ML20150E953
| ML20150E953 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/06/1988 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150E946 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-313 NUDOCS 8807180064 | |
| Download: ML20150E953 (77) | |
Text
.
- s;e No. 1 06/06/66 , ,
CNSC:t! 8!! RULEMAr!h3 ACTIVIT!ES UGE RDS ( CFR o i !!TLE SF RULE'!AK!h5 CITATICW DIVISICN/BS.ANCH CONTA** PtMENO.
1 36. Licensing Requireeents for the Sterage F 10 CFR 2, DE/MES Steyer,K. 49 23824 Spent Futi and High-Level Radioactive Was:e 19, 20, 21, 51, 70, 72, 73, 75, 150 3 63. Seneral Requitteents for Deccanissioning 10 CFR 30, DE/MEB Steyer,K. 49 23824 NuclearFacilities 40, 50,
- 51, 70, 72 5 129. Asendaent of the Pressurized Thereal Sho
- t 10 CFR 50 DE/MES Randall,P. 49-23842 Rule 8 68. Prisary Reactor Containeent Leakage festia; 10 CFR 50 DE/SSES Arndt,6. 49-23945 for Water-Cooled Power Reactors (Appendit J) 10 !!B. Alternative Methods for Leakage Rate Testi'y 10 CFR 50 DE/SSES Arndt,6. 49-239a5 12 34 ' Disposal of Radiotetive_ hastes 10 CFR 61 DE/WMB Costan:1,F. 49 23910 14 79. Elielnation of Inconsistencies between IFC 10 CFR 60 DE/WM3 Cestanti,F. 4923910 Regulations and EPA Standards 16 90. Criteria and Procedures for Estrgency Access 10 CFR 62 DE/W93 Lastert,J. 49 23S57 to Non Federal and Regional Los Level baste Disposal Facilities 18 100. Criteria for Licensir.g the Custody and 10CFR 40 DE/WM3 Haisfield,P. 49-23677 Long Tere Care of Uranius ll~ Tailings Sites 20 103. Safety Re:sted and leportant to Safety it 10 10 CFR 50 DRA/ARSIB Wilson,J. 49-23729 CFR Part 50 22 133. Rulesaking for the Maintenance of Nuclea' 10 CFR 50 DRA/AR6!B Dey,M. 49-23730 Poser Plants 25 95. Misadelnistrations of Nuclear Medicine 10 CFR 35 DRNRDB iss,A. 49-23797 27 104. De;ree Requiresent for Senior Operators at 10 CFR 50, DRA/RDB Fleishnan,R. 49 23794
. Nuclear Poser Plants 55 l
t 29 105. Reasserting NRC's Authority for A;;rovir; 10 CFR 150 DRA/RtB Stesart,J. ^?-236:6 l Onsite LLW Disposal in A;reesent States l
l 8007100064 880627 PDR FOIA FELTONOB-313 PDR
s T 3 5
i Page No. 3 l
06/06/88 . .
E ONS0!ks RES R AERAtlh5 ACT!s:" ES CFR PAGE' RDB DIV!SION/BRAh;H i!!LE OF Rt,'tEMAK!h5 CITAi!Ch - CONTACT PHCn! h*.
- g. 4 109. ' sendee.:
. of 50.62(c)(4) to Clarify 10 CFR 50 MA/RDB Pearson, W. 49-23764 31 Equivale*t Control Capacity for Standby Liquid Cc t :1 Systees (SLCS) 112. Storage:4 Scent Nuclear fuel in NRC Approved 10 CFR 72, ORA /RDB Pearson, W. 49 23764 33 73, 74, Casks at Civilian Naclear Pceer Reactor Sites 170-35 !!6. Asendeett to 10 CFR 51.51 and 51.52, Tables 10 CFR 51 DRA/RDB Turel,S. 49 23739 S-3 and S 4. Addition of Raden-222 and .
Technetine-99 Radiation Values, and Addition of A;pe dir B i 38 119. Teenty-Four Hour Notification of incidents 10 CFR 20 MA/RDB Mate, J. 49-23795 40 33. Standares f ar Protection Against Radiation 10 CFR 20 DRA/RPHEB Peterson,H. 49 23640 43 51. Criteria for an Estraordinary Nuctnr 10 CFR 140 MA/RPHEB Peterson,H. 4923640 Occurrence 45 53. Safety Rn uireeents for Industrial 10 CFR 34 DRAIRPHEB Nellis,D. 49 23628 Radiographic Equipeent 48 77. Personnel Access Authorintion Progras 10 CFR 50, MA/RPHEB Frattali,S. 49 23773 73 50 94. Deletion of Part 11 Rguireunt for Renesal 10 CFR 11 CRA/RPHEB Frattali, S. 49-2377!
of 'R' Clearances 51 98. Transportation Regulations: Coepatibility 10 CFR 71 DRA/RPHEB Hopkins,D. 49-23724 with the Internaticul Atoeic Energ) Agency (IAEA) 53 102. Disposal of Low-Level Radioactively 10 CFR 20 DRNRPHEB Mattsen,C. 49 23639 Contasinted Waste Oil froe helear Poser Plants 10 CFR 35 DRA/RPHEB Reecklein,A. 4923740 55 113. Control of Aerosols and Bases 57 114. Safeguards Requirteents for F6el Facilities 10 CFR 73 CRA/RPHEB Frattalli S. 4923773 Possessing Foreuia Quantities of Strategic Special kclear Raterial 59 125. NigV Fi in; Gualifications for Security 10 CFR 73 CRA/RPHEB Frattali,S. 4923773 Guards at 11. clear Peser Plants
1 s
t 1.
PaheNo. .3
.06/06/8E s .
- ti !h5 RES RULEMAKINS ACTIVITIES
.P GE R09 CFR
61 128. Licenses and Radiation Safety Re=: resents 10 CFR 36' DRA/RPHES Mc6ere, S. 49-23757 for Large Irradiators 63 !!!. a.:ncr Asen: stats to Physical Pr:u::::- 10 CFR 2, DRA/RPhEE :: , 5, S. 49-2 74:
Fequresents 70, 72, 73, 75 65 24. Energency Preparedness for Fuel lvcle and 10 CFR 30, DRAA/SA!B he;:chian, M. 49 23918 i Other Radioactive Materials Litersets 40, 70 67 13?. Energency Planning and Preparedness 10 CFR 50 CRAA/SA!B he;;chian,M. 49 23916 Requiresents for Nuclear Poser P;&nt Fuel Leading and laitial Lee-Poser Oprations 69 67. Acceptance Crite.aia for Energenti Co e 10 CFR 50 DRPS/RPSB Tovussian, H. 4923566 Cooling Systees (ECCS) for Light sate-Nuclear Power Reactors (Apper.dia O 72 56. Station Blackout 10 CFR 50 DRFS/RPS! Sert;z,A. 49 23555 i 4 l
I l
l_
l l
i I
l
RDB'NUMBE8: 36' LATEST UPDATE: 06/01/88 TITLE:
Licensing Requirements for the Stor age of Spent Fuel and
>; Highflevel. Radioactive Waste L
L'- 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 70; 10 CFR 75; 10 CFR 150 CURRENT STATUS:
~'
The final rule package was forwarded to the Commission on December 15, 1987 (SECY-87-298). The Commission.sent the packege to OGC for final review OGC returned the package to the Conmission on March 2, 1988.
ABSTRACT:
Tne proposed rule would revise e::isting regulations to establish specific licensing requirements f or the storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a monitored retrievable storage installation (MRS). This r evi si on is intended to ensure that the Commission has in place the appropriate regulations to fulfill the requirements contained in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 concerning the_ licensing of facilities 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 Commission.
The Commission could await further devel.opment of the MRS option bef ore proposing its MRS rul es. However, this approach could result in unnecessary delay in reviewing a license application if Congress authori:es construction of an MRS.
There is no appropriate alternative to rulemaking, the vehicle used by NRC to establi sh i ts licensing procedures, l
i The basic requirements f or storage of spent f uel in an l independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) currently I 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.
1
T 4- b 4
TIME *ABLE; 20MPLETED ACT1245:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/;2/85 Proposed Action Published 05/27/86 51 FF 19106 Proposed A: tion Comment Period End 08/25/56 Final Acti:n to CRGR/ACRS--Not Applicable Final Action to EDO 11/30/87 Final Action to Commission 12/15/87 SECV-87-298 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Act2cn Publirshed 06/30/88 NOTER, Timetable schedul ed acti on dates reflect EDO-approved 7 -rue dates. Dates included in parentheses, if a ,, represent task leader estimates.
REGULATORY IMPACT AN_AYSIS:
Completed; was not reviewed by RDB.
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2021; 42 USC 2071; 42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2077; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2099; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42
~
USC 2233; 42 USC 2234;
'42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2237; 42 USC 2282 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Keith Steyer/ Charles Nilsen Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Wash i ngt on , DC 20555 301' 492-3824/3834 i
0 l
I 1
i i
= ,
I
- v ! b l
- FI E 63 N. UMBER. :
La EST UPDATE: 06/01/88
'T' _E: '
General Requirements for Deccmmissioning Nuclear Facilities C:F CITATION:
10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 70;
'C. :ENT STATUS:
The final rule package was a# firmed by the Ccmmission on May,12, 1988.
AE5 TRACT:
The proposed rulemaking action is intended to protect public health and safety by providing assurance that licensees fulfill their responsibility to dispose of licensed material including any associated contamination when they cease licensed activity. The proposed rule also intends to provide the applicant or licensee with appropriate regulatory guidance f or implementir:g and accomplishing nuclear facility decommi ssi oni ng . - It is necessary to address thi s issue by amending the regulations in order to achieve appropriate assurances that funds for decommissioning will be available and the decommissioning will be carried out in an orderly manner. The Commission has indicated a need for this rulemaking in other previous rulemakings.
The major cost impact of the proposed rule would involve e proper plannirig at all stages of nuclear facility operation.
Proper planning includes providing f or (1) financial assurance that funding will be available f or decommissioning. ,
(2) maintenance of records that could affect decommissioning.
and (3) careful planning of procedures at the time of decommissioning. 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 year s (or $320,000 per year).
For the approximately 110 power reactors estimated to be affected (i.e., those with operating licenses and those under construction which are at least two-thirds complete) plus 75 research and test 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 environment within the confines of optimum cost benefi t consideration.
I i
l L
,u I.. 1 TIME ~ADLE:
CMPL'ETED ACTIONS:
ANPFM 03/13/78 43 FR 10370 Proposed Action Published 02/11/85 50 FR.5600 Ruleme.:ng Initiation Date - (Ongoing) 06/12/05 Proposed Action Comment. Period End 07/12/05
,j . 5 ') FR 20025 Final' Action for Division Review 11/15/86
/- Final Action for Office Concurrence 02/27/87 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 03/27/87 Final Action to ACRS--Not Applicable Final a c tion to CRGR 04/15/87 Final Letion Reviewed by CRGR 06/10/E7 Final Action to EDO 08/26/87 Final Action to Commission 12/17/87 SECY-87-309 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action Published 06/30/88 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due date,s.- Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS:
Completed; not reviewed by RDB.
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGEt8CY CONTACT:
. Keith G. Steyer/ Frank Cardile Nucl ear Regul atory Commi ssi um .
Of fice of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3824/3817 i
4
l
~
RDE' NUMDER: 129 LATEET UFDATE: 06/01/88 TITLE:
Amendment of the Pressurared Thermal Shock Rule CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 CURRENT STATUS:
On February 17, 1988, the EDO approved this rulemaking fer 2nitiation. The divisic- review package f or the propose:
rulemaking is currently ur.cergoing DE/RES concurrence.
ABSTRACT:
The Pressuri:ed Thermal Shock (PTS) Rule. published July 23, 1985, established a screening criterion,.a limit on the degree of radiation embrittlement of PWR reactor vessel beltline materials beyond which operation cannot continue without additional plant-specific analysis. The rule prescribes,how to calculate the degree of embrittlement as a function of the copper and nickel contents of the controlling material and the neutron fluence. The proposed amendment revises the calculative procedure to be consistent with that
,given in Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.99. The guide provides an updated correlation of embrittlement data, whi c h received CRGR approval for publication in final form on December 9, 1987.
The need to amend the PTS rule to be consistent with the guide became apparent when it was found that for some medium-copper, high-nickel materials embrittlement is worse than now predicted using che PTS rule. A number of PWRs will reach the screening criterion sooner than previ ousl y thoup,ht ,
l I and three plants will need to make plant-specific analysus in the next 10 years. Therefore, a high priority is being given to this effort.
l An unacceptable alternative to this amendment from the safety standpoint is to leave the present PTS rule in place. The staff *s plant-by-plant anal yses f ound f our plants whose ref erence temperatures are 52 to 68 F higher than previously thought, based on the present rule. This is beyond the uncertainties that were felt to exist when the present rule was published. Another unacceptable alternative that has been evaluated is to change the calculative procedure f or the ref erence temperature agd also change the screening 1/ criterion. Failure probabilities f or the most critical 5
- _ _ - - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ ___ _ ________________]
' ;f pccide-. scenarios in three plants, whe. recalculated using the nn e.brittlement estimates, were scmewhat lower, but were qv;te dependent on the plant conf 2gurat2on and the scenar:: chosen. Furthermore, the screen ng criterton was based c- a variety of contiderations besides the pr obab: . : s ti c anal ysi s, heopening the ouestion'of where to set the screening criterion was not considered productive because cf plant-to-plant differences. It is better to have a conse vative "trip wire" that triggers plant-specific analyses.
' rsmed i e . e costs to industry will be these required for each stilits to update the Janu3ry 23, 1986, submittal required by the PTE eule, using fluence estimates t~.at take account of e l u:: reduction efforts in the interim a.c using the new procedu-e for calculating RTPTS. In ac ition, three to five plants will need to make the expenditure of an estimated 2.5 million dollars f or the plant-specific analysis in the 1990's i nstead of 10 to 15 years later.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
- Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 02/17/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action for Division Review 06/01/88 (06/03/88)
Proposed Action to ACRS--Not Applicable Proposed Action to CRGR 10/01/88 Proposed Action to EDO 12/01/88 Proposed Action to Commission--To Be Determined Proposed Action Published 02/01/89 Final Action for Division Revtew 08/01/89 Final Action to ACRS--Not Applicable Final Action to CRGR 11/01/89 Final Action to EDO 01/01/90 Final Action to Commission--To Be Determined Final Action Published 03/01/90 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS:
Estimated completion date 06/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
Same as for 10 CFR 50.61 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 6
+--- -
F 3
'AGENC,Y CON. TACT:
Pryor N. Randall
, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of. Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC.20555
^-
701 492-3842 l
l l
l l
l i
l l
l l
l 1
l
! 7
L 68 '
RDF t)UMPE,R:
LA EST UPDATE: 06/01/88 ,
, TITLE:
Pr;..ary Reactor Containment Leakace Testing for Water-Cooled Power-Reactors CFR CITATION:
-10 CFR 50, Appendix J CUCRENT STATUS:
The_ proposed rule was published t r. One Federal F.egister on October 29, 1986. The comment per:ce was scheduled to end Ja uary 26, 1987. However, severa'. requests to extend the co ment period were received and it was extended until April 24, 1987. To date, 52 letters have been received with one of the principal comments being support for applying the bactfit rule to the rulemaking. Evaluation of comments re:eived is underway.
ABETRAC~:
The proposed rule would update and revise the 1973 criteria
, fc- 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 nati onal standard that needs to be recognized. It is proposed to revise the rule as noted to mal e it current and improve its usefulness.
The revision is urgently needed to resolve continuing conflicts between licensees and NRC inspectors over interpretations, current regulatorf practice which is no longer bei.ng reflected accurately by the existing rule, and er.d cr semen t in the existing regulation of an obsolete nationel standard that was replaced in 1981.
The benefits anticipated include e.imination of inconsistencies and obsolete requirements, and the addition of greater usef ulness and a higher confidence in the leel:-tight integrity of containment system boundaries under pcst-loss of coolant accident conditions. The majority of the ef f ort needed by NRC to issue the -ule has already been expended.
A detailed analysis of costs, benefits, and occupational enposures is available in the Public Document Room, and indicates possible savings to industry of $14 million to $300 million and an increase in occupat:enal exposure of less than 1 per cent per year per pla t due to increased testing.
8
o f
. TIME'ABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONE:
- Rulemaking nttiation Date 02/21/86 Proposed Ac'. ton to EDO 03/31/86 Proposed Action Published 10/29/86 51 FR 29538 Proposed Act:en Comment Period End 01/26/E7 Proposed Action Comment Period Extended to 0^/24/E7 52 FR 2416
~ SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Actior. for Division Review 08/15/88 Final Act'ior to Offices for Concurrence 09/15/88 Final Actior to CRGR/ACRS 11/15/88 Final Actic- to EDO 12/15/88
' Final Actic* to Commission 01/15/89 Final Actio- Published 02/15/89 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader esticates.
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS:
Completed; revteaed by RDB.
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2133; 42 L'SC 2134; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL' BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
E. Gunter Arndt Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3945 n
9
c.
. F ::- '.'JMBER : 118
? LATEIT UPDATE: 06/01/88-
'TI .E:
'Iternative Methods for Leakage Rate Testing
'CF: 2!TATION:
.10 CFR 50 CUF:ENT STATUS:
'he proposed action was published in the-Federal Register on ebruary 29, 1988 (52. FR 5985). '5e public comment period.
ended March 30, 1988. Twenty-one letters were received; the comment resolution memo is under preparation.
ABETF.ACT :
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes a limited amendment to its regulations to clarify a question of interpretation in regard to leakage testing of containments
- of light-water-cooled nuclear power plants. 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 f or 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.
TIME ABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action for Division Review 11/12/87 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Ccmpleted 11/12/87
! Prop.osed Action to ACRS--Not Applicable L Prop'osed Action to CRGR 11/12/87
-Proposed Action to EDO 11/12/R7 l
Proposed Action to Commission--Not Applicable
! Rulemaking Initiation Date (Publicat! on of
- Proposed Action) 02/29/88 Proposed Action Published 02/29/88 53 FR 5985 i Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 03/30/88 Final Action to ACRS--Not Applicable SCHEDULED ACTIONS
Final Action to CRGR (08/15/88) l Final Action to EDO (09/15/88) l Final Action to Commission (10/15/88) l Final Action Published 11/15/88 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent i task leader estimates.
l l
l 10
1 ,
< 'REGULATORYu!MPACT' ANAL SIS:
- Contpl eted ; - r e vi ewed by. RDB.
LEGAC' AUTHORITY:
- i. .
42 USC 2011;E42 USC 2201; 42 USC.4321; 42 US; 5841;
'42.USC 5842-
'EFFECTSLON SMALL BUSINESS'AND OTHER. ENTITIES: No-AGENCY. CONTACT:.
E.-Gunter.Arndt
- Nuclear Regulatory- Commission Of f i ce of . N.~
- l e ar-- Regdlatory Resear ch.'
~
Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3945~ .,
f l
i 4
l .
l .:
l l
l
, 11 l
l l
- 25 NUMBER: 34 I
_a EST. UPDATE: 06/01/88
~;TLE:-
Di sposal of Radioactive Wastes
- r
- CITATION:
10 CFR 61 C'.* RENT. STATUS:
The proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Pegister en May 18, 1988 (53 FR- 17 7. 9 ) . The-public comment period :s scheduled to end July 18, 1955.
AEETRACT:
The Commission instructed the staff to analyze the need to revise the definition of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) in Part 60 to conform with the definition in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). An ANPR was published on February 27, 1987 (52 FR 5992), which recommended a revision based either wholly-or partially on concentrations of radionuclides in the waste. After assessing the public comments on the ANPR, and also taking into account recent information, the staff is ncna recommending against any revision of the-definition of HLW. Instead, amendments to Part 61 are being recommended that would require geologic repository disposal of all above Class C low-level radioactive waste (LLW) unless an alternative has been approved by the Commission. This would accomplish the objective of establishing suitable disposal requirements f or radioactive waste with a minimal impact on cost burdens.
Alternatives are: (1) revise the definition of HLW so that additional above Class C LLW is reclassified as HLW; cr (2) make no change in the system of waste classification or required waste disposal options.
The public and industry woul d benef it from this clarificatton of waste disposal options for above Class C LLW. NRC staff time f or preparing this rulemaking is estimated at 2 staff-years.
'2
TIMETABLE:
CO!TFLE TE: ACTIONS:
Rul e. .a ki ng Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/85 A NF .:. P. Action for Division Review 04/86 Of J:ce Concurrence on ANPRM Action Completed 10/86 AN:: P Action to EDO 11/07/86 ANF :?. A.-tion to Commission 02/19/87 ANFC.M Action Published 02/27/87 ANF AM Comment Period End 04/29/87 ANFRM Comment Period Extended to 06/29/87 52 FR 16403 Pres sed Action to ACRS 10/87 Pr::: sed Action to CPGR--Not Applicable Pr::: sed Action for Office Review 1C/17/87 j Pr::: sed Action to EDO 02/05/88
'I Frcpesed Action to Commisston 02/19/88 SECY-88-51 Prepcsed Action Published 05/18/88 52 FR 17709 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Prepcsed Action Public Comment Perico End 07/18/88 Final Action Published 04/30/89 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect milestones developed by the staf f in response to a Commission directive.
REGULATORY IFFACT ANALYSIS:
Completed; has not been reviewed by RDB.
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SPALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Frank Costanzi/ Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Commission Of fice cf Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3510/3884 i
t i
13
d 79 RDB .' NUMBER:
LATEST UPDATE: 06/01/88-TITLE:
Elimination of Inconsistencies Between NRC Regulations and EPA Standards CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 60 CURRENT STATUS:
A Commission paper tr6.smitting the final rule was for,.e-ded
/ to the EDO on July 20, 1987. The EDO is holding the rulemaking package f ol' owing OGC review of the recent court decision striking dowr the EPA standard. OGC has recommended that the rulemaking be held up pending EPA's development of a revised HLW stand.ard (40 CFR 191).
ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 directs NRC te promulgate criteria fo- 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 f or the disposal of HLW in deep geologic repositories.
The proposed rule is needed in order to eliminate several inconsistencies with the EPA standard's, 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 stetute.
The public, industry, and NRC will benefit f rom elimi nating inconsistencies in Federal HLW regulations. NRC restu-ces needed would be several staff years but will not include contract resources.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date 08/07/85 Proposed Action Published 06/19/86 51 FR 22288 ,
l Froposed Action Comment Period End 08/18/86 c
l Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed C7/15/87 Final Action to EDO 07/20/87 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action to Commission Undetermined Final Action Published Undetermined NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved l Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent i due dates.
l task leader estimates.
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS:
Completed; has not been reviewed by RDB.
14 l
LEGAL AUTv ::! TY:
42 UE~ 10101 EFFECTS O! SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTI?4ES: No AGENCY CO!. TACT:
Fr ani: Costan:i/ Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuc'=ar Regulatory Research Washington, DL 20555 201 402-3810/3994 1
l l
l l
l I
1 l
l l
l 15
_RDB NUMEER: 90 LATEST UPDATE: 06/01/88 TITLE:
Criteria and Procedures for Emergency Access to Non rederal and Regional Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 62 CURRENT STATUS:
This rulemaking was transf erred from NMSS to RES afts-publication of the pecposed rulemaking. The propose: action was published on December 15, 1987 (52 FR 47578) anc the public comment period ended on February 12, 1988. A.
informal extension was granted until March 18, 1988.
A total of 21 comment letters were received. A draft comment analysis and accompanying revisions to the rule have been circulated for office review and comment. Resolutico of comments and necessary revisions to the rule and the comment analysis are underway.
ABSTRACT:
The rule would establish procedures and criteria f or f ulfilling NRC 's responsibilities associated with acting on requests by low-level radioactive waste generators, or State officials on behalf of those generators, for emergen:y access to operating, non-Federal or regional, low-level rad:oactive waste disposal facilities inder Section 6 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLPAPAA).
Section 6 of the LLRWPAA authorizes the NRC to grant emergency access to any non-Federal l ow-l evel waste disposal facility, if necessary, to eliminate the immediate and serious threat to the public health and safety or the common defense and security, provided the threat cannot be n:tigated by any alternative.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date 08/25/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action 05/87 Proposed Action to EDO 07/30/87 Proposed Action to Commission 08/12/87 Proposed Action Published 12/15/87 52 FR 47573 Public Comment Period End 02/12/88 Final Action to CRGR/ACRS--Not Applicable SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Fi,a1 Action to Offices for Concurrence 08/15/98 Final Action to EDO 09/15/08 Final Action 'o Commission 10/15/88 Final Ac t i e:- v ublished 11/15/88 NOTE: Timetab1; cheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dats, included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
16
- _- c -, - -
ii 5
.f T w
, j 7,
l1<
' ' - .-REGULhTCRY IMPACT ANALYSIS:
[
- CS-41eted; L hAs';not been reviewed _ t f RDS.
d .)
4 _ LEG AL'I AdTHORITY:'
-M USC 2021
/ EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND'OTHER' ENTITIES: Yes g
AGENCY-CONTACT -
~ Janet Lambert"
~
'3I . Nucl ear ~ Rogul'atory Commi ssion _-
044:ce'of Nucl ear Regul atory 5:esear:5
-Washington, DC.20555-
! 201' ~ 492-3857.
I i
i 3
s P
l e
t i
I P
17
RDB NUMBER: 100 LATEST UPDATE: 06/01/88 TITLE:
Criteria for Licensing the Custody ar.d Long-Ter- Care of Uranium Mill Ta 11ngs Sites CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 40 CURRENT STATUS:
The rulemaking as under development. On Februe f 10, 1988, the proposed rule was f orwarded to the EDO f or signature.
The EDO requested that a Commission paper be prepared and on March 30, 19G8, a Commi ssi on paper was sent for EDO approval. '
SECY-88-83 was f orwarded to the Commission on March 17, 1988.
A meeting was held on 05/18/88 with the Commission staf f .
ABSTRACT:
The proposed rulemaking would amend Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40 (Domestic Licensing of Source Material), to include a procedure f or licensing a custodian f or the post-cicsure, long-term control of uran:um mill tailings sites required by the Uranium Mill Ta !ings Radiation Contrcl Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). This amendment would establish a general license for custody and long-term care of uranium mill tailings by the Department of Energy, other designated Federal agency, or States when applicable. The gennrel license would be f ormulated so that it mould become effective for a particular site when (1) NRC concurs in the DOE determinatien that the site has been properly constructed and (2) a surveillance and maintenance plan that meets the requirements of the general license has been re:eived by NRC.
No impact to the public or industry is expected as a result of this proposed action.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date 02/17/87 Proposed Action f or Division and Of fice Review 11/09/87 l
Proposed Action to CRGR/ACRS--Not Applicable
! Of fice Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 02/10/93 Proposed Action to EDO 02/10/88 Revised Proposed Action to EDO 03/10/88 Proposed Action to Commission 03/17/88 SECY-88-83 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action Published 05/30/88 (07/29/88)
Final Action Published 01/30/89 (03/31/89)
L NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved
! duo dates. Dates included in parentheses, if ay, represent
! task leader estimates.
l l
l 18
k , p.
' - L RET.t_ ATORY _ ' IMPACT ANALYSIS .
'Codpl eted; _. r evi ewed by RDB.--
s LE3 ' _ AUTHORITY:
4 Uranium'M111 Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended; Public Law 95-604, 92 Stat. 3021 gr I2TS ON 5 MALL : BUSINESS : AND OTHER ENTITIES ' No AGI' JOY . CONTACT:
Mark Haisfield Nucl ear Regul atory Commi ssior.
Office.of Nuclear Regulatory :.esearch Washington, DC 20555-301.492-3877 I
1 i
e E
t 19
.4 RDP , NUMEtER : 10!
LATEST UPDATE: 06/01/88 TITLE:
Safety Reletec and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part'50 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 CURRENT STATUS:
This rulema.:mg was transferred from IE to FES es a result of the Apet' 1987 reorgani:ation.
A package. suggesting an approach to rulemaking was signed by the EDO and forwarded to the Commission on May 29, 1986 (SECY-86-164). Staff is currently awaiting a Commission decision; however, in light of higher priority issues, Chairman Zech has requested a delay in the vote on SECY-86-164.
ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to clarify its regulations on the use of the terms 'tmportant to safety" and
~
"safety related" by adding definitions of these two terms and of "facility licensing documents" to 10 CFR Part 50 and by discussing how these definitions will be applied in NRC licensing' reviews. Significant issues concerning the meaning of these terms as they are used in this part have arisen in Commission licensing proceedings. This proposed rule would define these terms and clarif y 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 Commission's directive to resolve the issue by rulemaking contained in the Shoreham licensing decision (C'I-84-9, 19 NRC 1323, June 5, 1984).
A position paper requesting approval of the staff proposed definitions and additional guidance from the Commission was signed by the EDO on May 29, 1986. In addition to rulemaking, the position paper discusses the alternative of the Commiss:en issuing a policy statement concerning the defini tions and their usat e.
Since the proposed rule is only clarifying existing requir,aents, there is no impact on the public or the industry as a result of this rulemaking. It is anticipated that the NRC will expend 3.2 to 4.4 staf f years in developing the final rule over a 2-year period. The manpower and time frame will depend on Commission guidance received on the extent to which 10 CF: usage of the terms is to be consistent, i.e.,
10 CFR Part 50 only or all of 10 CFR. 20
- - -=
e - t
' t;
~!METADLE:
'cCOMPLETED ACTIONS:
. 06/12/85 Rulemaking -Ini ti ati on Date (Ongoing) s Proposed Action--Sug;ested Approach (SECY-86-164) tc Commission 05/29/86 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Commission Decision on SECY-86-164' Undetermined NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates inclu!!ed in par entheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
.E3ULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS:
Estimated date-of compleu en undetermined.
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC-5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No.
AGENCY CONTACT:
Jerry N. Wilson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3729
/
21
O RDE NUMBER: 133 ,
s LATEST UPDATE: 06/01/88 TITLE:
Rulemal.m; for the Maintenance of Nuclea- Power Plants CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 CURRENT STATUS:
On Janva-v 7, 1988, the Commission was briefed by the staff on its :rcposed "Interim Policy Stateme-t on Maintenance of Nucl ear F ower Plants" as contained in SECY-87-314. The staff '
proposed a 2-year trial period to assess industry initiatives prior tc -:nitiating a rulemaking action. However, the Commi ssi on directed the staff to develop a notice of proposed rulemaking by August 1, 1988, spelling out NRC's expectations in the area of maintenance. In consideration of the steps which need to be taken-in order to comply with the Commi ssion 's di recti on , the staff estimates that a proposed rule will not be submitted for Commission review until December 1, 1988. The Commission staff has been briefed on the rev: sed schedule and a Commissica paper is currently under preparation to document the schedule.
ABSTRACT:
On March 23, 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published a Final Policy Statement on Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (53 FR 9430). In the policy statement, the Commission stated that it expected to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the near future and has directed the staff to develop such a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
As dire:ted by the Commission, the staff will develop a general rule that specifies f unctional requirements for the maintenance of nuclear power plants and allows industry initiatives to develop the details of maintenance programs to meet su:h requirements. The scope of maintenance activities addressed in the rule will be wi thin the f ramework of the Commi ss:en 's Policy Statement on Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants. The rule will apply to all components, systems and structu-es of nuclear power plants and will be applicable to e::isting and f uture plants. The rule will also require each licenser to develop, implement and maintain a maintenance program, and to f ormally commit to f ollow the program.
Compliance with the rule will be determined by audit by NRC i n sp ec t or s. A recomeended position on whether the rule should include a requirement to report maintenance perf ormance indicators to the NRC will be developed as a part of developing the rulemaki ng.
22
In suppor t of the prc;ssed rule, 'tne staf f will deve;:p a
. regulatory guide that ~;11 summari:a state-of-the-art cethods and procedures for nuclear power plant maintenance and reliability. assurance programs that the staff conside-s acceptable ways to meet the f unc tional requirements in the r ul e. This regulatory gaide will provide the guidance to the industry regarding sta'.f views on the content and functions of an acceptable maintenance program. The regulatory guide will also provide the results of a staf f evaluation of the acceptability of industry standards, initiatives and programs against the f unctional requirements proposed in the rule.
An dir ected by the Cc- : ssion , the staff, in develop: 9; the rule, will consider asintenance practices in other ccantries (J apan , France, and FRG', and other industries (aviation and chemical) in this count *y in which human performance, maintenance and equipment reliability play an important role in the safety of operations. These considerations will be documented in a supporting NUREG report along with other factors considered important to document the development of the rule and regulatory guide.
It is estimated that about 3 staf f years of effort and $600K for contract services will be required to process the final rule.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (Commission Mandate) 02/25/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Rule to DRA Division Director 10/01/8E Proposed Rule to CRGR and ACRS 10/01/88 Proposed Rule to RES Director 10/07/88 Proposed Rut e to Of fice Directors 10/14/88 Proposed Rule to EDO 11/21/88 Proposed Rule to Commission 12/01/88 Proposed Rule Issued for Public Comment 01/01/89 Proposed Ru.te Public Comment Period End 03/01/E9 Final Rule to DRA Division Director 07/01/89 Final Rule to RES Director 07/15/89 Final Rule tc. Of fice Directors 08/01/89 Final Rule to CRGR and ACRS 09/01/89 Final Rule to EDO 11/01/89 Final Rule to Commission 12/01/89 Final Rule to Federal Register 12/30/89 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, r epr esent task leader estimates.
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS:
Estimated date of completion for proposed rule 09/01/88 Estimated date of completion f or final rule 06/01/89 23
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
- (Tc'be provided by DRR/ ARM)
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Mon Dey Nuc1 ear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492 ~730 1
24
-i_
m' '
RDB NUMBER: 95-LATEST UPDATE: 06/01/56 TITLE:
Misadministrations of Nuclear Medicine CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 35-
' 'l
. CURRENT STATUS:
In a staff requirements memorandum dated April 22. 1988, the Commission requester that an options paper be pre;ared. An options paper was s.bmitted to the EDO on May 26, 1088.
Revisions were in:orporated and a revised options paper was f orwarded to the EDO on May 31, 1988.
ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering amendments to its regulations governing the use of byproduct material for radiation therapy. In addition to current requirements, the contemplated amendments would require that licensees offering patient care services implement a quality assurance program. The comtenplated amendments would also clarif y plans f or responding to misadministrations. The alternatives to rulemaking considered by the staf f were to take no action or to provide quality assurance guidance and request voluntary compliance. The Commission directed the staff to take the rulemaking alternativo. Accordingly, an ANFR on comprehensive quality control and an NPR on specific basic quality assurance in radiation therapy have been prepared.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Ir.itiation Date 11/28/86 ANPRM Action for Division Review 08/01/86 Office Concurrence on ANPRM Completed 12/10/86 ANFRM Action to EDO 02/03/87 ANFRM Action to Commission 02/05/87 Proposed Action on Basic QA Published 10/02/87 52 FR 36942 ANFRM on Comprehensive QA Published 10/02/87 52 FR 36949 Proposed Action on Basic QA Comment Period End 12/01/87 ANPRM on Comprehensive QA Comment Period End 12/31/87 Final Action on Basic QA f or Division Review 01/12/88 Division Comments on Final Action on Basic QA Received 02/16/09 Division Comments Incorporated into Final Action on Basic QA 03/17/88 Commission Briefing by the Staf f 03/22/88 Commi ssion o.-i ef ing by Representati ves of the Medical Ccmmunity 04/07/88 Final Action on Basic QA to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable 25
~,
s 3, .
j, o
>. _ N;
- -Options 7 Paper'to Offices fcr Concurrence- 05/10/88
. . Options Paper on DA Rulemak: ng to. EDO 05/26/88 y ,s. Revised ~ Options"Paper on CA Rulemaking to EDO 05/31/88 ECHEDULED ACTIONS:
Commission Brlefing 06/01/98 A' NOTE- Timetable scheduled action dates reflect '
i Commission-directed due dates. Cates included in.
s parentheses,.,if any, represent task leader estimates.
REGULATORY IMPACT ANAUYSIS:
Completed; reviewed by RDB.
-LEGAL. AUTHORITY:
42-UCC 2111; 42_USC-2201: 42 US; 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes t ,
AGENCY CONTACT:
\ Anthony Tse i- Nuclear Regulatory Commission Offi'ce of Nuclear Regulatory Researc!,
. Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3797 e
4' 4
26
4 e y,
a RDB . NUMBER: 104 LATEST UPDATE: 06/01/88 s
TITLE:
- Degree Requiretent for Senior Operators at Nu: lear Power Plants CFR CITATION: ,
-CURFENT STATUS:
A draft ruleraling package was terwarded for :Jfice review and concurrer.:e on April 8, 1988. The rulema,ing was concurred in oy ARM on May 18, 1988. Numerous meetings.were held with OGC and NRR and several drafts prepared to resolve comments. Of fice concurrence is expected by June 3, 1988.
The paper will be sent to ACRS for i n f orma t i on , but staff has no plans f or a f ormal discussion since the ACRS has already reviewed and discussed the degree requirement in August- 1987
'and transmitted their negative comments to the Commission.
The CRGR was sent a memorandum on May 2, 1985, including a draf t of the Federal Register notice, requesting a decision on whether or not the proposed rule should be considered by CRGR. With the anticipated concurrence of OG; and NRR, the paper is c::pected to be f orwarded to the EDO by June 6, 1988, on schedule.
ABSTRACT:
The Commission is considering an amendment te its regulations to require that applicants for a senior opere o license of a nuclear power plant hold a baccalaureate degree in engiocering or a related science from an accrocited institut;on 4 years after the ef f ecti ve date of the rule.
Cther baccalaJreate degrees f om are accredite: institution may be accepted on a case-by-case basis. This contemplatec rulemaking action is due to a Commission decision to enhance the levels of engineering and accident managetent e::per ti se on shift. The Commission is also considering issuing a policy staten-nt concurrently wi th thi s "ule -el ated to utility implementation of the rule.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
ANFRM C5/01/86 51 FR 19561 ANPRM Cetment Period Extended to 09/29/S6 SECY Paper to Commission (SECY-87-101) (4/16/87 Rulemaking Initiation Date (Commi ssion Acproval) 06/24/87 Proposed Action for Division Review O2,*.2/88 Proposed Action to Of fices for Concurret :e 04/08/E8 Proposed Action to CRGF. 05/02/88 27 w n
's
'y' CCHEDULCD ACT20NS:
. . Pr op oseri Action to ACS: 05/09/Db (06/06/CO)
.Prepscd Action to ECC 'L/06/89 k Propomd Att2on to Cc.- . ninn 07/05/C0 Proposed Acticn Fub'..: r- 09/05/09 rinal Acticn for Div;3 c. Review 12/!.0/88 i Officti Conturrence on rinal Action Completed 02/29/Sc Final Action to EDO Oi'!O/89 Finel Actton to Commission (07/15/89)
Finsl Action Publishec 08/05/89
':0TE: Timstd_.e scheduled s:tilon dotet reflect EDO-ap;r ever
.L d r.t e s . D*tes 2ncluded .- parentheset, i# any, repeete-.
- a sl' leader estimates.
- E3UL ATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS:
Completed; will be forwarde: to RDB f or review af ter of fice concurrence.
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201 EFrECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Morton Fleishman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com .i ssion Office of Nuclear Regulaterr Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-5794
- 20 L _
RDE NJMf!ER: * ". i LA'EET UPDATE: 06/08/88 T !%E:
Romer t :- - NRC's Sole Aittherity for Appre.:ng Onsite LLW Disposal :n Agreement States CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 1 F.
CURFENT STATUE:
DGC pr ev. :. il y rei sed a ques,ti on of how t; a ::dr ess Part 70 fact 11 ties :n the rulemaking. Staff has ;r.:.orporated the OGC c ommen t s.. NRR, GPA, ARM, DGC, and NMSS hEva concurred.
Staff w i l '. forward the proposed rulemakin- to the OEDO on June 8, 1:39 Copies of'the proposed rulemaking were informally sent to ACRS and CRGR on April 4, 1988. CRGR verbally indicated that no CRGR re n ew was required. Staff anticipates a written confirmat: on to that ef f ect shortly.
ABSTRACT:
This rule:)aking would establish NRC as the sole authority f or approving onsite disposal of l ow '4 evel waste at all NRC-licensed -eactors and at Part 70 f acilities. There is a need to amend 10 CFR Part 150.15 to authori:e ene agency (the NRC) to regulate all such onsite disposal of low-level waste in order to crovide a more comprehensive regulatory r eview of all onsite waste management activities and to avoid unnecessary duplication of ef f ort. Unif orm review by the NRC will provide f or greater assurance that the radioactive material will not present a health ha:ard at a later date efter the si te is decommi ssioned.
TIMETA3LE:
COMPLETEE ACTIONS:
Ruler.aking Ini ti ati on Date (EDO Approval) 05/19/87 Proposed Action to Of fices f or Concurrence 03/31/88 Prop: sed Action to ACRS/CRGR 04/04/98 SCHEDULEE ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to EDO 05/16/88 (06/08/88)
Proposed Action to Commission 06/30/88 Froposed Action Published 07/29/88 Proposed Action Public Comment Period Ends 10/01/08 Final Action Published 06/30/89 NOTE: Ta t.etable scheduled acti on dates ref l ect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task loacer estimates.
REGUL ATORY IMFt.CT ANALYSIS:
Complete:; reviewed by RDB.
20
c LEGAL AUTHORITY:
4 UDC 2001: 42 USC 20 ' : 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINES5 At0 OTHER ENTITIES: No AGE!O CONTACT:
John Stewart U.S. Nuc1 ear Regulatcry Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 701 492-3618 e
i 30
~
r i
N '
4 '
- I RDE JUMBEc: 109 LATEST UPDoTE: 06/01/88 TITLE:
Amenc ent of 50.62(c) (4) to Clari f y Equivalent Control Capacity for Standby Liquid Control Systems (SLCS)
CFR CITATION:
CUF RENT Sia'US:
A dred t rulemaking package was distrinc.ted for office review at the division level on November 30, 1987. Staff is currently awaiting-an OGC opinion on the srope of the rulemaking.
ABSTRACT:
Paragraph 50.62 (c) (4) states, in part, 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 50.62 (c) (4) . This letter provided the basis for the flow and weigh percent of sodium pentaborate decahydrate requirements and described how equivalency could be achieved ~ f or smaller pl ants. The NRC staff considers the contents of this letter to be technically correct and desired that this position be established in the regulations.
This ulemaking action will clarify a Commission regulation; thus, no 'other procedure is appropriate. The technical proposals in the rule were analy:ed f or safety as part of the original rulemaking procedure, although they were not speciefcally mentioned. The health and safety of the public will not be adversely affected by this rulemaking action.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date--Not Applicaale Proposed Action for Division Review 11/30/87 I SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Croposed Action to Of fices f or Concurrence l
05/20/88 (07/29/88)
Proposed Action to ACRS--Not Applicable Proposed Action to CRGR--To Be Determined o roposed Action to EDO 07/22/88 (08/31/88) l l Froposed Action to Commi ssion--Not Applicable Froposed Action Published 08/30/88 (09/30/88)
! Proposed Action Public Comment Period End (10/31/88) einal Action Publi shed 12/30/85
! NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent l task leader estimates.
31 L
,l'
('n '
R E G'_'_4T O R Y IMPACT ANALYE*3:
> *Not' app 11 cable; scc s of rule is very limited.
LEGA_ AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2136, Sectic. 106 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESE AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
William R. Pearson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Fegulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3764 32
w '
RDE NuMEER: 110 .
-LATEST UFDATE: 06/01/88 TITLE:
5*.: rage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NFC Approved Casks at Civilian Nuclear Power Reactor Sites CFR CITATION:
,10 CFR 72;<10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 74; 10 CFR 170 CURRENT STATUS:
'rs proposed rulemaking was districated for division review en March 0, 1988. Currently staff is attempting to resolve OGC and NRR comments raised at a meeting on May 25, 1988.
ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule is in response to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) section 218 (a) which states, in part, that the Secretary of DOE shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for dry storage of spent nuclear f uel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the Commission may, by rule, approve for use at sites of civilian nuclear power reactors. The NWPA also requires that the NRC establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under section 218 (a) for use at the site of eny civilian nuclear power reactor.
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.
TIMETAELE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 12/14/87 Proposed Action f or Division Review 03/02/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to Of fices f or Concurrence 05/31/88 (06/00/88)
Proposed Action to ACRS--To Be Determined Proposed Action to CRGR--To Be Determined Proposed Action to EDO 07/15/88 (08/31/88)
Proposed Action to Commission 08/12/88 (09/09/88)
Proposed Action Published 09/09/88 (10/09/88)
Final Action Published 07/21/89 N01 E t Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parenthesus, if any, represent task l eader est i ma t es.
REGULA*ORY IMPACT ANALYSIS:
Comp l et ed; reviewed by RDB.
33
J{
/ f. '
LEG /.. AUTHOR 2TYs
, 4 2 l)SC 10153: 4; USC 10198
~
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No A S E' .' Y CONTACT:
W111 tam R. Pearson Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Nucl ear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3764 4
9 e
34
.)
I F;:- 4 UMBER: 116 LA EET UPDATE: 06/01/89 T:~_Er
' Amendment to 10 CFR Part 51, Sections 51.51.and 51.52, Table S-3 and Table S-4, ' Addition cf Radon-222 and Technetium-99
< Radiation Values, and Additice. of Appendix B, "Table S Explanatory Analysis" i
CFL CITATION:
10 CFR 51 CL: : INT STATUS:
A draf t rulemaking package is being circulated within DRA/REE f or division review.
AES"RACTt 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 Commissi on's environmental protection regulations. The proposed rule describes the basas for the values contained in Table S-3, the significance of the uranium fuel cycle data in the table, and the conditions governing the use of the table. The proposed rule. amends Section 51.52 to modify the enrichment value of U-235 and the maximum level of The narrative explanation also average fuel irradiation.
addresses important f uel cycle impacts and the cumulative impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle f or the whole nuclear power industry so that it may be pcssible to consider these impacts generically rather than repeatedly in individual licensing proceedings, thus reducing litigation time and costs for both NRC and applicants.
TP cproposed rule as regards revision of Section 51.51 and addition of Appendix B was published for public review and comment on March 4, 1981 (46 FR 15154) . The final rulemaking was deferred pending the outcome of a suit (Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. NFC, No. 74-1486) in the U.S.
Court of Appeals. The U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) decision of April 27, 1982, invalidated the entire Table S-3 rule. The Supreme Court reversed this decision on June 6, 1983.
The proposed rule to provide a narrative expl anation f or Table S-3 has 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 t
~5
values for raden-222 and technetium-99 could be added to the
. tabJe and covered in the nar rati ve explanation. The rule is being reissued as a proposed rule because the scope has been extended to . include radiation values for radon-222 and
, technetium-99 and the narrative e>:plantion has been extensively revised from that published on March 4, 1981
., (46 FR 15154).
The staf f 's estimate is that the completion of a final Table S-0 rule covering the new values for raden-222 and technetium-99, and the revised narrative explanation will be ompleted in FY 1989. A Commission Paper presenting the einal rulemet: ng plan and schedule was subeitted on
$. August 18, 1956 (SECY 86-242).-On September B, 1986, EECY-86-242 was approved by the Commission.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (Two Rulemakings integrated) 07/30/87 Proposed Action f or Division Review 05/27/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Froposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 08/12/88 Proposed Action to ACRS--Not Applicable Proposed Action to CRGR 10/05/08 Proposed Action to EDO 11/11/88 Proposed Action to Commission 12/16/88 Proposed Action Published 02/10/89 Final Action to Commission 01/26/90 Final Action Published 02/26/99 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS:
Estimated completion date undetermined.
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2011; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 4321; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 36
L EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONIACT:
Stanley Turel Nur.l ear Regul atory Com:ni ssi on Office of Nu c. l ear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-5739 I
l l
37
4 RDB-NUMDER: 119 LATEET UFDA E: 06/01/88
. TITLE:
Twenty :Jr Hour Notification of Incidents CFR CITATICN:
10 CFR 09 CURRENT STA*US:
Several meetings were held in March and April 1988 between RES, OE. and NMSS staff to clarify recceting requirements involvi .g sealed sources and other licensed materials. As of
'May 31, 1988, these comments were resol,ed and the staff began peeparation of the regulatory i m.t a c t analysis.
ABSTRACT:
This rulemaking would amend 10 CFR Part 20.403(a) and (b) to clarify the licensees' reporting requirements. While Sectior.s. 20.403(a) and (b) are reasonably clear'in terms of licensee repor ting requirements f or events involving "exposures" and "releases" of radioactive material s, these sectio-s are not clear concerning events involving "loss of oper ation" and "damage to property." "Loss of operations" should be clarifieci in terms of loss of use of facilities, devices or equipment. Damage to property" should be clarified to include contamination clean-up if the corrective e action is equal to or greater than a certain cost. In additien, the rulemaking should also define "immediate" in actual time, e.g., within i hour, for reporting requirements.
This relemaking action will clarify a current Commi7sion regulation; there is no other appropriate procedure to accommcdate the clarification. This rulemaking activity is not corsidtred to be a high priority item.
The health and saf ety of the public will be better protected because improved reporting requirements will reduce the potential risk of exposure to radiation f rom damaged or contaminated material . Clarif ying the reporting requi rements will si.tplif y regulatory f unctions and f ree the staf f from unnecessary additional investigation and, at the same time.
protect the industry from unnecessary and unexpected fines.
The ofJices of DE, NMSS, and RES are signi ficantly af f ected by this clarification. ARM and the regions are' af f ected, but to a mcch lesser degree.
l l
l l
38
9 TIME *ABLE:
.. Cot'FLETED - ACT IONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approv 1) 02/1 /ES SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to DRA Division Director 08/05.SS Proposed Actior te RES Director 09/02/88 Proposed Action to Office Directors 10/07/88 Proposed Action to CRGR and ACRS 11/04/63 (If Pequired)
Proposed Action to EDO 12/02/88 Proposed Action to Commission--Not Applicable Proposed. Action Published 01/06/89 Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 03/1C'89 Analysis of Pub;.c Comments Completed 05/05/S9 Final Action to DRA Division Director 06/02/89 Final Action to RES Director 07/04/89 Final Action to Office Directors 08/04/89-Final Action to CRGR and ACRS .09/01/89 (If Requ e ed )
Final Action to EDO. 10/06/89 Final-Action to Commission--Not Applicable Final Action Published 12/08/89 REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSES:
Estimated date of cor.pletion 10/01/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
(To Be Determined)
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Joseph J. Mate Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3795 39
RDE NUMEE; 00 LATEhLE 0 ATE: 06/01/88 TITLE:
Eta dards f or Protection Against Red ation ( Pr i or i t y 1)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 20 CURRENT STATUS:
The comment period on the proposed *evision to 10 CFR Part 20 a r.: the draft backfit analysis c1cse: on October 31, 1986.
Analysis of the more than 800 pub 1:c comment letters received was completed. The staff performe: an overview analysis to cha'acteri:e- the comments and prepared a paper to the EDO on whether and how this rulemaking shculd proceed. The EDO decision was to proceed with proposed rule as modified by public. comment. A working group was formed and is developing the final rule. ,
AESTRACT:
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 prctection against radiation that are used by all licensees-and affects exposures of workers and members of the public, it should be the most basic of the NRC regulations. However, because the present Part 20 has become outdated, most radiation protection actions occur through licensing actions Ancependent of Part 20. A complete revision is necessary to prcvide better assurance of protection against radiation; establish a clear health protection basis f or the limits; re#1ect current inf ormation on health risk, dosimetry, and rae: ation protection practices and e:<perience; provide hRC with a health protection base from which it may consider otrer regulatory actions taken to protect public health; be co-sistent with recommendations of world authorities (ICRP);
and apply to a!1 licensees in a consistent manner.
Alternatives to the complete revision considered were no c.c t i on ; delay f or further guidance; and partial revision of the standards. They were rejected as ignoring scientific advancements; being unresponsive to international and nati onal guidance; and correcting only some of the recognized pecblems with the present Part 20. Benefits would include updating the regulations to reflect contemporary scientific Lnewledge and radiation protection philosophy; implementing 40
(
regulations which reflect the ICRP risk-based rationale;
. reducing Itfetime ecses to individuals receiving the highest '
exposures; implenenting provisions for summation of doses from internal anc external exposures; pr oviding clearly identified dose lleits for the publici providing an understandable hes'.th-risk base for protection; and placing -
constraints on cc11ective dose evaluations at levels where risks are trifles.
Initial estimates of the cost of implementing the revision is about E33 millior, for all NRC and Agreement State licensees in the the initie! . ear ar d about $8 million in each subsequent year. nis cost does not include any s+vings which might also tc reali:ed by the revision.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
ANPRM 03/00/80 45 FR 18023 ANFRM Commer.t Period End 06/18/80 45 FR 18023 Rulemaking Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/85 Proposed Action Published 12/20/85 50 FR 51992 Proposed Action Comment Period End 05/12/86 51 FR 1092 Proposed Action Comment Period Extended to 10/31/86 Schedule for Development of Final Rule to Commission 10/08/07 Preliminary Report / State Meeting 11/16-17/87 '
Division and Regional Review Completed 02/15/88 ACRS Subcommittee Meeting 05/31/88 i SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
ACRS Full Committee Meeting 06/03/88 Final Action to CRGR (06/07/88)
Final Action to Offices for Concurrence (06/15/88)
Final Actior to EDO 06/30/88 (07/30/88)
I Final Action to Commission 07/30/88 (08/15/88)
Final Actior Published 08/30/88 (09/15/88)
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS:
Completed; reviewed by RDB.
l 41
- -. = _ - - - _ _ _ - - _ . - _ - . - - . -
LE21 AUTHORITY:
22 UCC 2075: 42 USC 2090: 42 UE~, 2095: 42 USC 2111:
42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 UEC 2001; 42 USC 2273;
'O USC 5841: 42 USC 5842 E=rE:'S OfJ SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENY1 TIES: Yes ACE *.2 - COrnACT:
Harold Peterson
- eclear Regulatory Commission Cffice of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 2 1 492-3640 42
RDE , NUMD,ER: 51 LATEET UPDATE: 0:/01/88 TITLE:
Criteria for an E::traordinary Nuclear Occurrence (Priority 2)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 140 CURRENT' STATUS:
The final ru'e package has been concurred on y NMSS, NRR, and ARM. A.;:tential difficulty in the impact of the revised criteria has arisen which requires detailed reanalysis.
ABSTRACT:
The final rule will revise the ENO criteria to eliminate the problems that were encountered in the Three Mile Island ENO determination. It is desirable to get revised criteria in place i the event they are needed.
There are no alternatives to this rulemaking, as the current ENO criteria a e already embodied in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 140. The only way to modify them, as this rule seeks to do, is through rulemaking.
Ther e is no safety impact on public health or safety. The ENO 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 wculd also be responsive to PRM-14?-1.
It i s estimated that approximately 1.0 man years of NRC staff time will .be required to process the final rule. No contract funding is articipated.
TIME'ABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Prop, sed Action Published 04/09/85 50 CR 13978 Rulemaking Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/85 Proposed Action Comment Period End 09/06/85 Final Action For Division Review 02/17/37 Final Action to ACRS 10/08/87 Of fice Concurrence on Final Action Completed 11/25/87 Final Action to CRGR--Not Applicable SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action to EDO 11/30/88 Final Action to Commission 12/30/88 Final Action Published 01/30/89 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates refle:t EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent t asi: leader estimates.
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS:
Not applicable because rulemaking is not a regulatory requirement.
43
_E2AL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2210; 4: USC 5841: 42 USC 5842 Er:ECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND O~HER ENTITIES: No 12ETCY CCNTACT:
Harcld Peterson Nuclear Regulatory Commiss:en Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 7.01 492-3640 l
l
{
1 l
5 l
44
RDE; NUMBER: 5!
LATEET UPDATE: 06/01/88 TITLE:
Eafoty Re uirements for Industrial Radic;raphic Equipment (Priority 1)
- CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 34' CU FENT STATUS:
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on March 15, 1988 (53 FR 8460). The public comment. period was schedule: to expire May 16, 1988. However, several groups in the industry, including the Nondestructi.e Testing Association, requested long e.' tensions to the public comment period (up to 120 days). NMSF agreed to a 90-day extension and the public comment period has been extended until August 16, 1988 (53 FR 18096).
ABETRACT:
The proposed rule would amend the present regulations to establish 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 40 percent of the radiography overeuposures are associated with equipment malfunction. The issue of safety requirements for these devices is a primary concern since the devices use relatively high intensity, high energy gamma-ray emitting sources with the potential for serious overexposures. Although a consensus standard for radiogra; hic exposure devices wau published in 1981 (American Naticnal Standard N432), it is not clear that all manufacturers are adopting the ctandard.
a The elternatives considerad were to take no action at this
! time; amend the regulations to require perf ormance standards f or radiographic devices plus a requirement for radiog-aphers to wear alarm dosimeters and simultaneously issue a regulatory guide endorsing the consensus standard, supplemented by such other performance standards deemed necessary; and to incorporate the consensus standard by reference in the regulations supplemented by such other l perf ormar:ce standards as deemed necessary, plus a requirement for radiographers to '.4 ear alarm dosimeters.
l 1
l l
I 45 L- , _
}
The proposed rule woulc require' licensees to modify
.eadkographic devices tc meet the performance standards thrcugh design changes and quality control procedures. Costs of i ncorpor ati ng the p-oposed changes are estimated tc be a one-time cost of $1,625 per-licensee to purchase alare dosimeters and $830 an.;elly for replacement of devices and alarm dosimeters, annual calibration of, dosimeters anc annual maintenance costs. Determination of the benefits to be derived from the proposed rule are difficult to deternine on a monetary basis but the potential ha:ards that might :e averted ~jnclude radiat:en sickness, injury, and even ceath.
NRC resources required 3cr processing this rule to fir al publication are estime.e: to be 0.4 person-years.
TIMETABLE:
20MPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date 12/31/85 Procosed Action for Division Review 12/22/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 12/23/87 Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable Proposed Action to EDO 12/30/87 Proposed Action to Commission 01/13/88 SECY-88 'O Commissicn Approval on Proposed Action 02/22/88 Proposed Action Fublished- 03/15/88 53 FR 8460 Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 05/16/98 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action Public Comment Period Extended tc 08/16/88 53 FR 18096 Final Action to EDO 02/15/09 Final Action to Commission 03/15/89 Final Action Published 04/17/89 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-accroved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, rep-esent task leader estimates.
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS:
Completed; has not been reviewed by RDB.
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes l
b l
l l
\
46
b
- AGENCY COtJTACT:
. Dons;d O. Nel1is Nuclear Regulatory Commission Offtre of Nuclear Regulatory Researc, Washtr.gton, DC 20555 301 492-0608 47
RDB f: UMBER: 77 LATECT~ UPDATE: 06/01/8E
- TITLE
c ersonnel Access Authorization Program
'CF'R CITATION:
10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 7 CURRENT STATUS:
W proposed policy statement was published in the rede-al
- egister on March C. 1988 (52 FR 7534).
The public comment period ended May 9, IC88. Comments are under evaluation with the llRR staff.
ABSTRACT:
The Commission has concluded that it is appropriate f or each licensee who operates a nuclear power plant to establish 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 commit radiological sabotage. Acc ordi n gl y , the NRC published a proposed rule on August 1, 1984, which would require an access au.thori:ation program at nuclear power plants (49 FR 30726).
An alternative proposal by the Nuclear Utility Management and Resource Committee (NUMARC) was submitted as a public comment on this proposed rule. The alternative proposed a voluntary induntry commitment to implement an access authori:ation program at nuclear power plants based upon industry guideliruv Mejor provisions of this program include background investigation, psychological evaluation, and b eh avi oral observation.
On Jun? 18, 1986, the Commission approved developing a policy statement endorsing industry guidelines as an alternative to the proposed rulema;ing. Commitments to adhere to these
, guidelines would be f ormalized through amendments to the physical security plans and be subject to inspection and enforcement by NRC.
) TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACT IONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/85 Proposed Policy Statement / Guidelines to CRGR 11/10/86 Proposed Policy Statement Ef f ort Transf erred to RES from NMSS 06/05/87 Office Concurrence on Proposed Policy Statement Completed 10/30/87 Proposed Policy Statement / Guidelines to ACRS--
l Not Appl 1:able (ACRS reviewed the guidelines as part of tme Insider Rule Package 02/13/86) l Proposed Polic, Statement / Guidelines to EDO 12/07/87 j Proposed Policy Statement / Guidelines to Commission 12/15/87 SECY-87-306 i
! 48 -
}
't Proposed Policy Statement Fablished
. - 03/09/88 53 FR'7534
- - Propc".ed Policy Statement Public Comment Period End 05/09/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:-
Final Policy Statement to EDO 10/31/88 Final. Policy Statement Published 12/31/88 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect.EDO-apnraved due datos. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent
. task leader estimates.
REGL_LTORY IMPACT ANALYSIS:
Co.fipl et ed--p r epar ed in 1986 fer the Insider Rule; was not r eviewed by RDD.
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Dr. Sat.dra Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington DC 20555 301 492 .7773 49
4t
'1 1
RDB NUMDER: 94 s.
LATEST UPDATE: 06/01/88
- TITLE:
Deletten of Part 11 Requirement for Renewal c3 "R" Clearances CFR CITATION:
10 CFR-11 CURRENT STATUS:
Executive Order 104~^- "Gecurity Requirements f or Government Employees," is cur, t;/ ~in the process of be; .g replaced:
probable changes in renewal requirements f or . L" clearances will impact this rulemacing. Delay has been experienced in issuing the Executive Order. RES has asked EEC to consider withdrawing thi s rul emaking.
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 r equire renewal . Because.of this equivalence, the renewal requirement f or the "R" level licensee clearance is deemed unnecessary. This rulemaking would delete that r equirement f rom Part 11. l TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date 12/30/06 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
On hold.
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201 (i) , 42.USC 5841 EFF,ECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: -No AGENCY CONTACT:
Dr. Sandra D. Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 ~
301 492-3773 r.
50
t c:9 NUMDER: 99
_ ' TEST UPDATE: 06/01/88
- TLE:
Transportation Regulations: Compatibility With the International Atomic Energ/ Agency (IAEA) (Priority 1)
- C R CITATION:
~
The proposed rulemaking pe: cage was transmitted to the EDC :-
May 11, 1988. The EDO app-cved publication and, on June 1.
1988, DRR/ ARM transmitted ine proposed rule to the Federal Register for publication.
ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would, ir, conjunction with a corresponding rule change by the U.S. De:artment of Transportation, make the United States Federal regulations for the safe transportation of radioact:ve material consistent with those of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA regulations can be found ir IAEA Safety Series No. 6, "Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material,
1985 Edition. Consistency in transportation regulations throughout the world facilitates the free movement of radioactive materials between countries for medical, research, industrial, and nuclear fuel cycle purposes.
Consistency of transportation regulations throughout the world also contributes to saf ety by concentrating the ef f orts of the world's experts on a single set of safety standards and guidance (those of the I AEA) from which individual countries can develop their domestic regulations. Perhaps as important, the accident e::;erience of every country that bases its domestic regulat;ons on those of the IAEA can be applied by every other cour.try with consistent regulations tc improve its safety program. The action will be handled as a routine updating of NRC transportation regulations. There is no reasonable alternative to rulemaking action. These changes should result in a minimal increase in costs to affected licensees. Proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 71, based on current I AEA regulations, will be issued for public comments. 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 nur.ber and difficulty of conflicts to be resolved.
51
> t T I ME T AE'LE :
COMTLETE~ ACTIONS:
Rule aL2ng Initiation Date (EDO App-oval) 01/09/87
- Prc osed Action for Division Review 09/04/97-Of f;ce' Concurr ence on Proposed Acti cn Completed
. 02/12/88 Proposed Action to ACRS--Not Applicable Procesed Action to CRGR 03/23/88-Proposed Action to EDO 05/11/88 Proposed Action to Commission--Not Applicable SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Prc;: sed Action Published (06/08/55)
Prc:csed. Acti on Public Comment Pera cc End 09/30/88 ^
F i r.e ; Action Published. 06/30/89 NOTE: T:eetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS:
Completed: RIA was developed by RDB contractor at BNWL.
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Donald R. Hopkins Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3784
- 57. ,
.RDE NL'MDER: 102 LATEST UPDATE: 05/19/88
' TITLE:
Disposal of Low-Level F adioactively Contaminated Waste Oil from Nuclear Power Plants (Priority 1) -
CFR CITATION: >
10 CFR 20 CURRENT STATUS: ~
The, office concurrence :s:kage for the proposed rulem4 1.g is undergoing'RES concurrence.
.l 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. Cu r r er.t l y , the only generally a: proved 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 is a clear need to allow, f or ve y low activity level wastes, the use of alternative disposal methods which are more cost effective from a radiological-health and saf ety standpoint and which conserve the linited '
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 health and safety. There waald be an estimated industry-wide economic savings of approximatel y $3 mi1 *. i on to S12 million per year if such a rule were promulgated.
Alternatives to this rulemeking action are to maintair the status quo or to wait until the Environmental Protect 1:n Agency develops standards on acceptable levels of radio-activity which may be released to the environment on a.
unrestricted basis. It is estimated that approximate 1v 1-2 person-years of NRC staff time will be required to process this rule.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 05/19/87 Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable 53 l
gg
-w.- .
~
V .x
.h , .SCHEO'.'iED ACTIONS: '
- ' c roposed Action to EDO' 06/15/EB
'P-oposed Action to. Commission .06/30/88 s s Froposed Action Published. 07/25/88 Cifihe Concurrence onfFinal Action Completed
- I -12/21/89,
- 5. ' Final Action 1to EDO 01/05/89 ,'
~\ Final Action to' Commission .01/19/89 i IE ~ Final Action Published 02/16/89 NOTE:- Timetable' scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved
- due dates. Dates included in.parentneses,'if any, represent
, tasi-*eader
. estimates.
REGULATOF/ IMPACT ANALYSIS:
Completed; has not been reviewed by RDB.
' LEGAL AUTHORITY: ~
42'UEC 2201; 42 USC 2167; 42 USC 2073 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Catherine R. tiattsen Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of. Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington,'DC 20555 301 472-3638 m
54
.1s. . _ _ a
N%[;I x
\ - .( ,
.i , .
.j NDE NUMBCR: 113
. . .t LATEET UPDATE: 05/19/8E '
,L ,
-TITLE:
4; Control of Aerosols and Gases (Priority 1)
CFF CITATIOME ,
10 CFR 35 CURRENT STATUS:
During office concurrence review of the final rulemaking packoge,.OGC dec1ceu an environmental assessment was needed.
The package with a*. EA is again in review for final concurrence.
' ABSTRACT:
The petitioner for PRM-35-6 requests that the Commission remove the requirement in 10 CFR 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 on the delivery of health care to certain patients with pulmonary disease and that this requirement is unnecessary to protect workers and public health and safety. The staf f agrees and has developed a proposed rule change'to remove the negative room pressure requirement for aerosols.
Note: NMSS issued a generic exemption immediately upon learning of impact of revision of 10 CFR 35 which combined gases and aerosols.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 08/11/87 Proposed Action to EDO 11/23/87 Proposed Action Published 12/16/87 52 FR 47726 Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 01/15/88 Final Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action to EDO 06/30/88 Final Action to Commission--Not Applicable l Final Action Published 07/31/88 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
l REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS:
! Coinpl eted; has not been reviewed by RDB.
i 1
55 x
e LEGAL AUTHORITY:
'4: USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 22:3; 4 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENT: TIES: No AGENCY CONTACT: ;
Alan Roecklein Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wsshington, DC 2'555 T'* 1 492-3740
, 3.
~
.\
RDB NUMBER:- 114
.LATEET UPDA1E: 06/01/88
! TITLE:
Safeguards Reqvtrements for Fuel Facilities Pcssessing Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nucles- Material (Priority 1)
.CFF CITATION:-
10 CFR 73 CURRENT-STATUS:
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on ^
December 31,_1987 (52 FR 49418). The comment eriod ended March 30, 1988. Comments are being addressed :y both RES and NMSS. NMSS response was expected by May .27', 1988; however, NHSS requested a 2-week extension to transmit comments. The final schedule should not be affected since a NMSS/RES meeting indicated general agreement on responses.
ABSTRACT:
In a staf f requi ~ements memorandum dated June 6, 1987, the Commission directed the staff to publish a pro:osed rule within,120 days which would implement improvec safeguards requirements based on the findings of a review team which compared DOE and NRC saf eguards pr ograms (SECY-87-28; CNSI).
Primary f ocus 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 basi s threat.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date 06/87 Proposed Action to EDO 09/18/87 Proposed Action to Commission 10/09/97 Proposed Action Published 12/31/87 52 F; 49418 Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 03/30/88 Final Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Response to Comments--Input from NMSS (Oo/13/88) 1 Final Action to EDO 08/15/88 Final Action to Commission 09/15/88 1
Final Action Published 10/30/88 i
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates, i-l REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS:
Estimated completion date 06/20/88 l
l 57 L
y...- ..
y-us
- y. , ,.
t ,
\;' ,
/ LEG42 AL. OSC:2073; AOTHOFi!TY: .. 41.USC 2167;.4;-USC 2201; 42'USC 5841;
~
e 4 2 -~ U S C .5 8 4 4 EFFECTS ON SMALL' BUSINESS AND OTFE. ; ENTITIES: No I h i
- AGENCY ' CONTACT:-
Dr. Sandra'D. Frattali
- NUcl ear ; Regul'atory Commi usi c-Office of.-Nuclear: Regulatory Research' .
- Washington,.DC 20555 301.492-3773 1 .;
i I
5 I'
L l-i.
I l
te b
h c,, R09 NUMBER: 125 LATEST UPDATE: 06/01/88 3 .
. TITLE:
. Night-Fir;ng Dualifications for' Security Guards at Nucl ear i Power Plants (Priority 2)
?
'CFR CITATION:
- CUc:ENT STATUS:
- On Decembe- 16, 1987, NRR requested that :E5 initiate a rulemaking regarding night firing qualificatto, of licensee guards at power reactors. The EDO approve this rulemaking for initiation on May 18, 1988.
ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would ensure that secur:ty force effectiveness at nuclear power plants is not dependent on the time'of day. Security guards currently are required to perf orm night firing f or f amiliarization only. There is no requirement for standards to measure their effectiveness.
The propcsed rule would change that by re:uiring that security guards at nuclear power plants qualify for night firing. The only alternative to rulemaking is to retain the
. current ctatus.
Part'.73, Appendix B, Part IV, will be amended to require reactor security guards to qualify annually in an NRC-approved night firing course with the:r assigned weapons.
.The proposed amendment will standardi:e training and qualification in night firing and prepare power reactor guard ,
forces to more effectively respond in the esent of an incident occurring in limited lighting corottions. The cost to industry should be relatively modest s:nce licensees already operate daylight firing training and qualificaiton facilities and. programs. The costs to NRO will also be minimal because it will only require minor licensing, inspection and other regulatory actions. There is no occupational exposure.
It is estimated that 0.4 staff years of effort over 2 years by the NRC will be required for the rulemaking.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 05/18/88 59
k.
> ~r lb.
SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
- Proposed. Action to Offices for Review 12/19/88 1 4 Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGRL (02/20/89)
Proposed ActionEto EDO 03/20/89 .
Proposed' Action tc Cemmission .(04/20/89)
Proposed"Action, Published 06/19/89' Final Action Published, 05/18/90 NOTE: . Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates incluced in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
LEG /-' AUTHOkITY:
.42.UEC 2001; 42 USC.5841 EFFECTS ON SMAL L BUSINESS ANL OTHER ENTITIES: No
.t .- -
AGENCY CONTACT:
Dr. Sandra D. Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3773 1
e b
l-l l
i l
1 l.
I 60
- j RDE NUMBER
- 128 LATEET UPDA'E: 06/01/88
. TITLE:,
Licenses and Radiation Safety; Requirements.for.Large Irradiators (Priority 1) ,
CFR CITATION:
s.10:CFR 36 g I
CURRENT STA'US:
This rulemaking was approved for init:ation by the EDO on May 5, 1988.
ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is developing regulations to specify radiation safety requirements and license requirements for the use of licensed radioactive materials in large irradiators. Irradiators use gamma radiation to irradiate' products to change their characteristics in some way.~ The requirements would apply to large panoramic irradiators (those in which the radioactive sources and the material being irradiated are in a room that is. accessible to personnel while the source is shielded) and certain large self-contained irradiators in which the source always remains under water. The rule would not. cover small self-contained irradiators, instrument calibrators, medical uses of sealed II sources (such as teletherapy), or non-destructive testing (such as industrial radiography).
, ~
The alternative to a regulation is continuing to license irradiators on a case-by-case basis using license conditions.
The f ormali:ation would make the NRC's requirements better understcod and possibly speed the licensing of irradiators.
Development of the rule will require 2 staff-years of'NRC effort.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 05/05/98 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
s Proposed Action .f or Di vi sion Review 12/05/88 1 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 03/06/89 Proposed Action to ACRS 03/06/89 Proposed Action to CRGR--Not Applicable Proposed Action to EDO 04/05/89 Proposed Action to Commission 05/05/89 Proposed Action Published 06/05/89 Final Action Published 05/05/90 ,
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due detes. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent tast leader estimates.
61 4
. ,, , , . . . . ~. _..
,' '.l ehl ,
,g, s O N ;
- n fi;
^e f.
=:'/'
- LREGULA70RY.' IMPACT'ANALYE:3:
t
,., :;p 4E.,timated k date.'of.c:.01eO on 02/90-l LEGAL AUTHORITYi ~
.h 42.. UCC 12073; 142 :-USC : 2093; 42 USC 2111;,42 USC 2232;
,. 42 USC 2233;'.42 USC 2273;.42 USC 5842
- . -1ltX EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINE55 LAND OTHER ENTITIES: 'Yes AGE,"!CY. CONTACT:
Stephen'A.<'McGuire f' /= j
' Nucle'ar Regulatory Cc.. mission- '
-Of f ice off Nucl ear . Repl at,ory Research ~
.- Washington,-DC 20555 i 301 492-3757' e
u
?A
): ,
l k' g
\
\'.
E
\-
i '
\
t 6 l
in .
P l
5
/
62 L
4 %
REE 'r."'BER : 135 LATEET UoDATE: 06/01/88 T!'LE:
P.;r.or Amendments to Physical Protection Requirements (Fr t ority 2)
CFR CITATION:
1C CFR 2; 10 CFR.70; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 75 CUcFEN- STATUS:
Tris rulemaking was approved for initiation by_the EDO on A:-11 4, 1988. A proposed rulemaking package is under preparation. S. Dolins was assigned this task during a break in Safeguards Interoffice Review Group activity.
ABSTRACT:
The Safeguards Interof fice Review Group (SIRG) of the NRC has been conducting a systematic review of the agency's saf eguards regulati ons and guidance documents. This review has identified areas in the regulations that are out of date, s "susceptible to differing interpretations, or in need of clarification. In addition, the staff has identified other areas in the regulations where minor changes are warranted.
In response to these efforts', specific amendments to the regulations are being proposed. The proposed changes will:
(1) limit the use of the 100 rems per hour at 3 feet dose
- e:remption to a rcduction of no more than one physical protection category and not allow a drop below the lowest category, (2) add definitions for common. terms not currently defined by frequent use, (3) delete action dates that no longer apply, (4) correct outdated terms and cross references, (5) clarify wording that is susceptible to d ffering interpretations, (6) correct typographical errors, and (7) make other minor changes.
' The alternative to rulemaking would be to allow the status que to continue. Except for the change in the impact of a high radiation field on physical protection requirements, these minor amendments affect the public, industry and the NFC only in so f ar 'as they make the regulations easier to understand, implement, and enforce. Limiting the use of the 100 rem per hour at 3 feet dose exemption to a reduction of no more than one physical protection category, a:1d not aliowing a drop below the lowest category, could affect two non-power reactor licensees. It is estimated that 0.4 staff-years of NRC effort over 2 years will be required for the rulemaking. This is a low priority rulemaking.
63
c _
j . g
+ r ,
- TIMETABLE: , ,,
- COMF LETED ACT IO',E,:- .
Rulemaking Ir.itiaticn Date (EDO Approval) 04/04/88
. SCHEDULED ACTIC'.3: . .,.
Proposed R le'to DRA Division . Director 10/88 Proposed F.le to RES Director 11/88~
Propsoed'R.le to Office Directors 01/89 Proposed R.; e to' CRGR and ACRS--Not ; Applicabl e Proposed Rule to EDO ~ 03/89 Prop'osed R.le to Commission--Not Applicable Proposed R le Published 05/89 Final Rule te Federa1( Regiuter 04/04/90
\..
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if ay, represent task leader est; metes.
REGULATORY IMF ACT ANALYSES:
' Estimated date ef . completion 10/88
. LEGAL AUTHORITY: 4 EFFECTS ON SM,ALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No
. AGENCY CONTACT:
Stan Dolins Nuclear 'Regulatcry Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3745 a
i
.k .
J
{ 64 m
F. El ',JJMPER: 24 LA~IET UPDATE: 06/01/88
'T;~_E:
Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive Materials' Licensees CF; ;ITATION:
10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70
.CU::ENT STATUS:
The final rulemaking action was forwarded to the EDO on March 2, 1988. The CRGR met er March 23, 1988, to discuss
.the rule change. The ACRS presentation is scheduled for June 2, 1988.
ABETR ACT :
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 recommend protective actions for the public. The proposed rule is intended to f urther protect the public from accidental exposure to radiation. The affected licensees are those whose possession limits indicate the potential for an accident tb.t could deliver a radiation dose offsite exceeding i rem effective dose equivalent or 5 rems to the thyroid or could cause a soluble uranium inhalation of 2 milligrams (a chemical toxicity ha:ard).
Currently the proposed requirements are, for the most part, required by order. However, the Commission decided that they wanted a regulation for the icng term. The cost to licensees of the rule was estimated to be between $26,000 and $73,000 per year per licensee. The ccst to NRC was estimated to be 14,000 per year per licensee. The NRC will expend about 2 man-years of ef f ort to promulgate the rule.
T:"ETABLE:
, COMPLETED ACTIONS:
ANPRM 06/03/81 46 FR 29712 ANPRM Comment Period End 08/03/81 46 FR 29712 i
l Proposed Action for Division Review 02/0R/85
! Rulemaking Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/85 Of fice Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 09/25/85 Proposed Action Package to EDO 10/30/85 Proposed Action Package to Commission 03/25/86 l
Commission Directs Revision of Proposed Action 10/28/86 l
Revised Proposed Action to EDO 01/23/87 j Revised Proposed Action to Commission 02/02/87 Proposed Action Publishec 4/20/87 52 FR 12921 Proposed Action Comment Feriod End 07/20/87 52 FR 12921 Final Action f or Of fice Concurrence 10/16/87 l
l Final Action to ACRS--Not Applicable i Final Action to EDO 03/C2/88 Final Action to CRGR 03/89 6*
CH,EDULED A:T:ONS:
ACRS Kesting 06/02/88 Final.Lction to Commission 05/88 (06/20/88)-
Final A: tion Published 05/31/88 (07 / 3p/ 88)
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates ref
- ect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, i f any, represent task leader. estimates.
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS:
Completed; reviewed by RDP.
LEGA_ AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201: 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No
. AGENCY ~ CONTACT:
Michael Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Commission Of fice of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-391E i
l-ll I
l e
66 '
L .
139
- OE {JUM5"R:
LATEST. UPDATE: 06/02/88 TITLE:
- Emergency Planning.and Preparedness Requirements for Nuclear Power Plant Fuel Loading and Initial Low-Power Operations CFR CITATION:
' URFENT STATUS.
n . The proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Reg: ster on May 9, 1988-(53 FR 164!!). The public comment period ass scheduled to end June 8, 1938; however, an extension to June 23,-1988, has been granted (53 FR 19930).
ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to amend its regulations to establish more clearly what emergency planning and preparedness requirements are needed for fuel loading and low power operation of nuclear power plants. Current rules provide f or a finding prior to fuel loading and low power or the licensee's plans and state of preparedness f or dealir; with accidents that could affect persons onsite. Current rules also provide that no finding regarding the planning or preparedness of of f site agencies f or dealing with accidents that could affect person offsite is required at this stage.
The Commission is not proposing to change these aspects of the current rules. However, practice under the current rule has been to consider alsc, as part of review of licensees plans, certain offsita elements of those plans that seem unnecessary for low power operation in view of the icw degree of risk posed to offsite persons by fuel loading and low power operation (up tJ 5 percent of rated power). It is :P e purpose of this public rulemaking to consider whether th:s <
practi ce should be discor tinued to modified. Specificalle.
.the Commission is conside-ing amending Section 50.47(d) tc include as prerequisi tes f or low power operation, seven standar ds with of f site aspects that are believed to be appropriate f or f uel loading and low power operation. The capability for prompt not:fication of the surrounding populace (as distinct from the capacity to keep offsite emergency planning agencies informed promptly of plant accidents) is not included in the rule as a requirement + : .-
fuel loading and low powe- operations. Nothing in this proposed rule is intended to change the emergency planning utandards which must be satisfied before operations at full power.
67
9
. .. .,A_-
- n.-.;t ..
- *4r L. :. . sCTIONS:
'F.lt.aling Initiation Date 04/20/95 F-::cced Action to.CRGR 04/28/85
~tr::csed Actioto to.EDO_ 05/01/60 Fr:- : sed Action tc Commission ~05/Q!/88 .SECY-88-109 Fr:;osed Action Published 05/09/EB 53 FR 16435 Pr: csed' Action to_ACRS. 06/02/88 SCHEDULEC ACTIONS:
Pr:;csed Action Public - Comment Pericd End, 06/08/88-Pr: posed: Action Public Comment' Period E:: tended to-06/23/CE :50.FR'19930
" F . .1 Action to ACRS/CRGR (07/20/05:
F; 11 Action to EDO (07/25/88)-
F:.al~ Action to Commission (07/27/88)
Fi.s; Action-Published (08/01/88)
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. -Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
1 REGULATORY -INF ACT ANALYSIS:
Completed-05/02/88;- RIA prepared by OGC.
LEGAL AUTHOFITY:
U 4C USC 2001; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON EMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No
. AGENCY CONTA T:
- Michael Jamgochian/ Martin G. Malsch Nuclear Regulatory. Commission Office f Nuclear Regulatory Research Office Of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 49~-7918/1740
.t.
h, l
68
e RDB WOMBER: 67
, LATE:T UPDATE: 06/01/88 TITLE:
Acceptance Criteria fcr Emergency Core Caoling Systems (ECCS) for Light Wate- Nuclear Power Reactors CFR CITATION:
10 CFR.50, Ap p en d i:< K CUPRENT STATUS:
NUREG-1230, "Compendic- of ECCS Research for Realistic LOCA Analysis," is e:<pecte: to be published as a final docu..ent in July 1988. The final rulemaking has been concurred o- by all cogni: ant of fices and the Commission paper has been f cewarded to the EDO for review and signature.
AB3 TRACT:
The final rule will acend 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 results in unnecessarily restricting the operation of some nuclear reactors and increased electricity generation costs. This rule will allow use of the best information currently available to demonstrate that the ECCS would protect the reactor core during a loss-of-coolant accident.
Use of the realistic evaluation models may result in to to a 5 percent power upgrace for some plants. The present value of energy replacement cost savings resulting from a pctential upgrade has been estinated to range between 15 and 11:7 million depending on the location arid age of a specif::
plant.
This rule will apply to all applicarts for a,nd holders of construction permits f or light water reactors. Holders of operating licenses could utili:e the proposed rule, if they choose.
Because the proposed rule represents a significant change in a regulatory requirement, the staff prepared and i ssued on l MAy 15, 1987, a summary of ECCS research perf ormed over the
! last 10 years which identifies the technical basis for the l proposed rule. A regulatory guide was also preparad and 1
t l
! 69
e
.ssbad on April 2, 1987. This gu;;E provides a definition ci what constitutes an acceptable :est estimate model and acte-table methods of performing te uncertainty evaluation.
TF e cetimated cost to the NRC of t.:s rulemaking is 2-3 stadt-years and $200,000 of contra: tor support.
The only option to rulemaking cons;dered.by the staff was the cc-tinued use of the current licensing approach described in SE"Y 83-472. At bout, thi s i s vi ewed as an interim solution
' be:suse two separate calculations are required to meet the
! -c:..rements of the current reguld ::n and. staff conditions fc- ..se of the licensing approach ";sks case-by-case L 1: igation.
TIMETAE_E:
CO"PLETED ACTIONS:
ANPRM 12/06/78 43 FR 57157 ANPRM Comment Period Begin 12/06/78 43 FR 57157 ANFRM Comment Period End 02/05/79 Rulemaking Initiation Date (On goi n g ) 06/12/85 Proposed Action f or Division Review 04/15/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 06/12/06 Proposed Action to EDO 10/16/86 Proposed Action Published 00/03/87 52 FR 6334 Draf t Regulatory Guide Published 04/02/87 RS701-4 Draft NUREG-1230 Published 05/15/87 Proposed Action Comment Period End 07/01/87 52 FR 6334 Draft Regulatory Guide Comment Period End 07/01/87 RS701-4 Draft NUREG-1230 Comment Period End 07/01/87 Final Action f or ACRS Review 05/06/88 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 04/19/88 CRGR Meeting 05/19/88 Final A_ tion to EDO 06/01/8E SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action to Commission 07/01/88 Final Action Published 08/24/88 NO E Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included i n par entheses , if any, represent task leader estimates, REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS:
' Conpleted; reviewed by RDB.
70
LEGA. AUfHORITY:
42 USC 2132; 42 U5: 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 5845 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Harry Tovmassian Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nucl es- F s gul atory Research Washington, DC 20!!E 501 492-3566 1
71
ROE NdMBER: 56-LATEST UPDATE: 05/16/38 TITLE:
Station Blackout CFF CITATION:
10 CFR 50 CUFrEN- ETATUS:
T-e staf f -has revised the propcsed rule and Regulatory G. tide 1.155 (SI 501-4) to respc9c to CRGR' comments and has concluded discussions with NUMAFC's Nuclear Utility Group on Station Blackout (NUGSBO). NUMARC expanded their previous initiatives to include an Initiative 5, "Coping Assessment,"
which will ensure that each utility assesses its plant (s) ability to cope with station blackout. NUGSBO has developed a report, NUMARC-8700, "Guidelines and Technical Bases for NUMARC Initiatives. Addressing Station Blackout at Light Water Reactors," November 1987. The staff has reviewed the guidelines and analysis methods in NUMARC-8700 and finds them in lerge part identical to the guidance provided in RG 1.155, "Station Blackout." Therefore, NUMARC-8700 provides guidance acceptable to the staff for meeting the require-"ots in 10 CFR Part 50, Secti on 50. 63.
The A-44 resnlution package (which includes a Commission letter, Federal Register notice, RG 1.155, NUREGS-1032 and
-1109, NUMARC-8700 and Congressional letters) was sent to the Commission on January 21, 1988 (SECY-88-22) and a Commission briefing was held on March 31, 1988. The Commission met on May 12, 1988 to vote or the Station Blackout rule and voted 5-0 in favor of proceeding with issuing the rule. The projected date f or issuance of the rule is June 1988.
ABSTRACT:
NRC plans to amevi its regulations to require that light water nuclear power plants to be capable of withstanding a total loss of alternating current (AC) electrical power, called station blackout, to the essential and nonessential switchgear 5uses f or a specified duration. A regulatory guide (RG 1.155, "Station Blackout"), which provides guidance on how to evaluate plant coping capability f or a speci fied duration, has clso been prepared. The proposed rule and RG were issued for public comment and revised as necessary in response to comments. In addition, NUMARC has prepared guidelir6es and technical bases for assessing station blackout coping capability (NUMARC-8700). The staff has reviewed this report and has ref erenced use o3 the report as providing guidance acceptable to the staf3 for assessing station coping capability as required bv the p-orosed rule (1C CFR 50.63) i and the guidance provided in RG 1.155.
1 L.
'The"proposed -equirements were developed in esponse to inf or mation generated by the staff's study o4 Unresolved Safety Issue A-44, .Stati on Blackout; the tec- .ical findings are reported :n NUREG-1050, "Evaluation ot Station Blackout Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants." A regulatory analysis was prepared and is reported in NUREG-1109, ' Regulatory /
Backfit Analysis for the Resolution of Unres:1ved Safety Icsue A-44,' Station Blackout." The estimetec public risk reduction is 145,000 person-rem over 25 years, and the estimated total cost for industry compliance with the rule is 160 million. This results in an overall cett'oenefit ratio sf about 0,40/ person-rem per million dollars. The rule will provide f urthse assurance that a loss of bot- Off-site, (nd emergency on-site electric AC power systems, will not adversely affect the public health and safet).
The staff's technical findings and regulatory analysis were issued for comment and comments received were utili:ed in preparing the final resolution package. The industry, which previously opposed the proposed rul e, has non proposed a fifth ini ti ative in NUMARC-8700. This initiative states:
(5) Initiative 5 --- COPING ASSESSMENT Each utility will assess the ability of its plant (s) to cope with statiun blackout.
Plants utili:ing alternate AC power for station blackout response which can be shcwn by test to be availab' - to power the shutdown busses within 10 minutes of the onset of station bisckout do not need to perform ary coping assessment. Remaining alternate AC plants will assess their ability to cope for one-hour. Plants not utilining an alternate AC source will assess their capability to :cpe for four-h:urs. Factors identified which prever.t demonstrating the capability to cece for the appropriate duration will be addressed through ha-dware and/or procedural changes so that successful demonstration is possible.
As noted pbove, the staff has reviewed the gt delinec in NUMARC-8700 and found them consistent with RG 1.155. In ,
addition, the staf f iias elected to not modif y GDC 17 and also l finds the utili:ation of an alternate AC source another l acceptable means to cope with stetion blackout provided such alternate AC sources meet the criteria specified in the ,
station blackout rule (10 CFR 50, Part 50.63) and guidance l provi ded i n RG 1.155, "Station Blackout." Alternatives to )
rulema'<ing do not e::ist at the present time. The industry is not opposing the rul e. The staff and industry have developed a posiG.,.. at:eptabl e to both parties as noted above. f I
1 l
1 l
1 73 j d
h 5r T : ME TA'B'LO :
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation : ate (Ongoing) 06/12/85 Proposed-Action Publis ed. 03/21/86 51 FF-9829 Proposed. Action Commer Feriod End -06/19/86 51 FR 95:2 Final Action f or Divls;on Review 03/05/87 Office Concurrence on Final Action Complet_ed- 04/06/87 iCRGR Meeting 05/27/87
~ACRS Briefing '06/06/8' and 11/05/87 Final Action to EDO 12/02/87 Final Action to. Commi s si on 01/22/88 SECY-88-22 Commission Briefing a:!<!1/88 Commission Affirmatier.'eeting 05/12/89 CCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action Published 05/31/88 (06/30/88)
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, .if any, represent task leader estimates.
.. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS:
Completed; reviewed by RDB.
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:
A. W. Serki:
Nucleer Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3555 l