduct material to specify the form that is to be used by NRC medical licensees to report diagrostic misadministrations. The rule is intended to inform licensees that the form contemplated in the revision to these regulations (see th'e Federal Register of October 16, 1986; 51 FR 36932) has been developed and is now available for use.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 03/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Norman L. McElroy Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 (301) 427-4108 58 x
TITLE:
+ Criteria for Licensing the Long-Term Custody and Maintenance of Uranium Mill Tailings Sites CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 40 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would provide a procedure to license 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 long-term possession and control of uranium mill tailings by the Department of Energy, other designated Federal agencies, or States when applicable. The general license would be formulated so that it would become effective for a particular site upon written NRC approval of a site-specific surveillance and maintenance plan. No impact to the the public or industry is expected as a result of this proposed action.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action for Division Review 11/09/87 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 03/04/88 Proposed Action to EDO 03/15/88 Proposed Action Published 05/30/88 Final Action Published 12/30/88 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 1
l l
59
)
TITLE:
Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 A8STRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission 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 Comission licensing proceedings. This proposed rule would define these terns 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 the Comission's directive to rasolve the issue by rulemaking contained in the Shoreham licensing decision (CLI-84-9, 19 NRC 1323, June 5, 1984).
A position paper requesting ap3roval of the staff proposed definitions and additional guidance from t1e Comission was signed by the EDO on May 29, 1986.
In addition to rulemaking, the position paper discusses the alternative of the Comission issuing a policy statement concerning the definitions and their usage.
Since the proposed rule is only clarifying existing requirements, there is no impact on the public or the industry as a result of this rulemaking.
It is enticipated that the NRC will expend 3.2 to 4.4 staff years in developing the final rule over a two-year period. The manpower and time frame will depend on Comission 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.
The tinetable is on hold based on a decision by the Comission.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to Comission 05/29/86 Comission Decision on SECY 86-164 Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 60 t
TITLE:
Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Jerry N. Wilson Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3729 l
1 l
I l
l l
1 1
61 1
TITLE:
- Amendment to Clarify Equivalent Control Capacity for Standby Liquid Control Systems (SLCS) t CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would clarify the Commission's regulations pertaining to boiling water reactors (BWR). The current regulations require that all boiling water reactors must have a standby liquid control system (SLCS) with a minimum flow capacity and boron content equivalent in control capacity to 86 gallons per minute (gpm) of 13 weight percent of sodium pentaborate solution.
In January 1985, a generic letter was issued to all appropriate licensees that provided clarification of the phrase "equivalent in control capacity" contained in section 50.62 (c)(4).
This letter provided the basis for the flow and weight percent of sodium pentaborate decahydrate requirements and described how equivalency could be achieved for smaller plants.
The NRC staff considers the contents of the generic letter to be technically correct and desired that this position be established in the regulations.
TIMETABLEr Proposed Action for Division Review 11/30/87 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Cempleted 01/08/88 Proposed Action to EDO 03/31/88 Proposed Action Published 04/28/88 Final Action Published 12/30/88 i
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2136; Section 106 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
William R. Pearson Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3764 i
1 62 t
TITLE:
Alternative Methods for Leakage Rate Testing CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission proposes a limited amendment to its regulations to clarify a question of interpretation in regard to l
leakage testing of containments of light-water-cooled nuclear power plants, j
This proposed amendment would explicitly permit the continued use of a statistical data analysis technique that the NRC has considered to be an acceptable method of calculating containment leakage rates. Rulemaking is the only acceptable alternative for resolving this issue because the regulations specify the methods the NRC finds acceptable for calculating leakage rates. Because the proposed rule would simply make another method of calculating leakage rates available to the industry, there is no economic impact likely to result from this action.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action for Division Review 11/12/87 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 11/12/87 Proposed Action to EDO 11/12/87 Proposed Action Published 02/16/88 Final Action Published 08/15/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 l
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
E. Gunter Arndt Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3945 63 J
TITLE:
+ Personnel Access Authorization Program (Part of Insider Package)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:
The Comission has concluded that it is ap3ropriate for each licensee i
who operates a nuclear power plant to esta)1ish an access authorization program to ensure that individuals who require unescorted access to protected areas or vital areas of their facilities are trustworthy, reliable, emotionally stable, and do not pose a threat to comit radiological sabotage. Accordirigly, the NRC published a aroposed rule on August 1, 1984, which would require an access aut1orization program at nuclear power plants (49 FR 30726).
An alternative proposal by the Nuclear Utility Management and Resource Comittee (NUMARC) was submitted as a public coment on this proposed rule. The alternative proposed a voluntary industry comitment 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 behaviorial observation.
On June 18, 1986, the Comission approved developing a policy statement endorsing industry guidelines as an alternative to the propesed rulemaking.
Comitments to adhere to these guidelines would be formalized through amendments to the physical security plans and be subject to inspection and enforcement by NRC.
TIMETABLE:
Office Concurrence en Proposed Policy Statement Completed 10/30/87 Proposed Policy Statement / Guidelines to EDO 12/30/87 Proposed Policy Statement / Guidelines to Comission 01/30/88 Proposed Policy Statement Published 03/01/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
i Sandra Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3773 64
(
TITLE:
+ Part 51; Conforming Amendments CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would arovide procedures for performing an environmental review of iigh Level Waste geologic repositories.
Part 51 contains no provisions for the environmental review of a license application for a HLW repository. The Nuclear, Waste Policy Act of 1982 established requirements for environmental reviews which are at variance with the environmental reviews which i
the NRC performs in licensing other types of nuclear facilities. This issue must be addressed in order to avoid delay in the U.S. HLW Program. The proposed rule would benefit the public, industry, and NRC by clarifying licensing procedures, thus avoiding case determinations and possible litigation during HLW geologic repository licensing. Minor revisions to Part 60 will be necessary to conform to the environmental requirements of the NWPA.
TIMETABLE:
Pro;,osed Action Published 03/15/88 Final Action Published 03/15/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SHALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No
}
AGENCY CONTACT:
James R. Wolf Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1641 i
1 65 J
TITLE:
Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Reactors CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 52 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission is considering adding a new part to its regulations to improve the reactor licensing process. The proposed rule would provide for the issuance of early site permits, standard design certifications, and combined construction permits and conditional operating licenses for nuclear power reactors.
These procedural reforms are intended to improve the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of nuclear power plant licensing without detracting from protection of the public health and safety or the public's ability to participate in the licensing process. They are designed to implement as much of the Comissions's proposed "Nuclear Power Plant Standardization and Licensino Act of 1987" as is permissible under its existing statutory authoiity.
The proposed legislation is based on an earlier proposal that was developed by the Comission's Regulatory Reform Task Force.
If licensing reform legislation is ultimately enacted, the rules can be modified to implement that legislation fully.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 02/00/88 Final Action to Comissien 10/00/88 Final Action Published 12/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2239; 42 USC 2282; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 4842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Steve Crockett Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 634-1465 66
\\
TITLE:
+ Transportation Regulations: Compatibility With the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 71 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 for the safe 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 Radiosctive 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. Consistency of transportation regulations throughout the world also contributes to safety by concentrating the efforts of the world'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 important, the accident experience of every country that )ases its domestic regulations on those of the IAEA can be applied by every other country with consistent regulations to improve its safety program.
The action will be handled as a routine updating of NRC transportation re There is no reasonable alternative to rulemaking action.gulations.
These changes should result in a minimal increase in costs to affected licensees. Proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 71, based on current IAEA regulations, will be issued for public coment. The task will be scheduled over a 2-year interval ending January 1989 and will consume 2-3 staff-years of effort depending on the number and difficulty of conflicts to be resolved.
)
TIMETABLE:
i Proposed Action for Division Review 09/04/87 t
Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 12/31/87 Proposed Action to EDO 01/30/88 i
Proposed Action Published 02/29/88 Final Action Published 01/30/89 i
~
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
l 42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5842 t
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
Yes l
AGENCY CONTACT:
Donald R. Hopkins Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3784 67 i
J
TITLE:
- General Criteria for Security Personnel CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:
The u'
- in response to the outstanding request made in PRM-73-6 sub
.consin Electric Power Company, et al, which requested sev-jes in the qualifications for armed security personnel set o-crR Part 73, Appendix B.
The petition was partially denied o..
..mber 3, 1987 (52 FR 33428).
The final rule will grant that part of the petition which requested deletion of a scheduling link between the timing of the medical examination and the physical fitness test given at least annually to all armed security personnel. The amendment results in no impact on NRC resources and a cost savings to those licensees adversely impacted by the current requirement that all armed security personnel be subjected to an annual physical fitness test which must be preceded within 30 days by a medical examination.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 02/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
William R. Lahs Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20355 301 492-3774 1
i 68
\\
l l
TITLE:
l i
+ Amendment to Assign NRC Sole Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 150 ABSTRACT:
This rulemaking would establish hRC's sole authority for approving onsite disposal of low-level waste at all NRC-licensed reactors and at Part 70 fuel cycle facilities. There is a need to amend section 150.15 to authorize one agency (the NRC) to regulate all onsite disposal of low-level waste in order to provide a more comprehensive regulatory review procedure of all onsite waste management activities and to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort.
Uniform review procedures 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.
TIMETABLE:
Propose.d Action to EDO 01/30/88 Proposed Action Published 02/28/88 Final Action Published 02/28/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2021; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
John Stewart Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3618 l
69
}
emed a
.m_.
s
.a-**
m._a_uJ&.-_4.____hma42-.m-d.a*Cm 3..
mas a A.-w m.-u-maw *_.
a-A4 Aw..m._
sm.a
.mMA.
. m z 4__u___2
, wa m
l I
l i
d i
I I
I e
I i
d i
i i
l l
l
-m
(A) - Petitions incorporated into final rules or petitions denied since September 30, 1987 1
l a-.-
--x a
E a.
2..wM->
A,ms m am am-KsmsA--.a
-esaA---a-m A---
-n&---.wm
--m+_4-m_mmaewsmmx4s adA aaea a_,-
M4 w am e A% wd,e
~
-'&A, b
i l
l l
I 4
l
.i I
a 4
l 4
i
- l
)
.i i
i I
i l
l A
1 1
1 l
l l
89'-=*wter-*ve--,- ew-
)
PETITION DOCKET NUHRER:
PRM-50-44 PETITIONER:
Comittee to Bridge the Gap PART:
50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERN. REGISTER CITATION: September 3, 1986 (51 FR 31341) l
SUBJECT:
Fire Protection Standards for Graphite Reactors.
SUMMARY
- Description.
The petitioner requests that the Comissinn amend its regulations to require operators of reactors that use graphite as a moderator or ref16ctor to (1) prepare and submit for NRC approval fire response plans for a graphite fire and (2) measure the energy stored in their graphite, and revise their safety analyses to consider the risks and consequences of a graphite fire in their facilities, i
During the coment period, the staff is administering a technical assistance contract with a national laboratory to evaluate independently the technical issues related to this petition.
The schedules are timed so that the contractor can also assist the staff with the evaluation of comments received.
Technical issues under study include: the necessary and sufficient conditions to cause graphite ignition and to lead to self-sustaining, rapid oxidation ranctions; the build-up, storage, and release of "Wigner" energy resulting from fast neutron irradiation of graphite; actual involvement of graphite burning in the Windscale and Chernobyl reactor accidents; and implications of these issues to the safety of coeration of NRC-licenses non-power reactors.
This issue has not previously been ex)11citly addressed in depth by NRC, although some reactors lave been evaluated case-by-case.
The issue does not appear to be one requiring urgent rulemaking action by NRC, hence the route of requesting l
comments was selected.
Objective. To adequately protect the public in the event of a fire at a reactor that uses graphite.
l t
Background.
The coment period expired on February 3,1987.
Twenty-eight coments were received in response to the petition.
The staff and its contractor are evaluating these comments.
l 71
]
i
_ =
TIMETABLE: Complete.. A notice of denial for this petition was published in the Federal Register on October 6, 1987 (52 FR 37332).
i J
CONTACT:
Theodore S. Michaels t
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation j
301-492-8251 i
i i
4 l
r l
I i
l J
I 1
b l
I i
i I
1 l
l i
)
I.
j j
i, 72 l
l i
4
-v s -
r w
-.w,
,,mn-...n-,
e -----
n --
e,,
a
\\
J (B) - Petitions incorporated into proposed rules NONE r
I l
i l
1 l
.-m5-m Aa-a 4
M +m Amno 3
0_Dm aom---,.m
+2---.-
m.m-mme m m Jmw_.--m.m,2--
-a.---sm -
m.. nom-m m.m,am,,,a mm m+g
-_ama--ew am. a mng,o asa m w a _aa.a
,e-k 4
6 4
i r
k I
i I
I l
4 4
1 f
b 4
i i
i i
1 I
i 4
I I
i i
n s
a k
l 1
a I
i J
l i
4 1
(
I l
i I
p I
i
/
i l
-n.
--.--n-,
a.
r,
/
/
(C) - Petitions pending staff review
/
l l
1
)
4
a a
_ _ _ +
m a
a aa u_
h i
3 i
PETIT 10N DOCKET N0?9ER: PRM-50-20 l
PETITIONER: Free Environment, Inc., et al.
PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
100 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: May 19, 1977 (42 FR 25785)
SUBJECT:
Reactor Safety Measures SUM 4ARY: Descri) tion.
The petition requested that the Comission amend ' art 50 before proceeding with the processing of license applications for the Central Iowa Nuclear Project to require t!:at (1) all nuclear reactors be located below ground level; (2) all nuclear reactors be housed in sealed buildings within which permanent heavy vacuums are maintained; (3) a full-time Federal employee, with full authority to order the plant to be shut down in case of any operational abnormality, always be present in all nuclear generating stations; and (4) the Central Iowa Nuclear Project and all other reactors be sited at least 40 miles from major population centers.
0bjective.
To ensure that additional safety measures are employed in the construction and siting of nuclear power plants.
The petitioner seeks to have recomendations and procedures practiced or encouraged by various organizations and some current NRC guidelines adopted as mandatory requirements in the Comission's regulations.
Background. The coment period closed July 18, 1977.
Three coments were received.
The first three parts of I
the petition (see Description section above) were incorporated with PRM-50-19 for staff action purposes.
A notice of denial for the third part of the petition was published in the Federal Register on February 2, 1978
{
(43 FR 4466). A notice of denial for the first two parts of the petition was paolished April 19, 1978 (43 FR 16556).
NRC staff work on the fourth part of the petition will be carried out in connection with the ongoing Part 100 rulemaking on demographic criteria.
{
73 I
Recent events, including the reactor accident at Chernobyl in the USSR, continued uncertainty over certain aspects of the accident source term work, and the lack of projected Construction Permit Applications have led the Commission's Executive Director for Operations to conclude thdt this rulemaking should be terminated.
However, if the Commission decides that further rulemaking on demogrcphic criteria should be undertaken, the unresolvei portions of the petition would be considered in the t.ontext of that rulemaking.
TIMETABLE: Resolution scheduled for completion in March 1988.
CONTACT: John Stewart Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-492-3618 1
74
PET! TION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-47 PETITIONER: Quality Technology Company PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION:
January 12, 1987 (52 FR 1200)
SUBJECT:
stablishing an Employee Concerns Program and Resolution of Employee-Identified Concerns at Nuclear Facilities l
SUBJECT:
Description. The petitioner requests that the Comission add to its regulations requirements that all utilities involved j
in a nuclear program establish and maintain an employee l
concerns program and report to the NRC's Office of Investigation all employee-identified concerns related to "wrongdoing I
activities." Based on the petitionei's experience with employee concerns programs, the petitioner contends that more than half of employee-identified concerns are substantiated and that adding these requirements to the NRC's regulations may ensure resolution of the issues related to these concerns.
Objective.
To require that all utilities involved in a nuclear programT1) establish and maintain an employee concerns program and (2) report to the_NRC's Office of Investigation all employee-identified concerns related to "wrongdoing activities."
Background. The petitioner conducted or participated in employee l
concerns programs at several utilities and thinks that such a l
program is an effective vehicle for obtaining accurate and insightful information about nuclear safety-related issues from employees involved in the construction or operation of a nuclear facility.
The comment period closed March 13, 1987.
TIMETABLE: The projected resolution of this petition is targeted for February 1988.
CONTACT: Markley L. Au/ Joe Hate l
Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-492-3749 76
i PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-100-2 PETITIONER:
Public Interest Research Group, et al.
PART:
100 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION:
July 1, 1976 (41 FR 27141)
SUBJECT:
Population Density Criteria Near Nuclear Power Plants i
SUMMARY
Description.
The petitioners request that the Commission amend its regulations to prohibit the construction of nuclear reactors where the population in the surrounding area exceeds or will exceed specified numerical limits.
The petitioners' proposed criteria would limit permissible l
population density to 400 people per square mile within a 40-mile perimeter.
The petitioners state that they regard these proposed criteria as interim standards to be used until the Comission is able to generate its own numerical standards on population density.
Objective.
To restrict utilities from building nuclear reactors too close to metropolitan areas.
Backoround.
The coment period closed August 30, 1976.
Twelve coments were received.
An NRC staff paper (SECY-78-624) was submitted to the Comission on Decen.ber 4 1978.
In a memorandum to the Executive Director for Operations dated February 15, 1979, the Comission defer.ed action on the population density siting criteria issue pending submission of the Siting Policy Task Force report.
The petitioners were notified of this deferral by letter dated March 9, 1979. The petitioners were notified by letter (in July 1980) that the petition would be considered in the context of the rulemaking on siting criteria.
Petitioners were notified by letter on January i
26, 1982, that the proposed rule on siting criteria would be delayed until sumer 1983 to await safety goal implementation and source term reevaluation.
Recent events, including the reactor accident at Chernobyl in the USSR, continued uncertainty over certain aspects of the accident source term work, and the lack of projected Construction Permit Applications have led the Comission's Executive Director for Operations to conclude that this rulemaking should be terminated.
However, if the Comission 76
decides that further rulemaking on demogiaphic criteria should be undertaken, the unresolved portions of the petition would be considered in the context of that rulemaking.
TIMETABLE: Resolution is projected for February 1988.
CONTACT: John Stewart Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 30i-492-3618 i
I 77 i
F l
I I
l l
(D) - Petitions with deferred action l
l l
l l
l l
l
PETITION DOCKET N'sMBER: PRM-40-23 PETITIONER:
Sierra Club PART:
40 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 25, 1981 (46 FR 14021);
May 2, 1983 (48 FR 19722)
SU3 JECT: Licensing the Possession of Uranium Mill Tailings at Inactive Storage Sites.
SUMMARY
- Description.
The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to license the possession of uranium mill tailings of inactive storage sites.
The petitioner proposes the ft.iowing regulatory action to ensure that the public health and safety is adequately protected: (1) repeal the licensing exem) tion for inactive uranium mill tailings sites subject to tie Department of Energy's remedial programs; (2) require a license for the possession of byproduct material on any other property in the vicinity of an inactive mill tailings site if the byproduct materials are derived from the sites; or, in the alternative, (3) conduct a rulemaking to determine whether a licensing exemption of these sites or byproduct materials constitutes an unreasonable risk to public health and safety. On March 23, 1983, the petitioner filed an amendment to the original petition. In the amendment, the petitioner requests that, in the event that NRC denies the earlier requests, NRC take further action to ensure that the management of byproduct material located on or l
derived from inactive uranium processing sites is conducted l
in a manner that protects the public health and safety and the environment. The petitioner also requests that the NRC take action to govern the management of byproduct material not subject to licensing under section 81 of the Atomic Energy Act.
Objective.
To license the protection cf uranium mill l
tailings at inactive storage sites or take other regulatory action to protect the public health and safety and the l
environment from the radiological and nonradiological I
hazards associated with the tailings. The petitioner believes that this action is necessary if NRC is to adequately fulfill its statutory responsibilities under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act.
79
Background The comment 27, 1981. Three comments were received, period closed Aprilall stating the petition should denied. The comment period on the amendment to the petition closed June 30, 1983. Uranium mill tailings are regulated under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (Pub. L.95-604, 42 U.S.C. 7901, et seq.). Title I of the Act directs that the Department of Energy, in consul-tation with NRC, conduct a remedial action program at inactive uranium mill tailings sites. Title II of the Act authorizes NRC to regulate disposal of the tailings at active sites.
TIMETABLE:
Resolution of this petition is on hold pending amendments to Part 40 dealing with the long-term care and custody of reclaimed mill tailings sites.
Completion of this rulemaking is scheduled for December 1988.
Resolution of i
the petition is scheduled for June 1989, i
CONTACT: Mark Haisfield Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-492-3877 80 l
l I
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-40-24 PETITIONER:
Union Carbide Corporation PART: 40 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION:
November 30, 1982 (47 FR 53889)
SUBJECT:
Revised Criteria for Operation of Uranium Mills and Disposition of Tailings or Wastes
SUMMARY
- Description.
The petitioner proposes that the Commission amend its regulations setting out criteria for the operation of uranium mills and the disposition of tailings or wastes resulting from uranium milling activities. The petitioner suggests specific amendments to the criteria governing the selection of new tailings disposal sites or the adequacy of existing tailings disposal sites, the seepage of toxic materials into the groundwater, the earth cover to be placed over tailings or wastes to prevent the surface exhalation of radon, and the charge imposed on each mill operator to cover the cost of long-term surveillance.
The petitioner supports its suggested amendments with information it says was not available to the Commission at the time the regulations were issued.
l
_ Objective.
To significantly reduce the compliance costs incurred by the petitioner in the operation of its uranium milling facilities while continuing to adequately protect public health, safety, and the environment.
Background.
The comment period that originally closed January 31, 1983, was extended until May 2, 1983. The petitioner is a New York-based corporation engaged in uranium exploration, milling, and mining.
The regulations the petitioner seeks to amend were issued as part of NRC's regulations implementing the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (Pub. L.95-604, 42 U.S.C.
7901, et seq.).
These regulations were published in the Federal Register on October 3, 1980 (45 FR 65531).
TIMETABLE: Resolution of this petition is scheduled for May 1988, following publication of the revision to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40, completed in November 1987.
CONTACT: Mark Haisfield Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-492-3877 81
,m
1 PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-40-25 PETITIONER:
State of Alabama PART: 40 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
NONE FEDERAL P.EGISTER CITATION: December 31, 1985 (50 FR 53335)
SUBJECT:
Regulations Governing Unimportant. Quantities of Source Material
SUMMARY
- Description.
The petitioner requests that the NRC amend it; regulations governing unimportant quantities of source material. The petitioner suggests that the NRC examine the exemption from licensing for products or parts of products fabricated of or containing tungsten or magnesium-thorium alloys whose thorium content is less than 4 percent by weight and either remove the restriction on this exemption or set out the restriction as part of a general license.
The petitioner believes that, in placing a restriction on an exemption, the NRC has created a structurally deficient regulation that may lead to unintentional violations by persons who may receive products covered by the exemption and be unaware of any further restrictions.
Objective.
To ensure that a person who obtains an exempt product covered by the exemption is aware of any limitations placed on the use of the product.
Background.
The comment period for this action closed March 3, 1986. Only one comment was received, and it opposed the petition.
TIMETABLE: Staff action on the petition has been deferred pending further action by the State of Alabama.
CONTACT: Sterling Bell Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-427-9026 62
l PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-50-31 PETITIONER: Citizens' Task Force PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
70 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: March 24, 1982 (47 FR 12639)
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
- Description.
The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to require that (1) the present ten-mile emergency planning zone radius be extended to twenty miles and include any towns bordering on or partially within this zone; (2) all communities with a population in excess of 5,000 persons be provided by the respective utility with the funding to purchase, install, and operate radiological monitoring equipment to reach and maintain the level of preparedness deemed necessary by the affected municipalities; and (3) utilities be required to finance the emergency planning efforts of municipalities located near nuclear reactors.
Objective.
To establish an effective notification and evacuation system in communities located near nuclear reactors.
Background.
The comment period closed May 24, 1982.
l TIMETABLE:
Staff action on the response to the petitioner is l
scheduled for November 1988 (to be coordinated with the l
severe accident research program and publication of
)
NUREG-1150); however, this is dependent upon the Commission's policy decision in the emergency planning l
area.
CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-492-3918 l
i 33
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-50-45 PETITIONER:
Kenneth G. Sexton PART:
50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION:
October 6, 1986 (51 FR 35518) 1 I
SUBJECT:
Extending the Emergency Planning Zone I
(
SUMMARY
Description.
The petitioner requests that the comission amend its regulations to require that current methodologies and analytical techniques be used to reevaluate the established Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) for nuclear power plants.
The petitioner is concerned that emergency planning for areas within and beyond the 10-m11e distance provided in the Comission's regulations is inadecuate because the current 10-mile EPZ was determinec with what the petitioner considers outdated methodologies and data The petitioner points out that advanced techniques and new information obtained through research in the last 10 years have produced improved calculations for determining the size of an EPZ.
Objective. The petitoner believes that there is overwhelming justification to request that 7
the size of the EPZ be reevaluated on a site-specific basis, after allowing for review l
of the determination report by any interested parties.
Background.
The coment period for this petition, originally to expire on December 5, 1986 has been extended to April 15, 1987.
TIMETABLE: Staff action on the petition is scheduled to be completed November, 1988.
CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-492-3918 84
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-46 PETITIONER:
State of Maine PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION : December 30, 1986 (51 FR 47025)
SUBJECT:
Emergency Planning
SUMMARY
- Description.
The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its emergency planning regulations to (1) expand the emergency planning l
zone for the plume exposure pathway and for the ingestion pathway; (2) require that emergency planning be done before any construction of a nuclear facility is permitted and that the Governor of each affected State approve the emergency plans as a precondition to construction; and (3) require that offsite emergency preparedness findings be made before any fuel loading and/or low power operations are permitted.
Objective.
To expand the emergency planning zone around nuclear power plants to ensure the protection of the public.
Background. The comment period expired March 2, 1987.
TIMETABLE: Staff action on the petition is scheduled to be completed in November 1988, but depends on the Commission policy decision in the emergency planning area.
CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-492-3918 l
85
/
= -.
'n"*" ' 7 Bl8LIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET E
ne rave,,o so=,
.s v i.a NUREG-0936, Vol. 6
- o. 4
'Nd'EdlL'AICR AGENDA QUARTERLY REP 0 OCTOBER - DECEt R 1987
. o.,,., p,co,,,,,,,o
.A =,84 g
I Tl..
FEBRUARYf 1988
,,;y,,<,,
f D.,t tPo.,,98W8o a spe v3..
FEBRp(RY 1988
- o. s. :.,,o.,.....
.t..o.co.. u,,.. i. c,
.v,,...
DIVISION OF RULES N4D CORDS OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIC AND RESOURCES MANAGEMEliT
- o. ~, w..
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY OMMISSION l
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555
[.
s
,o s.o son,=o o= c.=i4.,,o
.wi.=o...,,=o omiss,,.w i. e,
ii.,,,eosaseo.,
SAME AS 7 AB0VE QUARTERLY 1
OCTOBER-DECEMBER 1987 i
s Tile NRC REGULATORY AGENDA IS A MPILATI0f(/0F ALL RULES ON WHICH THE NRC HAS PROPOSED OR IS CONSIDER!liG ACTIO AND All/ PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING WHICH HAVE l
BEEN RECE7VED BY THE COMMISSION A ARE#ENDING DISPOSITION BY THE COMMISSI0li.
l Tile REGULATORY AGENDA IS UPDATED A.
I(SUED EACH QUARTER.
/
1
.. ooce...,...,..,
......o..
,,,o..
COMPILATION 0F RULES i
PETITIONS FOR RULE!
ING UNLIMITED
'. is tv.i, v C.. sis.c...oe, Lt.e enpe,
..es=t,,,i..o....e.oti.
UNCLASS!FIED i
, r..
1 i,N CL.A..SS,I F I E D U
o.osi
,....c.
.u. s.covcamit us.ri c orria,,,...rn.rer,.ni.
l
UNITED STATES 3,,c,,o rouarH CLASS HAf(
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PoS7^y,%lyS P^$
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555
,,,,,,,c,Section I - Rules etyttyy,Tn"en,vpTE 8U N E, $300 tan 107 g
Action Completed Rules g ogs g' o,u$7 a
,337
", 7~ 3 u s N F S, a s'J E,j,1 ao-PDF g[;'y pu9 2ne ge
(~dntuGT0" Proposed Rules Advance Notice - Proposed Rulemaking Unpublished Rules Section 11 - Petitions for Rulemaking Petitions - Final or Denied Petitions Incorporated into Proposed Rules C
Petitions Pending I
D Petitions - Deferred Action
-