ML20151M655
| ML20151M655 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/01/1988 |
| From: | Dipalo A NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | NRC |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8808050266 | |
| Download: ML20151M655 (75) | |
Text
.
9 C-S
/ 'o
~,, UNITED STATES 9I4,03 E~ n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-5 j WASHINGTON, D, C. 20655
\,...../
August 1,1988 MEMORANDUM FOR: Public Document Room FROM: Anthony J. DiPalo, Leader Regulatory Analysis Section Regulation Development Branch Division of Regulatory Applications, RES
SUBJECT:
STATUS OF RES RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES Attached is the monthly report on the status of rulemakings underway in the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. The information contained in.this report is current as of July 27, 1988.
k l Anthony J. DiPalo, Leader Regulatory Analysis Section Regulation Development Branch Division of Regulatory Applications, RES
Attachment:
As stated cc: Document Control System, R-2914.03 880005026[080001 RGs su" PNU pf R2914.03 I I
\
rage no. i ,
07/27/88 ON60!N6 RES RlR.EMAKING ACTIVli!ES PAGE RDB CFR g i TITLE OF RtR.EMAKINS CITATION DIVISION / BRANCH CONTACT PHONE NO.
I 36. Licensing Requiresents for the Storage of 10 CFR 2, DE/MEB Steyer,K. 49-23824 Spent Fuel and High-level Radioactive Waste 19, 20, 21, 51, 70, 72, 73, 75.
150 3 129. Asendeent of the Pressurized Thereal Shock 10 CFR 50 DE/MEB Randall,P. 49-23842 Rule 6 68. Prisary Reactor Containeent Leakage Testing 10 CFR 50 DE/SSEB Arndt, 6. 49-23945 for Water-Cooled Power Reactors (Appendir H 8 118. Alternative Methods for Leakage Rate Testing 10 CFR 50 DE/SSEB Arndt,6. 49-23945 10 136. Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants 10 CFR 50 DE/SSEB Norris, W. 49-23938 (ASME Code,Section II, Division 1, Subsection !WE) 12 34. Disposal of Radioactive Wastes 10 CFR 61 DE/WMB Prichard,C. 49-23884 I4 79. Elisination of Inconsistencies between NRC 10 CFR 60 DE/WMB Prichard,C. 49-23884 Regulations and EPA Standards 16 90. Criteria and Procedures for Energency Access 10 CFR 62 DE/WMB Laebert,J. 49-23855 to Non-Federal and Regional Low-level Waste Disposal Facilities 18 100. Criteria for Licensing the Custody and 10 CFR 40 DE/WMB Haisfield,M. 49-23877 Long-Tera Care of Uranius Mill Tailings Sites 20 103. Safety Related and leportant to Safety in 10 10 CFR 50 DRA/ARSIB Wilson,J. 49-23729 CFR Part 50 22 133. Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants 10 CFR 50 DRA/ARS!B Dey,M. 49-23730 25 77. Personnel Access Authorization Progras 10 CFR 50, DRA/RDB Frattali,S. 49-23773 73 28 94. Deletion of Part 11 Requiresent for Reneual 10 CFR 11 DRA/RDB Frattall,S. 49-23773 of 'R' Clearances 29 95. Basic Quality Assurance in Radiation Therapy 10 CFR 35 DRA/RDB ist,A. 49 23797 31 99. Transportation Regulationu Cospatibility 10 CFR 71 DRA/RDB Hopkins,D. 49-23784 with the International Ateele Energy Agency (IAEA)
- I l
Page No. 2 07/27/88 ON60!N6 RES RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES PAGE RDB CFR
- 6 ili'.E OF RULEMAKING CITAi!0N DIVISION /CRANCH CONTACT PHONE NO.
33 102. Disposal of Weste Oil by Incineration froe 10 CFR 20 CRA/RDB Mattsen,C. 49-23638 Nuclear Power Plants 35 104. Degree Requirement for Senior Operators at 10 CFR 50, DRA/RDB Fleishnan,M. 49-23794 Nuclear Power Plants 55 37 105. Reasserting NRC's Sole Authority for 10 CFR 150 DRA/RDB Stewart,J. 49-23618 Approving Onsite LLW Disposal in Agreesent States 39 109. Aundsent of 50.62(c H4) to Clarify 10 CFR 50 DRA/RDB Pearson, W. 49-23764 Equivalent Control Capacity for Standby Liquid Control Systees (SLCS) 4l 112. Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC Approved 10 CFR 72, DRA/RDB Pearson,W. 49-23764 Casks at Civilian Nuclear Power Reactor Sites 73, 74, 170 43 !!4. Safeguards Requiresents (tr Fuel Facilities 10 CFR 73 DRA/RDB Frattall,S. 89-23773 Possessing Foreula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material 45 116. Asendeent to 10 CFR 51.51 and 51.52, Tables 10 CFR 51 DRA/RDB Turel,S. 49-23739 S-3 and S-4, Addition of Radon-222 and Technetius-99 Radiation Values, and Addition of Appendia B 48 119. Imenty-Four Hour Notification of incidents 10 CFR 20 DRA/RDB Mate,J. 49-23795 51 125. Night Firing Qualifications for Security 10CFR 73 DRA/RDB Frattali,S. 49-23773 Guards at Nuclear Power Plants 53 135. Minor Aundsents to Physical Protection 10 CFR 2, DRA/RDB Delins,S. 49 2374!
Requireeents 70, 72, 73, 75 55 33. Standards for Protection Agalnst Radiation 10 CFR *0 z DRA/RPHEB Peterson,H. 49-23640 58 51. Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear 10 CFR 140 DRA/RPHEB Peterson,H. 49-23640 Occurrence 60 53. Safety Requirteents for Industrial 10 CFR 34 DRA/RPHEB Nellis,D. 49-23628 Radiographic Equipeent 63 128. Licenses and Radiation Safety Requiresents 10 CFR 36 DRA/ W EB McGuire,S. 49-23757 for large Irradiators
Page No. 3 07/27/88 DN60!N6 RES RULEMAKIN6 ACTIVli!ES 2
PAGE RM CFR
- 6 TITLC0FRULEMAKIN6 CliAT!DN DIVISION /BRulCH CONTACT PHONE AD.
65 24. Seertucy PreparWnus for Fuel Cycle a-i 10 CFR 30, DSIR/SA!B Jangochlan,M. 49-2!?!8 Other Radioactive Materials Licensees 40, 70 67 139.. Energency Planning and Preparedness 10 CFR 50 DSIR/SAlB Jaegochian,M. 49-23918 ,
Requireew's for Nuclear Power Plant Fuel Loading aad Initial Low-Power Operations 69 67. Acceptance Criteria for Energency Cora 10 CFR 50 DSR/RPSB Toveassian,H. 49-23562 Cooling Systees (ECCS) for Light Water
$1 clear Power Peactors (Appendix K)
NOTES:
General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities (RDB #63) was published as a final rulemaking in the Federal Register on June 27,1988 (53 FR 24018).
Control of Aerosols and Gases (RDB #113) was published as a final rulemaking in the federal Register on July 22,1988 (53 FR 27665).
l 1
I
]
1
RDD NUMBER: 36 LATEST UPDATE: 07/26/88 TITLE:
Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 19; 10 CFn 20; 10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 75; 10 CFR 150 CURRENT STATUS:
The final rule was affirmed by the Commission on July 14, 1988. The stcf f requirements memorandum has been r eceived by the staff and war dated July 25, 1988.
ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would revise existing regulations to establish specific licensing requirements for the storage of spent nuclear f uel and high-level radioactive waste in a monitored retrievable storage installation (MRS). This revision 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 Commiscion.
The Commissien r.ould await further development of the MRS option before proposing its MRS rules. However, this approach could result in unnecessary delay in reviewing a license application if Congress authorizes construction of an MRS.
There is no appropriate alternative to rulemaking, the
. vehicle used by NRC to establish its licensing procedures.
3 The basic requirements for storage of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) curre.tly codified in 10 CFR Part 72 are not being changed, thuc no incremental impact on NRC, industry 1 or the health and sae ety of the public is anticipated, t
1 L-d _
4 TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/85 Proposed Action Published 05/27/06 51 FR 19106 Proposed Action Comment Period End 08/25/86 Final Action to CRGR/ACRS--Not Applicable i' Final Action tc EDO 11/30/87 Final Action to Commission 1?/15/87 SECY-87-298 SCHEDULED ACTIONSL Final Action Published 07/29/88 (08/15/88)
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflete EDO-approved due datos. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2021; 42 00C 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 EriECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Keith Steyer/ Charles Nilsen Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Neclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3824/3834 l
l t
l l 2
4:
-RDB NUMDER . -129 LATEST UPDATE:' 07/27/88 TITLE:
Amendment of the Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule
-CFR CITATION:
-CURRENT STATUS:
On February 17, 1988, the EDO approved this rulemaking for initiation. The proposed action was submitted for division review on June 2, 1988.
ADSTRACT: '
The Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) Rule, published July 23, 1985, established a screening criterion, a limit on the degree of radiation embrittlement of PWR recctor vessel beltline materials beyond wh4.ch oneration cannot continue without additional plant-spewi fic anal ysis. The rule
-prescribes how to calculate the degree of embrittlement as a f.anction of the copper and nickel contents of the-controlling material and the neutron fluence. The proposed amendment revisey the calculative procedure to be consistent with that given in Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.99. The,guida provides an updated correlation of embrittlement data, which received CRGR approval for publication in final form on December 9, 1987.
The need to amend the PTS rule to be consistent with the
. guide became apparent when it was found that for some medium-copper, nigh-nickel materials embrittlement is worse than now predicted usir.g.the PTS rule. A number of PWRs will.
reach the screening criterion sooner than previously thought, and three plants will need to make plant-specific analyses in the next 10 years. Therefore, a high priority is being given to this effort.
An unacceptable alternative to this amendment f rom the saf ety standpoint is to leave the present PTS rule in place. The staf f 's plant-by-plant analyses f ound four plants whose ref erence temperatures are 52 to 68 F higher than previously thought, based on the present rule. This is beycnd the uncertainties that were felt to exist when the present rule was published. Another unacceptable alternative that has been evaluated is to change the calculative procedure for the r9ference temperature and also change the screening criterion. Failure probabilities for the most c-itical 3
accident scenaracs in three plants, . when recalculated using the new embrittlement estimates, Here somewhat lower, but were quito dependent on the plant configuration and the scenar io chosen. Furthermore, the screening criterion was based on a variety of considerations besides the probabilistic analysis. Reopening the question of where to set the screening criterion was not considered productive because of plant-to-plant differences. It is better to have a conservative "trip wire" that triggers plant-specific analyses.
Immediate cests to industry will be those required for each utility to update the January 23, 1986, submittal required by the PTS rule, usCng fluence estimates that take account of flux reduction efforts in the interim and using the new procedure for calculating RT PS In addition, three to five plants will need to make the dxp. enditure of an estimated 2.5 million dollars for the plant-specific analysis in the 1990's instead of 10 to 15 years later.
TIMETABLE:
, COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 02/17/88 Proposed Action for Division Review 06/02/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to ACRS--To Be Determined Proposed Action to CRGR 10/01/88 Proposud Action to EDO 12/01/88 Proposed Action to Commission--To Be Determined Proposed Action Published 02/01/S9 Final Action for Division Review 08/01/89 Final Action to f.CRS--To Be Determined Final Action to CRGR 11/01/89 Finai Action to EDO 01/01/90 Final Action to Commission--To Be Determined Final Action Published 03/01/90 ND'I E Timetcbl e scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
4
\ - - -
i r
. LEGAL AUTHORITY: j Same as for 10 CFR 50.61 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Pryor N. Randall Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301'492-3842 o
5
c ,c
]
O' -
-RDB NUMBER: 68 LATEST. UPDATE: 07/26/88 "TITLE:
Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors CFR CITATIC.:
10 CFR 50, Appendix J CURRENT STATUS:
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on October 29, 1986 (51 FR 39538). The comment period was scheduled to end January 26, 1987. However, several requests to extend the comment 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 backfit rule to the rulemaking. Evaluation of comments received is underway.
ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would update and revise the 1973 criteria for preoperational and periodic pressure testing f or 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 critoria, and a relevant national standard that needs to be recognized. It is proposed to revise the rule as noted to make it current and improve its usefulness.
The revision is urgently needed to resolve continuing conflicts between licensens and NRC inspectors over interpretations, current regulatory practice which is no longer being reflected accurately by the existing rule, and endorsement in the existing regulation of an obsolete national standard that was replaced in 1981.
The benefits anticipated include elimination of inconsistencies and obsolete requirements, and the addition of greater usefulness and a higher confidence in the leak-tight integrity of containment system boundaries under post-loss of coolant accident conditions. The majority of the effort needed by NRC to issue the rule has already been expended.
A detailed analysis of costs, benefits, and occupational exposures is available in the Public Document Room, and indicates possible savings to industry of $14 million to $300 million and an increase in accupati.onal exposure of less than 1 perc>nt per year per plant due to increased testing.
6
s;>
TIMETADLE:
CCMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date 02/21/86 Proposed Action to EDO 03/31/86 Proposed' Action Published 10/29/86 51 FR 39538 Proposed Action Comment Period End 01/26/87 Proposed Action Comment Period Extended to 04/24,J7 52 FR 2416 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action for Division Review 08/15/88 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 09/15/88 Final-Action to CRGR/ACRS 11/15/88 Final Action to EDO 12/15/88 Final Action to Commission 01/15/89 Final Action Published 02/15/89 NOTE:- Timetable _ scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
LCGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No
~ AGENCY COMTACT:
E. Gunter Arndt Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3945 7
3-O RDB NUMBER: 118 LATEST UPDATE: 07/27/88 TITLE:
Alternative Methods for Leakage Rate Testing CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 CURRENT STATUS:
The proposed action was published in the Federal Register on February 29, 1988 (53 FR 5985). The public comment period ended March 30, 1988. Twenty-one letters were received; the comment resolution memo is under preparation.
ADSTRACT:
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 for resolving this issue because the regulations specify the methods the NRC finds acceptable for calculating leakage .ates. 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.
TIMETADLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action for Division Review 11/12/97 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 11/12/87 Proposed Action to ACRS--Not Applicable Proposed Action to CRGR 11/12/87 Proposed Action to EDO 11/12/87 Proposed Action to Commission--Not Applicable Rulemaking Initiation Date (Publication of Proposed Action) 02/29/88 Proposed Action Published 02/29/88 53 FR 5985 Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 03/30/88 Final Action to ACRS--Not Applicable SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action to CRGP 08/15/88 Final Action to EDO 09/15/88 Final Action to Commission 10/15/88 Final Action Published 11/15/88 NOTE: Timetrble scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in carentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
8
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2011; 42 USC 2201; 42.USC 4321; 42 USC 5941; 42 USC 5842 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 t
7 e
'RDB NUMBER: 136 LATEST UPDATE: 07/27/88
-TITLE:
Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (ASME Code,-
Section XI, Division 1, Subsection IWE)
'CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 CURRENT STATUS:
This rulemaking was approved for initiation by the EDO on June 9, 1988.
ADSTRACT:
.The proposed rule would incorporate by reference Subsection IWE, _"Requirements for Class MC Components of Light-Water Cooled Power Plants," of Section XI (Division 1) of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (HSME Code). Subsection IWE provides the' rules and requirements for inservice inspection, repair, and replacement of Class MC pressure retaining compcnents and their integral attachments, and of metallic shell and penetration liners of Class CL pressure retaining components and'their integral attachments in light-water cooled power plants.
Incorporating by reference Subsection IWE will provide systematic examination rules for containment structure for meeting Criterion 53 of the General Design Criteria (Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50) and Appendix J of 10 CFR Part 50. Ane-rel ated degradation of containments has occurred, and additional and potentially more serious degradation mechanisms can be anticipated as nuclear power plants age.
If the NRC did not take action to endorse the Subsection IWE rules, the NRC position on examination practices for containment structures would have to be established on a case-by-case basis and improved examination practices for
' steel containment structures might not be implemented. The other alternatives of incorporating these detailed examination requirements into the American National Standard ANSI /ANS 56.8-1901 or into Appendix J are not feasible.
Incorporating by reference the latest edition and addenda of Subsection IWE will save applicants / licensees and the NRC staff both time and effort by providing uniform detailed ,
criteria against which the staff can review any single submission. Adoption of the proposed amendment would permit the use of improved methods for containment inservice
! . inspection.
l i
i l 10 t
J v
e TIMETABLE:
COMPl.ETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 06/09/88 Proposed Action for Division Review 07/01/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence (11/14/88)
Proposed Action to CRGR (12,01/88)
Proposed Action to ACRS--Not Applicable Proposed Action to EDO (03/15/89)
Proposed Action to Commission--Not Applicable Proposed Action Published (04/15/89)
Final Action Published (04/15/89)
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841
-EFFECTS ON SMALL DUSINESS AND CTHER ENTITIES: No AGENDA CONTACT:
Wallace E. Norris Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3938 i
l i
11 vz - - - .
s e.
RDB NUMBER: 34 LATEST UPDATE: 07/27/88 TITLE:
Disposal of Radioactive Wastes CFR CITATION:
1 10 CFR 61 CURRENT STATUS:
, The proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register l
on May 18, 1988 (53 FR 17709). The public comment period ended July 18, 1988. To date, 31 comments have been received and are being evaluated.
ABSTRACT:
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 now 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 redioactive waste (LLW) unless an alterriative has been approved 'ay the Commission. This would accomplish the objective of est Slishing suitable disposal requirements for 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; or (2) make no change in the system of waste classification or required waste disposal op t i on 's .
The public and industry would benefit from this clarification of waste disposal options for above Class C LLW. NRC staff time for preparing this rulemaking is estimated at 2 staff-years.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/85 ANPRM Action for Division Review 09/86 Office Concurrence on ANPRM Action Completed 10/86 ANPRM Action to EDO 11/07/06 ANPRM Action to Commission 02/19/87 ANPRM Action Published 02/27/87 ANPRh Comment Period End 04/29/07 ANPRM Comment Period Extended to 06/29/87 52 FR 16403 Proposed Action to ACRS 10/87 Proposed Action to CRGR--Not Applicable Proposed Action for Office Review 12/17/87 12 f 1,
Proposed Actiott to EDO O2/05/88 Proposed Action to Commission 02/19/88 SECY-88-51 Proposed Action Published 05/18/88 53 FR 17709 Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 07/18/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action Published 04/30/89 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reficct milestones
' developed by the staff in-response to a Commission directive.
LEGAL AUTHORITY-42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL_DUSINESS A ND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclecr Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3884 13
1 1.
p y, -
RDB NUMBER:- 79 ,
LATEST UPDATE: 07/27/88
~ ' TITLE:
Elimination of Inconsistencies Between NRC Regulations and EPA Standards CFR CITATION: (
10 CFR 60 CURRENT STATUS:
A Commission paper transmitting the final rule was forwarded to the EDO on July 20. 1967 The EDO is holding the rulemaking package following OGC review of the recent court decision striking down the EPA standard. OGC has recommended that the rulemaking be held up pending EPA's development of a revised HLW standard (40 CFR 191). Current EPA plans are to publish a revised proposed standard in 1989.
ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 directs NRC to promulgate criteria for the licensing of HLW geologic repositories. Section 121 (c) of this act states that these criteria must be consistent with standards to be developed by EPA for the disposal of HLW in deep geologic repositories.
The proposed rul e is needed in order to eliminate several inconsistencies teith the EPA standards, thus fulfilling the statutory requirement.
Because the NWPA directs NRC to eliminate inconsistencies between Part 60 and the EPA standard, the alter.1atives to the proposed action are limited by statute.
The public, industry, and NRC will benefit from eliminating inconsistencies in Federal HLW regulations. NRC resources needed would be several staff years but will not include contrcct resources.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date 08/07/85 Proposed Action Published 06/19/86 51 FR 22200
Proposed Action Comment Period End 08/18/86 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 07/15/87 Final Action to EDO 07/20/87 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
On hold.
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates i ncluded in parentheses, if any, represent task Aeader eatimates.
s e
14
_____._._. ____m_._________._______.__._____m .__
-n .- .
.g
' LEGAL'AOTHORITY:
42 USC 10101 3
EFFECTS ~ON SMALL SUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No
-I
' l AGENCY CONTACT:
' Clark Prichard iNuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research :)
Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3084~
P f
b
' 5, [,
. l l
4 i
l i
f
- n. .
').
j 4
h i
r P
i p g y l: , .
- t. .
,( we - v- -9w , %9 m y, ,p--tr e - ag-+g--.--,,+ ,,c -,e-,-- -.,e - - -
ry
l' .:
l' RDB NUMBER: 90 LATEST-UPDATE: 07/26/88 I
TITLEr Critoria and Procedures for Emergency Access to Non-Federal and Regional Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 62 CURRENT STATUS:
This rulemaking was transferred from NMSS to RES after
' publication of the proposed rulemaking. The proposed action-was published on December 15, 1987 (52 FR 47578) and the public comment period-ended on February 12, 1988. An
-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 f or of fice review and comment. Resolution of comments and necessary revisions to the rule and the comment analysis are underway.
ADSTRACT: '
The rule would establish procedures and criteria for fulfilling NRC's responsibilities associated with acting on requests by low-level radioactive waste generators, or State officials on behalf _of those generators, for emergency access to operating, non-Federal or regional, low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities under Section 6 of the Low-L evel Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA).
Section 6 of the LLRWPAA authorizas the NRC to gr ant emergency access to any non-Federal low-level 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 mitigated by any alternative.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date 08/25/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action 05/87
= Proposed Action to EDO 07/30/8/
Proposed Action to Commission 08/12/87
? Proposed Action Published 12/15/87 52 FR E7578 Public Comment Period End 02/12/88 Final Action to CRGR/ACRS--Not Applicable q SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action to Of fices f or Concurr ence 08/'.5/88 Final Ac&. ion to EDO 09/15/98 Final Action to Commission 10/15/88 Final Action Published 11/15/88 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheres, if any, represent task leader estimates.
16 j
' I
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC-2021 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Janet Lambert Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3855 P
17
e N
y RCD NUMBER: 100 LATEST' UPDATE: 07/26/88 TITLE:
Criteria for Licensing the Custody and Lcng-Term Care of Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
.CFR CITATION:
10 Cln 40 CURRENT STATUS:
The rulemaking is under development. On February 10, 1988, the proposed rule was forwarded to the EDC ior signature.
The EDO requested that a Commission paper be prepared and on March 10, 1988, a Commission paper was sent for EDO approval.
SECY-88-83 was f orwarded to the Commi ssion on March 17, 1988.
A meeting was held on 05/10/88 with the Commission staff.
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 for licensing e custodian for the post-closure, long-term con &rol of uranium mill tailings sites required by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (Ut1TRCA) . This amendment would establish a general license for custody and long-term care of uranium mill tailingq by the Department of Energy, other designated Federal agency, or States when applicable. The general license would be formulated so that it weuld become effective for e particular nito when (1) NRC concurs in the DOE determination that the s>te has been properly constructed and (2) a surveill'ance and maintenance plan that meets the rar;uirements of the general license has been received by NRC.
No impact to the publi c or industry is expected as a rer, ult of this proposed action.
TIMETA1LE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Ru1L 2 king Initiation Date 02/17/87 Proposed Action for Division and Office Review 11/09/07 Proposed Action to CRGR/ACRS--Not Applicable Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 02/10/88 Proposed Action to EDO 02/10/08
< Revised Proposed Action to EDO 03/10/88 Prcposed Action to Commission 03/17/88 SECY-88-83 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Actinn Published 'ndetermined Final Action Publishna Un deter mined j NOTE: Timetable schedulod action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estim '.es.
I r
18 u _,
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as ametided ; Public Law 95-604, 92 Stat. 3021 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Mark Haisfield Nuclear Regulatory Con.aiwr. ion Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3877 ll l
19
9 RDB NUMBER: 103 LDTEST UPDATE: 07/26/88 TITLE:
Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 CURRENT STATUS:
A package suggesting an approach to rulemaking was nigned 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.
ADSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulat.,ry Commission proposes to clarify its regolations on the use of the terms "important to safety" and "s&(ety related" by adding definitions of these two terms and of "facility licensing documents" to 10 CFR Part 50 and by discussing host these definitions will be applied in NRC licensing reviews. Significant issues concerning the meaning of these terms as they are used in this part nave arisen in Commission licensing proceedings. This proposwd rule would define these terms and clarify the nature and extent of their effect on quality assurance requirements, thereby resolving these issues.
Rulamaking was chosen as the method of resolving this issue as a result of the Commission 's directive to resolve the issue by rulemaking cor.tained in the Shoreham licensing decision (CLI-84-9, 19 NRC 1323, June 5, 1984).
A position paper requesting approval of the staff proposed definitions and 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 Commission issuing a policy statement concerning the definitions and their usage.
Since the proposed rule is only clarifying existing requirments, there is no impact on the public or the industry as a result of thi s rulemaking. It is anticipatri that the NRC will expend 3.2 to 4.4 staff years in developing the final rule over a 2-year period. The manpower and time frame will depend on Commission guidance received on the extent to which 10 CFR usage of the terms is to be consistent, i.e.,
10 CFR Part 50 only or all of 10 CFR. 20
- e* '
TIMETABLE: -
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/85 Proposed Action--Suggested Approach (SECY-86-164) to Commission 05/29/86 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Commission Decision on SECY-86-164 Undetermined NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates.. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
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 i 21 , .
- j
\
t < ..
g RDD NUMBER: 133 LATEST UPDATE 07/27/88 YITLE:
Maintenance of Nuc1 car Power Plants CFR CITATION:
CURRENT STATUS:
On January 7, 1988, the Commission was briefed by the staff on its proposed "Interim Policy Statement on Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants" as contained in SECY-87-314. The staff e proposed a 2-year trial period to assess industry initiatives prior to initiating a rulemaking action. Hnwever, the Commission 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 Commission's direction, the staff estimates that a proposed rule will not be submi tted f or Commission review until December 1, 1988. The Cormission staff has been briefed on the revised schedule and a Commission paper is currently under preparation to document the schedule.
ADSTRACT:
Un March 23, 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Commicsion published a Final Pclicy Statement on Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (53 FR 9430). In the policy statement, the Commission stated that it expected to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the near future and has directed the staff to develop such a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
As directed by the Commission, the staff will develop a general rule.that specifies functional requirements for the maintenance of nuclear power plants and allows industry initiatives to develop the details nf maintenance programs to mest such requirementn. The scope of maintenance activities addressed in the rule will be within the framework of the Commission's Policy Statement on Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants. The rule will apply to all components, systems and structures of nuclear power plants ant; will be applicable to existing and future plants. The rule will also require each licensee to develop, implement and maintain a maintenance program, and to formally commit to follow the program.
Compliance with the rule will be determined by audit by NRC inspectors. A recommended position on whether the rule should include a requirement to report maintenance performance indicacors to the NRC will be developed as a part of developing the rulemaking.
3 In support of the proposed rule, the staff will develop a regulatory guide that will summarize state-of-the-art methods and procedures for nuclear power plant maintenance and reliability assurance pregrams that the staff corisiders acceptable ways to meet the functional requirements in the I
%. 22 44 - . ., - ... ,_ , .--
rulc. This regulatory. guide will provide the guidance to the
[
) industry regarding. staff views on the content and functions of an acceptable maintenance program. The regulatory guide l
! will also provide the results of .a staf f evaluation of the
( acceptability of industry standards, initiatives and programs
(. against the functional _ requirements proposed in the rule.
I f As directed by the Commission, the staff, in developing the L rule, will- consider maintenance practices in other countries (Japan, France, and FRG), and other-industries (aviation and chemical) in this country in which human performance, maintenance and equipment reliability play an important role in the safety of operations. These considerations will be documented in a supporting NUREG report along with other factors considered important to document the development of the rule and regulatory guide.
It is estimated that about 3 staff years of effort and $600K for contract services will be required to process the final-rule.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (Commission Mandate) 02/25/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to ACRS 08/25/88 Proposed Action to DRA Division Director 09/05/88 Proposed Action tu CRGR 09/12/88 Proposed Action to RES Director 09/12/88 Proposed Action to Office Directors 09/19/08 Proposed Action to EDO 09/26/88 Proposed Action to Commission 10/03/88 Proposed Action Issued for Public Comment 11/07/88 Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 01/01/89 Final Action to DRA Division Director 07/01/89 Final Action to RES Director 07/15/80 Final Action to Office Directors 08/01/89 Final Action to CRGR and ACRS 09/01/89 Final Action to EDO 11/01/89 Final Action to Commission 12/01/89 Final Action to Federal Register 12/30/89 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect Commission directives. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
23
T 4&
u t& %e ,' s IMAGE EVALUATION /
,[/p 9#
//g/ 1[f thff TEST TARGET (MT-3) Y j ,d+4, #,
4
\ /
9 777 'k4 1.0 F" t pga.
aW t- ,n l".l.
. ra=2 2 IU1 1.25 1.4
'l 1.6 6e 4 150mm >
6 > '
8
%ry b
// -
/!b
<p[4 oh,,, /, yy m
O.
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
~
-(To be.provided by DRR/ ARM)
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes
. AGENCY CONTACT:
Moni Dey Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3730 t
6 24
RDB NUMBER: 77 LATEST UPDATE: 07/26/88 TITLE:
Personnel Access Authorization Program CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 73 CURRENT STATUS:
A proposed policy statement was published in the Federal Register on March 9, 1988 (52 FR 7534). The public comment period ended May 9, 1988. Comments ar e under evaluation with the NRR staff. Based on comments and a meeting with a union representing affected employees, a 90-day extension of the comment period was requested but, on the advice of OGC, will be denied. The union will be notified that, if comments are submitted in the near future, they will be considered.
ABSTRACT:
The Commission has concluded that it is appropriate for 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, ralble, emotional 1; stable, and do not pose a threat to con.. t radiological sabotage. Accordingly, the NRC published a proposed rule on August 1, 1984, which would require an access authoritation 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 industry commitment to implement an access authorization program at nuclear power plants based upon industry guidelines. Major provisions of this program include background investigation, psychological evaluation, and behavioral observation.
On June 18, 1986, the Commission approved developing a policy statement endorsing industry guidelines as an alternative to the proposed rulemaking. Commitments to adhere to these guidelines would be formalized through a.nendments to the physical security plans and be subject to inspection and enforcement by NRC.
i I
t l
l l
l l
l l
25
e l
TIMETABLE:
l COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/85 Proposed Policy Statement / Guidelines to CRGR 11/10/86 Proposed Policy Statement Ef f ort Tranuf er red to RCS from NMSS 06/05/87 l
Office Concurrence on Proposed Policy Statement l
Completed 10/30/87 Proposed Policy Statement / Guidelines to ACRS--
Not Applicable (ACRS reviewed the guidelines as part of the Insider Rule Package 02/13/86)
Proposed Policy Statement / Guidelines to EDO 12/07/87 Proposed Policy Statement / Guidelines to Commission 12/15/87 SECY-87-306 Proposed Policy Statement Published a 03/09/88 53 FR 7534 Proposed 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 epproved due dates. Dates included in parentheser, if any, represent task leader estimates.
26
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l
e LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Dr. Sandra Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington DC 20555 301 492-3773 27
RDB NUMBER: 94 +
LATEST UPDATE: 07/26/88 TITLE:
Deletion of Part 11 Requirement for Renewal of "R" Clearances CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 11 CURRENT STATUS:
Executive Order 10450, ' Security Requirements for Government Employees," is currently in the process of being replaced; probable changes in renewal requirements for "L" clearances will impact this rulemaking. Delay has been experienced in issuing the Executive Order. RES has asked SEC to consider withdrawing this rolemaking. A meeting with NMSS and SEC was held and NMSS agreed to submit an office memorandum requesting termination of this rulemaking effort.
ABSTRACT:
The current regulations require licensees to renew "R" clearances every 5 years. This level of clearance corresponds to the "L" clearances used by NRC and DOE which do not require renewal. Because of this equivalence, the renewal requirement for the "R" level licensee clearance is deemed unnecessary. This rulemaking would delete that requirement from Part 11.
l l TIMETABLE:
l COMPLETED ACTIONS:
! Rulemaking Initiation Date 12/30/86 l SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
On hold.
l f LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201 (i) , 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Dr. Sandra D. Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3773 l
l 28
O RDB NUMBER: 95 LATEST UPDATE: 07/26/88 TITLE:
Basic Quality Assurance in Radiation Therapy CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 35 CURRENT STATUS:
In responding to SECY-88-156, Medical Quality Assurance Rulemaking Options and Related Topics, the Commission approved the staff recommendation to prrpare a new proposed rule on basic quality assurance for public comment. The new proposed rule will contain performance-based requirements, 1 instead of prescriptive requirements that were contained in l the proposed rule published on October 2, 1987. (The Commission also approved a staff recommendation that the advance notice on Comprehensive Quality Assurance in Medical Use and a Standard of Care, also published on October 2, 1987, will be considered after the basic QA final rule is completed.)
ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations concerning the medical use of byproduct material.
The proposed amendments would require its medical licensees to implement certain quality assurance procedures that would reduce the chance of therapy misadministratione. The proposed action is necessary to provide for improved patient safety and serve as a basis for enforcement action in case of a therapy misadministration. The proposed amendment, which is intended to reduce the potential for and severity of therapy misadministrations, would primarily affect hospitals, clinics, and individual physicians.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Proposed Rule on Basic QA (Prescriptive) Published 10/02/87 52 FR 36942 Optiont Paper to Commission 06/03/88 SECY-88-156 SRM Issued Directing Re-Proposal of Basic QA Rule 07/12/88
( SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
l Proposed Action to Commission 04/89 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect Commi ssion-dir ected due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
t I
l l
l 29 l
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Anthony Tse Nuc1 ear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3797 30
n RDB NUMBER: 98
-LATEST UPDATE: 07/26/88 TITLE:
Transportation Regulations; Compatibility With the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (Priority 1)
CFR CITATION: ,
10 CFR 71 CURRENT STATUS:
The. proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on June 8,'1988.(53 FR 21550). The public comment period is scheduled to end October 6, 1988.
ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would, in conjunction with a corresponding rule change by the U.S. Department of Transportation, make the United States Federal regulations for the safe transportation of radioactive material consistent with those of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA regulations can be found in IAEA Safety Series No. 6, "Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material,"
1985 Edition. Consistency in transportation regulations throughout the world facilitates the free movement of radioactive materials between countries for medical, e research, industrial, and nuclear fuel cycle purposes.
Consistency of transportation regulations throughout the world also contributes to safety by concentrating the efforts of the world's experts on a single set of safety standards and guidance (those of the IAEA) from which individual countries can develop their domestic regulations. Perhaps as important, the accident experience of every country that bases its domestic regul ations on those of the IAEA can be applied by every other country with consistent regulations to improve its safety program. The action will be handled as a routine updating of NRC transportation regulations. There is no reasonable alternative to rulemaking action. These changes should result in a minimal increase in costs to affected licensees. Prnposed changes to 10 CFR Part 71, based on current IAEA regulations, has been issued for public comments. The task will be scheduled over a 2-year interval ending June 1989 and will consume 2-3 staff-years of effort depending on the number and difficulty of conflicts to be resolved.
l i
31 I l
l
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 01/09/87 Proposed Action for Division Review 09/04/87 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 02/12/88 Proposed Action to ACRS--Not Applicable Proposed Action to CRGR 03/23/88 Proposed Action to EDO 05/11/88 Proposed Action to Commission--Not Applicable Proposed Action Published 06/08/88 53 FR 21550 Correction Published 06/22/88 53 FR 23484 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 10/06/88 Final Action Published 06/30/89 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
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:
Drnald R. Hopkins Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3784 1
l l
l l
l t
t 32
O 4
~ RDB NUMBER: 102 1 LATEST UPDATE: 07/26/88 TITLE:
Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration from Nuclear Power Plants (Priority 1)
CFR LITATIONt 10 CFR 20 CURRENT STATUS:
The Federal Register notice package and negative consent Commission paper were forwarded to the Commission on July 12, 1988 (SECY-88-198).
ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule, which is being initiated in partial response to a petition filed by Edison Electric Institate and Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (PRM-20-15, dated
?aly 31, 1984), would amend NRC regulations to allow onsite incineration of waste oil at-nuclear power plants subject to specified conditions. Currently, the only generslly approved disposal method for low-level, radioactively contaminated waste oil from nuclear power plants involves absorption or solidification, transportation to, and burial at a licensed disposal v te. There is a clear need to allow, for very low activity level wastes, the use of alternative disposal methods which are more cost effective from a radiological health and safety standpoint and which conserve the limited disposal capacity of low-level. waste burial sites.
Increased savings to both the public and the industry could thereby be achieved without imposing additional risk to the public health and safety. There would be an estimated industry-wide aconomic savings of approximately $3 million to
$12 million per year if such a rule were promulgated.
Alternatives to this rulemaking action are to maintain the status quo or to wait until the Environmental Protection Agency develops standards on acceptable levels of radio-activity which may be releaser to the environment on an unrestricted basis. It is estimated that approximately 1-2 person-years of NRC staff time will be required to process this rule.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 05/17/87 Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable Proposed Action to EDO 06/21/88 Proposed Action to Commission 07/12/88 SECY-88-198 33
SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action Published 07/26/88 (08/09/88)
Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 12/21/88 Final Action to EDO 01/05/89 Final Action to Commission 01/19/89 Final Action Published 02/16/69 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2167; 42 USC 2073 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Catherine R. Mattsen Nuclear Regulatory Commission Of fice of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3638 1
34
1 l
\-
RDB NUMBER: 104 LATEST UPDATE: 07/26/88 TITLE:
Degree Requirement for Senior Oper ators at Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 55 CURRENT STATUS:
A draft rulemaking package was forwarded for office review and concurrence on April 8, 1988. The rulemaking was concurred in by ARM on May 18, 1988. Numerous meetings were held with OGC and NRR and several drafts prepared to resolve comments. Office concurrence was obtained on June 13, 1988.
The paper was sent to ACRS for information on July 19, 1988, but staff has no plans f or a formal 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 reviewed the proposed rule on July 14, 1988, and forwarded their comments to the staff.
ABSTRACT:
The Commission is considering an amendment to its regulations to require that applicants for a senior operator license of a nuclear power plent hold a baccalaureate degree in engineering or physical science from an accredited institution 4 years after the ef f ective date of the rule.
Other baccal aureate degrees f rom an accredited institution may be accepted on a case-by-case basis. This contemplated rulemaking action is due to a Commission decision to enhance the levels of er.gineering and accident management expertise on shift. The Commission will also issue a policy statement concurrently with this rule related to utility implementation of an accreJited ciegree program for reactor operators.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
ANPRM 05/31/86 51 FR 19561 ANPRM Comment Period Extended to 09/29/86 SECY Paper to Commission (SECY-87-101) 04/16/87 Rulemaking Initiation Date (Commission Approval) 06/24/87 Proposed Action for Division Review 02/12/88 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 04/08/88 Proposed Action to CRGR (Request for Need for Review) 05/02/88 Proposed Action to ACRS 07/19/88 Proposed Action to CRGR for Review 06/20/88 CRGR Review Meeting 07/14/88 o
35
'l>
e \
SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed-Action to'EDO 07/29/88 (08/05/88)
Proposed Action to Commission 08/31/88 Proposed Action Published 09/30/88 Final Action for Division Review 02/28/89 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 04/28/89 Final Action to EDO 08/31/89 Final Action to Commission 09/29/89 Final Action Published 10/31/89 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task lender estimates.
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS '.ND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Morton Fleishman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office cf Haclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20553 301 492-3794 36
^
L ,
l I RDB NUMBER: 105 l
LATEST UPDATE: 07/26/08 TITLE:
Reasserting NRC's Sole Authority Approving Oncite LLW k Disposal in Agreement States CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 150 CURRENT STATUS:
The-proposed rulemaking was signed by the EDO and forwarded to the Commission on June 14, 1988 (SECY-88-166). Chairman Zech and Commissioner Rogers approved the proposed rulemaking without comment. Commissioner Carr approved with comments.
Staff is currently awaiting a vote from Commissioner Roberts.
ABSTRACT:
This rulemaking would establish NRC as the sole authority for approving onsite disposal of low-level waste at all NRC-licen.4ed reactors and at Part 70 f acilities. There is a need to amend 10 CFR Part 150.15 to authorize one agency (the NRC) to regulate all such onsite disposal of l ow-l evel waste in order to provide a more comprehensive regulatory review of all onsite waste management activities and to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. Uniform review by the NRC will provide for greater assurance that the radioactive material will not present a health hazard at a later date after the site is decommissioned.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 05/19/87 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 03/31/88 Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR 04/04/88 Proposed Action to EDO 06/08/88 Proposed Action to Commission 06/14/88 SECY-88-166 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action Published 07/29/88 (09/01/88)
Proposed Action Public Comment Period Ends 10/01/88 (10/30/88)
Final Action Published 06/30/89 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
37 l
r .
l l
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2021; 42 USC 5841
, EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 4
- AGENCY CONTACT
John Stewart U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Office of Nuclear Regulator / Research Washington, DC 20553 301 492-3618 1
4 I
l i
I i
38
r
- b. .
'RDD NUMBER: 109
' LATEST UPDATE: 07/26/88 TITLE:
Amendment of 50.62(c) (4) to Clarify Equivalent Control Capacity for Standby Liquid Control Systems (SLCS)
CFR CITATION:
CURRENT STATUS:
A draf t rulemaking package was distributed f or of fice review at the division level on November 30, 1987. Staff is currently amending the rulemaking to accommodate an OGC opinion provided on June 7, 1988, regarding the scope of the rulemaking.
ABSTRACT:
Paragraph 50.62 (c) (4) states, in part, that all boiling water reactors must have a standby liquio control system (SLCS) with a minimum flow capacity and baron content equivalent in control capacity to 86 gallons per minuta (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 f or the flow and weigh percent of sodium pentaborate decahydrate requirements and described how equivalency could be achieved for smaller plants. The NRC staff considers the contents of this letter to be technically correct and desires that this position be established in the regulations.
This rulemaking action will clarify a Commission regulation; thus, no other procedure is appropriate. The technical proposals in the rule were analyzed for safety as part cf the original rulemaking procedure, although they were not specifically mentioned. The health and safety of the public will not be adversely af f ected by this rulemal'ing action.
TIMETADLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date--Not Applicable Proposed Action for Division Review 11/30/87 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 07/29/88 (08/17/88)
Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable Proposed Action to EDO 08/31/88 Proposed Action to Commission--Not Applicable Proposed Action Published 09/30/88 Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 10/31/38 Final Action Published 12/30/88 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parenthases, if any, represent task leader estimates.
39
O LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2136, Section 106 EFFECTS "N SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
William R. Pearson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3764 l
l l
40
. ILu RDD NUMBER: 112 LATEST UPDATE: 07/27/88 F
TITLE:
-Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC Approved Casks at
- Civilian Nuclear Power Reactor Sites CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 74; 10 CFR 170 CURP.ENT STATUS:
ACNW reviewed the proposed rule on June 28, 1988, and met to discuss the staff response to previous committeeLcomments on July 22, 1988. The proposed rulemaking package has been dispatched for office concurrence. .
ADSTRACT:
The proposed rule in 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 fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the Commission may, by rule, approve for use at sites of civilian nuclear power reactors. The NWPA also requires that the NRC establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under section 218 (a) for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.
The staff anticipates a significant incr ea== x .' the demand for use of dry spent fuel storage casks starting in the early 1990s, thus processing of this proposed rule woulo be timely.
NRC resource requirements are anticipated to be about two staff-years.
TIMETADLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 12/14e97 Proposed Action for Division Review 03/02/88 Proposed Action to ACRS 06/06/88 Proposed Action to ACNW C6/28/88 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 07/26/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to CRGR 08/24/88 Propo. .d Action to EDO 08/31/88 Proposed Action to Commission 09/09/88 :
Proposed Action Published 10/09/88 Final Action Published 07/21/89 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
i e
41
, l.
t LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42'USC 101533.42 USC~10198 ,
I EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No .{
AGENCY CONTACT: -
William R. Pearson .,
- Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Nuclitar Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ,
301 492-3764 2
1
)
t i
d 9
r i
i J
t E
i 42
~ . - ..
f-l RDB' NUMBER: 114 !
LATEST UPDATE: 07/ 27/E f3 TITLE:
Safeguards Requirements for Fuel Facilities Possessing Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material (Priority 1)
CFR CITATION:
CURRENT STATUS:
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on December 31, 1987 (52 FP 49418). The comment period ended March 30, 1988. Comments have been resolved and NMSS is preparing their input to the Federal Register notice. _NMSS' comment resolution for the FRN was sent on July 7, 1988, and the changes in the rule language forwarded on July 20, 1988.
ABSTRACT:
In a staff requiremento memorandum dated June 8, 1987, the Commission directed the staff to publish a proposed-rule within 120 days which would implement improved safeguards requirements based on the findings of a review team which compared DOE and NRC safeguards programs (SECY-87-20; CNSI).
Primary focus is in the following areast (1) security system performance evaluations, (2' night firing qualifications for guards, (3) 100 percent er. trance searches, (4) armed guards at material access area control points, (5) two protected area fences, and (6) 'evision of the design basis threat.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemakir.g Initiation Date 06/87 Proposed Action to EDO 09/18/87 Proposed Action to Commission 10/09/87 Proposed Action Published 12/31/87 52 FR 49418 Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 03/30/88 Final Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action to EDO 08/15/88 Final Action to Commission 09/15/88 Final Action Published 10/30/88 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
43
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2073; 41 USC 2167; 41 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5944 EFFECTS ON SMALL DUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Dr. Sandra D. Frattali Muclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3773 1
1 7
1 i
l l
l I
44
4 .. ,
r e t RDB-NUMBER: 116 -
t LATEST UPDATE: 07/27/B0 i
TITLE: -
Amendment to 10 CFR Part 51, Sections 51.51 and 51.52, Table S-3 and Table S-4, Addition of Radon-222 and Technetium-99 Radiation Values, and Addition of Appendix B, "Table S-3 Explanatory Analysis" CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 51 CURRENT STATUS: I
~,
A draft rulemaking package has.been circulated within NRC offices for division review. Comments have been received i from all offices except OGC and are currently being processed for inclusion into the rulemaking package.
ADSTRACT:
i The proposed rule provides a narrative explanation of the t- numerical values established in Table S-3, "Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data," that appears in the-Commission's environmental protection regulations. The
' proposed rule describes the basis for the values contained i n i Table S-3, the significance of the uranium fuel cycle data -
in the table, and the conditions governing the use of the 4 table. The proposed rule amends Section 51.52 to modify ,
1 the enrichment value of U-235 and the maximum level of !
average fuel irradiation. The narrative explanation also ,
addresses important fuel cycle impacts and the cuaulative impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle for the whole nuclear power industry no that it may be possible to consider these impacts generically rather than repeatedly in individual licensing proceedings, thus reducing litigation time and costs for both l
~
NRC and applicants. l
) The proposed rule as regards revision of Section 51.51 and addition of Appendix B was published for public review and f comwent on March 4, 1981 (46 FR 15154). The final rulemaking was deferred pending the outcome of a suit (Natural Resources Defenea Council, et al. v. NRC, No. 74-1486) in the U.S.
Court of Appeals. The U. S. Court of Appeal s (D.C. Circuit) decision of April 27, 1992, invalidated the entire Table S-3 rule. The Supreme Court reversed this decision on June 6,
- 1983.
The proposed rule to provide a narrative explanation for Table S-3 has been revised to reflect new developments and the passage of time while the rulemaking was def erred. Final ,
' action on the Table S-3 rule was held in abeyance until new 2
values for radon-222 and technetium-99 could be added to the !
table and covered in the narrative explanation. The rule is ,
i 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 explantion has been i
i 45
.wr--.w,-unn,-m-
.,m.
fe !
-l extensively revised from that published on March 4, 1981 (46 FR 15154).
The staff's estimate is that the completion of a final Table S-3 rule covering the new values for radon-222 and technetium-99, and the revised narrativo explanation will be comple'..?d in FY 1989. A Commission Paper presenting the final rulemaking plan and schedule was submitted on Augut,t 18, 1986 (SECY 86-242). On September 8, 1986, SECY-86-242 was approved by the Commission.
TIMETABLE:'
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (Two Rulemakings Integrated) 07/30/87 Proposed Action for Division Review 05/27/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 08/12/88 Proposed Action to ACRS--Not Applicable Proposed Action to CRGR (10/12/88)
Proposed Action to EDO 11/11/88 Proposed Action to Commission 12/16/89 Proposed Action Published 02/10/89 Final Action to Commission 01/26/90 Final Action Published 02/26/90 NOTE: Tinietable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task 1cader estimates.
46
O LEGAL AUTHORITY: j 42 USC 20113 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 4321; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Stan1py Turel Nuclear Regulatory Commission '
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research ,
Washington, DC 20555 .
301 492-3739 l i
.E k
t a
1 ,
I 47
. I RDB NUMBER: 119 ,
LATEST UPDATE: 07/27/89 TITLE:
- Twenty-Four Hour Notification of Incidents CFR CITATION: ,
, CURRENT STATUS:
Decause of disagreements between NRR, OE, and NMSS on how L reporting requirements should be accommodated, a memorandum proposing a course of action was sent from J. Mate to cognizant individuals on July 18, 1988. NHR has verbally agreed. OE and NMSS have discussed the RES proposal with their. management; OE has informed RES by telephone that OE
This rulemaking would amend 10 CFR Part 20.403(a) and (b) to clarify the licenseus' reporting requirements. While ,
j Sections 20.403(a) and (b) are reasonably cicar in terms of ;
licensee reporting requirements for events involving i "exposures" and "releases" of radioactive materials, these f sections are not clear concerning events involving "loss of
- operation" and "damage to property." "Loss of operations" ,
should be clarified in terms of loss of use of facilities, !
devices or equipment. "Damage to property" should be (
clarified to include contamination clean-up if the corrective ;
action is equal to or greater than a certain cost. In addition, the rulemaking should also define "immediate" in
) actual time, e.g., within i hour, for repLrting requirements. i This rulemaking action will clarify a current Commission !
- regulation; there is no other appropriate procedure to j accommodate the clari fication. This rulemaking activity is ,
not censidered to be a high priority item.
l The health and safety of the public will be better protected because improved reporting requirements will reduce the potential risk of exposure to radiation from damaged or contaminated material. Clarifying the reporting requirements will simplify regulatory functions and free the staff from unnecessary additional investigation and, at the same time, t
protect the industry from unnecessary and unexpected fines.
The offices of OE, NMSS, and RES ere significantly affected '
by this clarification. ARM and the regions are affected, but to a much lesser degree. f 1
l 40 l
' l l
1 TIMETABLE: l COMPLETED ACTIONS: I Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 02/17/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to DRA Division Director 08/05/88 (11/04/88)
Proposed Action to RES Director 09/02/88 (12/02/88)
Proposeo Action to Office Diractors 10/07/88 (01/06/89) ,
Proposed Action to CRGR and ACRS 11/04/88 (02/03/89) l (If Required)
Proposed Action to EDO 12/02/88 (03/02/89) ,
1 Proposed Action to Commission--To Be Determined l Proposed Action Published 01/06/89 (04/06/89)
Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 03/10/89 (06/09/89)
Analysis of Public Comments Completed 05/05/89 (08/04/09)
Final Action to DRA Division Director 06/02/89 (09/01/89)
Final Action to RES Director 07/04/89 (10/04/89)
Final Action to Office Directors 08/04/89 (11/03/89)
Final Action to CRGR and ACRS 09/01/89 (12/01/89) ;
(If Required) t Final Action to EDO 10/06/89 (01/05/90)
Final Action to Commiscion--To Be Determined Final Action Published 12/08/89 (03/08/90) r I
k I.
l t
I i
I
?
49
r LEGAL AUTHORITY:
(To Be Determined)
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes i
AGENCY CONTACT:
Joseph J. Mate l Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research '
Washington, DC 20555 !
301 492-3795 i
50
RDB NUMDERs. 125 LATEST UPDATE: 07/27/88 TITLE: l Night Firing Qualifications for Security Guards at Nuclear ;
Power Plants (Priority 2)
CFR CITATION: !
10 CFR 73 l t
CURRENT STATUS: ;
On December 16, 1987, NRR requested that RES initiate a I
rulemaking regarding night firing qualification of licensee guards at power reactors. The EDO approved this rulemaking for initiation on May 10, 1988. Effort on this Priority 2 rulemaking be '7t been initiated due to the task leader's involvement '
.gher priority efforts. Scheduled action dates should t be affected by this delay.
ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would ensure that security force effectiveness at nuclear power plants is not dependent on the ,
time of day. Security guards currently are required to perform night firing for familiar 3. ion only. There is no requirement for standards to meauo heir effectiveness.
The proposed rule would change thae requiring that security guards at nuclear power plants qualify for night firing. The only alternative to rulemaking is to retain the e current status.
Part 73, Appendix B, Part IV, will be amended to require reactor security guards to qualify annually in an NRC-approved night firing crurse with their assigned weapons.
The proposed amendment will standardize training and qualification in night firing and prepare pcwer reactor guard forces to more effectively respond in the event of an incident occurring in limited lighting conditions. The cost i to '-Hustry should be relatively modest since licensees al reas y operate daylight firing training and qualificaiton facilities and programs. The costs to NRC will also be ,
minimal because it will only require minor licencing, inspection and other regulatory actions. There is no 4 occupational exposure. !
It is estimated that 0.4 staff years of effort over 2 years l by the NRC will be required for the rulemaking. ,
l l
l i
51
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 05/18/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to Offices for Review 12/19/88 Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR 02/20/89 Proposed Action to EDO 03/20/89 Proposed Action to Commission 04/20/89 Proposed Action Published 06/19/89 4 Final Action Published 05/18/90 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No ,
AGENCY CONTACT:
Dr. Sandra D. Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Researv1 Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3773 l
52 r
u !
3 RDB' NUMBER: 135 LATEST UPDATE: 07/27/88 TITLE:
Minor Amendments to Physical Protection Requirements (Priority 2)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 75 CURRENT STATUS:
The final revisions to the Federal Register package for the proposed rulemaking are being completed for subsequent review by the cognizant individual in NMSS. Interface with the Division of Rules and Records has been accomplished.
ADSTRACT:
The Safeguards Interoffice Review Group (S7RG) of the NRC has been conducting a systematic review of the agency's safeguards regulations and guidance documents. This review has identified areas in the. regulations that are out of date, susceptible to differing interpretations, or in need of clarification. In addition, the staff has identified other areas in the regulations where minor changes are warranted.
In response to these efforts, specific amendments to the regulations are being proposed. The proposed changes will:
(1) limit the use of the 100 rems per hour at 3 feet dose exemption to a reduction 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 differing interpretations, (6) correct typographical errors, and (7) make other minor changes.
The alternative to rulemaking would be to allow the status quo to continue. Except for the change in the impact of a high radiation field on physical protection requiremants, these minor amendments affect the public, industry and the NRC only in so far as they make the regulations easier to understand, implement, and enforce. 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, and not allowing 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.
l I
53
\
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 04/04/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to DRA Division Director 10/88 Proposed Action to RES Director 11/88 Proposed Action to Office Directors 01/89 Proposed Action to CRGR and ACRS--Not Applicable Proposed Action to EDO 03/89 Proposed Action to Commission--Not Applicable Proposed Action Published 05/89 Final Action to Federal Register 04/04/90 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Stan Dolins Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3745 54
5
.RDB NUMBER: 33 LATEST UPDATE: 07/26/88 TITLE:
Standards for Protection Aqainst Radiation (Priority 1)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 20 CURRENT STATUS:
The final rulemaking is currently undergoing review by NMSS and NRR. Comments have been received from OGC, ARM, and GPA.
These changes have been incorporated.
ABSTRACT:
Radiation protection philosophy and technology have changed markedly since the present Part 20 was promulgated nearly 30 years ago. Since Part 20 contains the NRC standards for protection against radiation that are used by all licensees and affects exposures of workers and members of the public, it should be the most basic of the NRC regulations. However, because the present Part 20 has become outdated, most radiation protection actions occur through licensing actions independent of Part 20. A complete revision is necessary to provide better assurance of protection against radiation; establish a clear health protection basis for the limits; reflect current information on health risk, dosimetry, and radiation protection practices and experience; provide NRC with a health protection base from which it may consider other regulatory actions taken to protect public health; be consistent with recommendations of world authorities (ICRP);
and apply to all licensees in a consistent manner.
Alternatives to the complete revision considered were no action; delay for further guidance; and partial revision of the standards. They were rejected as ignoring scientific advancements; being unresponsive to international and national guidance; and correcting only some of the recognized problems with the present Part 20. Benefits would include updating the regulations to reflect contemporary scientific knowledge and radiation protection philosophy; implementing regulations which reflect the ICRP risk-based rationale; reducing lif etime doses to individuals receiving the highest exposures; implementing provisions for summation of doses from internal and external exposures; providing clearly identified dose limits for the public; and providing an understandable health-risk base for protection.
Initial estimates of the cost of implementing the revision is about $33 million for all NRC and Agreement State licensees in the the initial year and about $8 million in each subsequent year. This cost does not include any savings which might also be realized by the revision.
55
._ =
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
ANPRM 03/20/80 45 FR 18023 ANPRM Comment Period End 06/18/80 45 FR 18023 Rulemaking Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/85 Proposed Action Published 12/20/85 50 FR 51992 Proposed Action Comment Period End 05/12/86 51 FR 1092 Proposed Action Comment Period Extended to 10/31/86 Schedule for Development of Final Rule to Commission 10/08/87 Preliminary Report / State Meeting 11/16-17/07 Division and Regional Review Completed 02/15/98 ACRS Subcommittee Meeting 05/31/88 ACRS Full Committee Meeting 06/03/88 Final Action to CRGR 06/07/88 CRGR Meeting 06/22/88 Fir al Action to Offices for Concurrence 06/30/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action to EDO 07/30/88 (08/30/88)
Final Action to Commission 08/15/88 (09/15/88)
Final Action Published 09/15/88 (10/15/88)
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
56
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2111; !
42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2273; I
^2 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 :
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Harold Peterson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3640 57
3 RDB NUMBER: 51
- LATEST UPDATE: 07/26/88 TITLE:
Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (Priority 2)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 140 CURRENT STATUS:
The final rule package has been concurred on by NMSS, NRR, and ARM. A potential difficulty in the impact of the revised criteria has arisen which requires detailed reanalysis.
ABSTRACT:
The final rule will avise the ENO criteria to eliminate the problems that were c. countered in the Three Mile Island ENO determination. It is desirable to get revised criteria in place in the event they are needed.
There are no alternatives to this rulemaking, as the current ENO criteria are al ready embodied in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 140. The only way to modify them, as this rule seeks to do, is through rulemaking.
There is no safety impact on public health or safety. The ENO criteria provide legal waivers of defenses. Industry (insurers and utili ties) claims that a reduction ia the ENO criteria could cause increases in insurance premiums. The final rule would also be responsive to PRM-140-1.
It is estimated that approximately 1.0 staff years of NRC staff time will be required to process the final rule. No contract funding is anticipated.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action Published 04/09/85 50 FR 13978 Rulemaking Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/85 Proposed Action Comment Period End 09/06/95 Final Antion For Division Review O2/17/87 Final Ai:t i on to ACRS 10/08/87 Office 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 01/30/09 NOTE: Timetabl e schedul ed action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent j task leader estimates.
l 58
8_EGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2210; 42 USC 58^1; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Harold Peterson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research !
i Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3640 59
RDB NUMBER: 53 LATEST UPDATE: 07/26/88 TITLE:
Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Equipment (Priority 1)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 34 CURRENT STATUS:
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on March 15, 1988 (53 FR 8460). The public comment period was scheduled to expire May 16, 1988. However, several groups in the industry, including the Nondestructive Testing Association, requested long extensions to the public comment period (up to 120 days). NMSS agreed to a 90-day extension and the public comment period has been extended until August 16, 1988 (53 FR 18096).
ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend the present regulations to establish performance standards for industrial radi ography exposure devices. Overexposures of radiographers (and occasionally the general public) are more than douole that of other radiation workers and have been a concern to the NRC for some time. Approximately 40 percent of the radiography overexposures are associated with equipment malfunction. The issue of safety requirements for these devices is a primary y concern since the devices use relatively high intensity, high energy gamma-ray emitting sources with the potential for serious overexposures. Although a consensus standard for radiographic exposure devices was published in 1981 (American National Standard N432), it is not clear that all manufacturers are adopting the standard.
The alternatives considered were to take no action at this time; amend the regulations to require performance standards for radiographic devices plus a requirement for radiographers to wear alarm dosimeters and simultaneously issue a regulatory guide endorsing the consensus standard, supplemented by such other performance standards deemed necessary; and to incorporate the consensus standard by reference in the regulations supplemented by such other performance standards as deemed necessary, plus a requirement for radiographers to wear alarm dosimeters.
)
60
e The proposed rule would require' licensees to moolfy radiographic devices to meet the performance standards through Lesign changes and quality control procedures. Costs of incorporating the proposed changes are estimated to be a one-time cost of $1,623 per licensee to purchase alarm dosimeters and $830 annually for replacement of devices and 1 alarm dosi meters, annual calibration of dosimeters and annual maintenance costs. Determinatien of the benefits to be derived from the proposed rule are difficult to determine on a monetary basis but the potentia 1 hazards that might be averted include radiation sickness, injury, and even death.,;
NRC resources required for processing this rule to final publication are estimated to be 0.4 person-years.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date 12/31/85 Proposed Action f or Divi sion 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-88-10 Commission Approval on Proposed Action 02/22/88 Proposed Action Published 03/15/88 53 FR 8460 Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 05/16/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action Public Comment Period Extended to 08/16/88 53 FR 18096 Final Action to EDO 02/15/89 Final Action to Commission 03/15/89 Final Action Published 04/17/89 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
61
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Donald O. Nellis Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3628 I
l l
t l
l l
l l
l l
62
o e
RDB NUMBER: 128 s LATEST UPDATE: 07/27/88 TITLE:
Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Large Irradiators (Priority 1)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 36 CURRENT STATUS:
l This rulei..aking was approved for initiation 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 l way. The requirements would apply to larga panoramic l irradiatcrs (those in which the radioactive sources and the material being irradiated art in a room that is accessible to personnel while the source is shielded) and certain large self-contained.irradiators in enich the source always remains under water. The rule would not cover small self-contained irradiators, instrument calibrators, medical uses of sealed sources (such as teletherapy), or non-destructive testing (such as industrial radiography).
The alternative to a regulation is continuing to license irradiators on a case-by-case basis using license conditions.
The formalization would make the NRC's requirements better understood and possibly soeed the licensing of irradiators.
Development of the rule will require 2 staff-years of NRC effort.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 05/05/08 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action for Division Review 12/05/88 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 03/06/89 Proposed Action to ACRS 03/06/89 l Proposed Action to CRGR--Not Applicable Proposed Action to EDO 04/05/89 Proposed Action to Commission 05/05/89 i
Proposed Action Published 06/05/89
( Final Action Published 05/05/90 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved dua dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent l task leader estimates.
l l
l l
l 63 l
l
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5842
.ZFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Stephen A. McGuire Nucl ear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3757 64
RDB NUMBER: 24 LATEST UPDATE: 07/26/88 ,
TITLE:
Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive Materials Licensees CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70 CURRENT STATUS:
The final rulemaking action was forwarded to the Commission on July 15, 1988 (SECY-88 -204) .
ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would require about 30 fuel cycle and other radioactive materials licensees to submit an emergency plan that would, among other actions, require the notifi:ation of local authorities in case of an accident and that the licensee recommend protective actions for the public. The proposed rule is intendnd to further protect the public from accidental exposure to r adiation. The affected licensees are those whose possession limits indicate the potential for an accident that 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 hazard).
Currently the proposed requirements are, for the most part, required by order. However, the Commission ducided that they wanted a regulation for the long term. The cost to licensees of the rule was estimated to be between $26,000 and $73,000 per year per licensee. The cost to NRC was estimated to be
$4,000 per year per licensee. The NRC will expend about 2 man-years of effort to promulgate the rule.
. TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
ANPRM 06/03/81 46 FR 29712 ANPRM Comment Period End 08/03/81 46 FR 29712 Proposed Action for Division Review 02/08/85 Rulemaking Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/85 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 09/25/85 Proposed Action Package to EDO 10/30/85 Proposed Action Package to Commission 03/25/86 Commission Directs Revision of Proposed Action 10/28/86 Revised Proposed Action to EDO 01/23/87 L Revised Proposed Action to Commission 02/02/87 Proposed Action Published 4/20/87 52 FR 12921 l
Proposed Action Comment Period End 07/20/87 52 FR 12921 Final Action for Office Concurrence 10/16/87 j
Final Action to EDO 03/02/88 l Final Action to CRGR 03/16/88 l
ACRB Meeting 06/02/88
! Final Action to Commission 07/15/88 SECY-88-204 1
65
SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action Published 08/30/88 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task-leader estimates.
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL DUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Michael Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regul atory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3910 l
66 1
o LRDB NUMBER: 139 l
l LATEST UPDATE: 07/27/88 TITLE:
Emergency Planning and Preparedness Requirements for Nuclear Power Plant Fuel Loading and' Initial Low-Power Operations CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 CURRENT STATUS:
The proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on May 9, 1988 (53 FR 16435). The public comment period was scheduled to end June 8, 1988; however, an extension to June 23, 1988, was granted (53 FR 19930). Approximately 2,000 comments were received and are currently being evaluated.
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 oper'ation of nuclear power plants. Current rules provide for a finding prior to fuel loading and low power on the licensee's plans and state of preparedness for dealing with accidents that could affect persons onsite. Current rules also provide that no finding regarding the planning or preparedness of offsite agencies for 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 also, as part of review of licensees' plans, certain offsite elements of those plans that seem unnecessary for low power operation in view of the low degree of risk posed to offsite persons by fuel loading and low power operation (up to G percent of rated power). It is the purpose of this public rulemaking to consider whether this practice should be discontinued to modified. Specifically, the Commission is considering amending Section 50.47(d) to i~
include as prerequisites for low power operation, seven standards with offsite aspects that are believed to be appropriate for fuel loading and low power operation. The capability for prompt notification of the surrounding populace (as distinct from the capacity to keep offsite eme:gency planning agencies informed promptly of plant accidents) is not included in the rule as a requirement for fuel loading and low power operations. Nothing in this proposed rule is intended to change the emergency planning standards which must be satisfied before operations at full power.
67
~ ~ ~ _
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date 04/20/88 Proposed Action to CRGR 04/28/88 Proposed Action to EDO 05/01/88 Proposed Action to Commission 05/03/88 SECY-88-109 Proposed Action Published 05/09/88 53 FR 16435 Proposed Action to ACRS 06/02/88 Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 06/08/88 Proposed Action Public Comment Period Extended to 06/23/88 53 FR 19930 BCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action to ACRS/CRGR 07/20/88 (08/08/88) '
Final Action to EDO 07/25/88 (08/15/88)
Final Action to Commission 07/27/88 (08/22/88)
Final Action Published 08/01/88 (08/30/88)
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Michael Jamgochian/ Martin G. Malsch Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-0918/1740 i
l l
1 l
l 68 l
n -_ -
RDB NUMBER: 67 LATEST UPDATE: 07/27/88 TITLE:
Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) for Light Water Nuclear Power Reactors CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50, Appendix K CURRENT STATUS:
NUREG-1230, "Compendium of ECCS Research for Reali stic LOCA Analysis," is expected to be published as a final document i r.
July 1988. The final rulemaking package was forwarded to the Commission on June 9, 1988 (SECY-88-162).
ABSTRACT:
The final rule will amend regulations concerning acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems (ECCS) by allowing the use of realistic methods to demonstrate that an ECCS would protect the nuclear reactor core during a loss-of-coolant accident. This action is proposed because research has shown that calculations performed under current requirements greatly underestimate the ability of the ECCS to protect the core. Thiu 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 r esult in up to a 5 percent power upgrade for some plants. The present value of energy repl acement cost savings resulting from a potential upgrade has been estimated to range between $5 and $127 million depending on the location and age of a specific plant.
This rule will apply to all applicants for and holders of construction permits for light water reactors. Holders of operating licenses could utilize the proposed rule, if they choose.
Because the proposed rule represents a significant change in a regulatory requirement, the staff prepared and issued on May 15, 1987, a summary of ECCS research performed over the laat 10 years which identifies the technical basis for the proposed rule. A regulatory guide was also prepared and issued on April 2, 1997. This guide provides a definition of what constitutes an acceptable best estimate model and acceptable methods of performing the u.7 certainty evaluation.
The estimated cost to the NRC of this rulemaking is 2-3 staff years and $200,000 of contractor support.
69
e v. ,
9 j
The only option to rulemaking considered by the staff was the continued use of the current licensing approach described in SECY 83-472. At best, this is viewed as an interim solution because two separate calculations are required to meet the requirements of the current regulation and staff conditions for use of the licensing approach risks case-by-case litigation.
TIMETADLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
ANPRM 12/06/78 43 FR 57157 ANPRM Comment Period Begin 12/06/78 43 FR 57157 ANPRM Comment Period End 02/05/79 Rulemaking Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/85 Proposed Action for Division Review 04/15/86 Office Concarrence on P-oposed Action Completed 06/',2/86 Proposed Action to EDO 10/16/86 Proposed Action Published 03/03/87 52 FR 6334 Draft 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 n7/01/87 Final Action for ACRS Review 05/06/88 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 04/19/88 CRGR Meeting 05/19/88
! Final Action to EDO 06/01/88 Final Action to Commission 06/09/88 SECY-88-162 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action Published 08/24/88 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
l l
1 l
70
c- -- ,
,.u. c ;cm-o I. ' '
- l l
F LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2132; 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USP 2201;-
-42.USC 2232;.42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2236; 42 DOC 2239;
.42 USC 228p; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846'
-EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No I l
,, AGENCY' CONTACT: j Harry Tovmassian !
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research '
Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3562 r
I 71