ML20155K453
| ML20155K453 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/31/1988 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0936, NUREG-0936-V07-N03, NUREG-936, NUREG-936-V7-N3, NUDOCS 8811010244 | |
| Download: ML20155K453 (121) | |
Text
.. ... - . _ - - .
1 - ;
i NUREG-0936 Vol. 7, No. 3 NRC Regulatory Agenda !
- Quarterly Report July - September 1988 l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
- l. Commission J
Office of Administration and Resources Management j
p= = %,,s,
, 4 -
4 .. ,
I i
I I
]
I J
i 8811010244 081031
s
)
L NOTICE [
Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications ;
A Most documents cited in NRC pubibations will be available from one of the following sources:
- 1. The NRC Public Document Poom,1717 H Street, N.W. '
Washington, DC 20555 i
- 2. The Supe,intendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Of fice, Post Office Box 37082, '
I
- Washington, DC 20013 7082 l 3. The National Technical information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications, it is not intended to be exhaustive.
Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Docu-ment Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement bulletins, circulari, information notices, inspection and investigation notices; Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and licensee documents and correspon Jence.
The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the GPO Sales Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC sponsored conference proceedings, and 4
NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regulations in the Code of i federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission issuances.
l Documents available from the National Technical information Service include NUREG series <
a reports and technical reports prenared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic 4 Energy Commission, forerunner Hency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal aad periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federal and state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.
1 Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non NRC conference
) proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited.
! Single copies of NRC draf t reports are available free, to the estent of supply, upon written request to the Division of Information Support Services. Distribution Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l j Commission, Washington, DC 20555. i Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process i are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue. Bethesda, Maryland, and are available i there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and rr.ay be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the ,
, American National Standards Institute.1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018. l l
l 1
l
$ I
NUREG-0936 Vol. 7, No. 3 NRC Regulatory Agenda Quarterly Report July - September 1988
- - - ' - - - - - ~ ~
Manuscript Completed: October 1988 D:te Published: October 1988 i
Diviolon of Freedom of information and Publications Services Office of Administration and Resources Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20666
,~ ;
%..... )
i i
I l
l i
~ - . = . . - - - - . = --w -
4an.6_-- ,S---..A-s,5,-q. n-._ n,_,. an. s~ amm.m .b.ss-.s.-------La.mu+.smwM & 2 1.-na--6 --.- a -. 4 6- a - .h G ak a- m 1
d 1
t i
i
) I l
+
, P 4
i 6 I
l
'i j
1 i
\
r i
r 8 I I
1' I 5
t f
L i (
4 k ,
1 t 5
s i t I !
f 1 ;
,i i
I 1
i d
4 1
e i
J i 4 ?
i >
I, i
I I a
e I i
6 p
1 J
I
, t t
I s
1 I
.t t I
i h
i d k l
]
1 i .
s
.J . _ _.-- _.--....__- ---- - ,.-_ ,_,... , - . _ .. _ - , _ ._ - ..- . ~ . --.--_..,_---- - . ,_
L I
I i
i l TABLE OF CONTENTS t i
SECTION I - RULES !
(A) Rules on which final action has been taken i l since June 30, 1988 l l EASS. '
1
- Restrictions Against ownership of Certain Security Interests ,
j by Members of Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Gifts, !
Entertainment, and Favors (Part C)............................ I r 3
Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel and i High-Level Radioactive Wastes (Parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 51, 70, !
72, 73, 75, 150).............................................. 2
] l j Implementation of the Use of Sr-86, "Questionnaire for !
)
Sensitive Positions" (Parts 11, 25)........................... 3 Control of Aerosols and Gases (Part 35)......................... 4 I
Emergency Planning and Preparedness Requirements for Nuclear !
- Power Plant Fuel Loading and Initial Low-Power Operations i 4
(Part 50)..................................................... 5 l
q Acceptance criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems (IOCS) i
) for Light Water Nuclear Power Reactors (Part 50).............. 6 Facility Form Nuclear Liability Insurance Policy; Miscellaneous Amendments (Part 140)........................... 7 Revision of Fee Schedule Interim Rule (Part 171).............. 8* [
1
] (B) Proposed Rules f 1
] Procedures Involving the Equal Access to Justice Acts i Implementation (Parts 1, 2)................................... 9 l j I l Informal Hearing Procedures for Materials Licenses Proceedings I (Part 2)...................................................... 10 L
) Issuance or Amendment of Power Reactor License or Permit i Following Initial Decision (Part 2)........................... Il j
l Rules of Practice for Donestic Licensing Proceedings--
Procedural Changes in Hearing Process (Part 2)................ 12 I
i i, !
lii
)
l -- - _ - _ _ __ . _ - . . .. . _ - - _'
Ee_9A Modifications to the NRC Hearing Process (Limited Interrogatories and Factual Basis for Contentions) (Part 2).... 13 NEPA Review Procedures for Geologic Repositories for High-Level Waste (Parts 2, 51, 60).................................. 34 i
Standards for Protection Against Radiation (Part 20)............. 15 ,
i Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration from Nuclear Power 17 Plants (Part 20)...............................................
Fitness for Duty Program (Part 26)............................... 19 Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive ,
Materials Licensees (Parts 30, 40, 70)......................... 20 j
Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Equipment (Part 34)...................................................... 21 Basic Quality Assurance in Radiation Therapy (Part 35)........... 23 Alternative Methods for Leakage Rate Testing (Part 50)........... 24 l
j Licensee Announcement of Inspectors (Part 50).................... 25 Licensee Action During National Security Emergency (Part 50)..... 26 4 Extension of Time for the Implementation of the Deconthmination Priority and Relationship Provisions of Property Insurance Requirements (Part 50)...................... 27
]
l
! Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors (Part 50)....................................... 28 i
Tables S-3 and S-4, Addition of Radon-222 and Technetium-99 Radiation Values, and Addition of Appendix B, "Table S-3 i Explanatory Analysis" (Part 51)................................ 29 I
Early Site Permits; Standard Design certifications; and combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Reactors (Part 52)......... 31 Elimination of Inconsistencies Between NRC Regulations and EPA Standards (Part 60)........................................ 32 1
Disposal of Radioactive Wastes (Part 61)......................... 33 l
1
] Criteria and Procedures for Emergency Access to Non-Federal and Regional Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities (Part 62)..... 34 I i
iv
Fajze.
Transportation Regulations: Compatibility With the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (Part 71)............ 35 Safcquards Requirements for Fuel Facilities Possessing Formula Quantitics of Strategic Special Nuclear Material (Part 73)..... 36 Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (Part 140)...... 37 Reasserting NRC's Solo Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States (Part 150)........ 38 Revision of Fce Schedules (Parts 170, 171)....................... 39 (C) Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern; Generic Rulemaking (Parts 2, 20)................................................. 41 Medical Use of Byproduct Material: Training and Experience Critoria (Part 35)............................................ 42 Comprehensive Quality Assurance in Medical Use and a Standard of Care (Part 35)............................................. 43
.I r criteria for Licensing the Custody and Long-Term Care of Uranium Mill Tailings Sites (Part 40)........................ 44 Nuclear Plant License Renewal (Part 50)......................... 45 i i Degree Requirement for Senior Operators at Nuclear Power Plants (Parts 50, 55)........... ............................. 46 Regulation of Uranium Enrichment Facilities (Part 76)........... 47 i
! 1 (D) Unpublished Rules Revised Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings (Parts 0, 1, 2, 9, 50)........................................ 49 Relocation of NRC's Public Document Rooms Other Minor '
Nonmenclature Changes (Parts 1, 2, 7, 9, 15, 19, 20, 21, 30, 35, 40, 50, 51, 53, 55, 60, 61, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 81, 100, 110, 140, 150, 170, and 171)..................... 50 ,
Availability of Official Records (Part 2)...................... 51
[
Negotiated Rulemaking on the Submission and Management of Records and Documents Related to the Licensing of a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of High-Level l Radioactive Waste (Parts 2, 60).............................. 53 y
I
4 4
I l
i
)'
EAE1 i
' Minor Amendments to Physical Protection Requirements g4 (Parts 2, 70, 72, 73, 75)....................................
Revision of Definition of Meeting (Part 9)..................... 55 j Deletion of Part 11 Requirement for Renewal of "R" ;
56 1 Clearances (Part 11).........................................
i t 57 ;
j Debt Collection Procedures (Part 15).......... ................
58 Twenty-Four Hour Notification of Incidents (Part 20)...........
Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for ths 59 Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance (Parts 21, 50)........
, l 1 Licensees and Radiation Safety Requirments for Large [
61 Irradiators (Part 36)........................................ ;
- i 1 Equivalent Control Capacity for Standby Liquid Control 62 j Systems (SLCS) (Part 50).....................................
63 Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants.(Part 50)..................
64 Pr essurized The rmal Shock Rule ( Part 50 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
l Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR P>rt 59 ;
66 l (Part 50)..................................................... ;
?
Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (AS'IE Code, !
68*
1986/1987 Addenda) (Part 50).................................. l r
Personnel Access Authorization Program (Parts 50, 73)........... 69 I i
t
! Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC Approved Casks at l l Civilian Nuclear Power Reactor Sites (Parts 72, 73, 74, !
170).......................................................... 70 j
Night Firing QValifications for Security Guards at Nuclear !
Power Plants (Part 73)........................................ 71 l
1 l l
1 1
i k I
)
I vi I j i l !
i I !
i i
l l SECTION II - PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING (A) Petitions incorporated into final rules ,
or petitions denied since June 30, 1988 E39%
Quality Te chr.slogy Company ( PRM 5 0-4 7 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 L 1
(B) Petitions for which a notice of denial has been prepared and is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register next ,
quarter NONE I
(C) Petitions incorporated into proposed rules NONE 2
i i
t 1 (D) Petitions pending staff review l Gene-Trak Systems (PRM-31-4)................................. 75 l Sierra Club (PRM-40-23)...................................... 76 Citizens' Task Force (PRM-50-31)............................. 78 I
Kenneth G. Sexton (PRM-50-45)................................ 7' t
State of Maine (PRM-50-46)................................... 80 l
- University of Missouri (PRM-50-40)........................... 8I !
Charles Young (PRM-50-50).................................... 82*
American Nuclear Insurers and MAERP Reinsurance .
Association, LJison Electric Institute, Nuclear Utility l Management and Resource Council, and Nuclear Mutuol Limited and Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (PRM-50-51, PRM-50-51A, PRM-50-51B)........................ 83*
l i Marvin Lewis (PRM-50-52)................................ ....
84* j l
i :
I I
1 vil
EA9.9.
(E) Petitions with deferred action Free Environment, Inc., et al. (PRM-50-20).................. 85 Public Interest Research Group, et al. 86 (PRM-100-2)..........
t t
n l
I I
(
l s
I viii i
I
Preface l l
The Regulatory Agenda is a quarterly compilation of all rules on which the NRC has recently completed actica or has proposed, or is considering action and of all petitions for rulemaking that the NRC has received that are pending disposition. ,
l Oraanization of the Aaenda ;
The agenda consists of two sections that have been updated
- through September 30, 1988.Section I, "Rules," includes (A) rules on which final action has been taken since June 30, 1988, the closing date of the last NRC Regulatory Agenda; (B) rules published previously as proposed rules on which the Commission
. has not taken final action; (C) rules published as advance >
notices of proposed rulemaking for which neither a proposed nor :
final rule has been issued; and (D) unpublished rules on which the NRC expects to take action. i l Section II, "Petitions for Rulemaking," includes (A) petitions l denied or incorporated into final rules since June 30, 1988;
- (B) petitions for which a notice of denial has been prepared and is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register next quarter; (C) petitions incorporated into proposed rules; (D) petitions pending staff review, and (E) petitions with deferred 1 action. i
- In Section I of the agenda, the rules are ordered from the '
4 lowest to the highest part within Title 10, Chapter 7., of the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 10). If more than one rule appears under the same part, the rules are arranged within that i part by date of most recent publication. If a rule amends 4
multiple parts, the rule is listed under the lowest affected part. In Section II of the agonda, the petitions are ordered from the lowest to the highest part of Title 10 and are 1
identified with a petition for rulemaking (PRM) number. It more than one petition appears under the same CFR part, the petitions are arranged by PRM numbers in consecutive order within that part of Title 10.
The dates listed under the heading "Timetable" for scheduled J action by the commission or the Executive Director fo Operations (EDO) on particule.r rules or petitions are i considered tentative and are not binding on the Commission or its staff. They are included for planning purposes only. This
} Regulatory Agenda is published to provide the public early IX J
_ _ _ _. . . _ _ . . . - - - _ , . ~ _ . - - . _ - _ _ ~ . - _ - _ , . , . , _ _ . . ~ . . . _ - . - . . - , - - . , - - - . - , _ . _ _ - _ . - . - . _
notice.and opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. However, the NRC may consider or act on any rulemaking proceeding even if it is not included in this Regulatory Agenda.
Rulemakings Approved by the Executive Director for Operations (EDO)
The Executive Director for Operations initiated a procedure for the review of the regulations being prepared by staff officet that report to him to ensure that. staff resources were being allocated to most effectively achieve NRC's regulatory priorities. This procedure requires EDO approval before staff resources may be expended on the development of any new rulemaking. Furthermore, all existing rules must receive EDO approval prior to the commitment of additional resources.
Rules that have received EDO approval to date are identified by i the symbol (+). As additional rules receive EDO approval, ,
they will be identified in subsequent editions of this agenda.
Those unpublished ruics whose further development hes been terminated will be noted in this edition of the agenda and deleted from subsequent editions. Rules whose termination was directed subsequent to publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking will be removed from the agenda after publication of a notice of withdrawal. Rules and Petitions for Rulemaking that appear on the agenda for the first time are identified by an asterisk (*).
Public Participation in Rulemaking Comments on any rule in the agenda may be sont to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.
Comments may also be hand delivered to One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m.
and 4:15 p.m. Comments received on rules for which the comment period has closed will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before the closure dates specified in the agenda.
X
The agenda and any comments received on any rule listed in the agenda are available for public inspection, and copying at a cost of *.en cents per page, at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., ,
Washington, DC, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. J Additional Rulemaking Information !
l For further information concerning NRC rulemaking procedures or the status of any rule listed in this agenda, contact Betty Golden, Regulations Assistant, Regulatory Publications Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications services, Office of Administration and Resources Management,
'i.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone (301) 492-4266 (persons outside the Washington, DC metropolitan area may call toll-free: 800-368-5642). For '
- further information on the substantive content of any rule listed in the agenda, contact the individual listed under the heading "Agency contact" for that rule. .
t l
l 1
1 i
t xi
a -- - - - - - -- ---- -- -- - - - - - - - - -- _ _ , _ .__ ...,A ._.a__a , _ . _ _ _ _ _ . , ,m. _,.- s a _aa m --- .:.- --. -A__ - - --- ---
I
. -- I *
-N -
i i
I I
a f
I i
1 I
I i
l l
I I
I l
4 l l
I l
. f 1 .
i I
i I
1 i
l l
(A) Rules on Which Final Action Has Been Taken Since June 30, 1988
- - - - - - - - -a - aw-- a ____m..aa _u. m2- - ---- - - - .t.-uawah-***. - -w - - ---a mh^ --- - - -- - - -'-L-A t
I i
I t
a r
4 l
l t
r I
y I
, l l
il t
l l
1 I
I I
I I
l i
I j
i 1
i I,
}
I 1
i l
l 1
0
TITLE:
Restrictions Against Ownership of Certain Security Interests by Members of Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Gifts, Entertainment, and favors CFR CITATION:
10 CFR Part 0 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has amended its regulations govorning the ownership by Nhc employees of stocks, bonds, and other security interests in companies that fall within any one of five reactor-related or fuel cycle-licensed categories. This amendment adds to the group of affected employees those special Government employees who serve as members of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste. The Commission has also amended its regulations on acceptance of gif ts, entertainment, and favors to permit acceptance of travel expenses from an otherwise prohibited source when proferred in connection with a job interview and to permit acceptance of food and refreshments at widely-attended events sponsored by certain groups whose membership is composed of prohibited sources.
TlHETABLE:
Final Action Published 09/13/88 53 FR 35301 Final Action Effective 09/13/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
5Jsdn Fonner Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1632 l
l I
l 1
i i
l
l TITLE:
Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Wastes CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 19; 10 CFR 20; 10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73: 10 CFR 75; 10 CFR loo ABSTRACT:
The final rule revises existing regulations to establish specific licensing requirements for the storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-le/e1 radioactive waste in a monitored retrievable storageinstallation(MRS). This revision is intended to ensure that the Comission has in place the appropriate regulations to fulfill the requirements contained in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 concerning the licensing of facilities which could be part of the MRS program.
Paregraph (d) of Section 141 cf the NWPA provides that any monitored retrievable storage installation pursuant to Section 141 shall be subject to licensing by the Comission. The Comission could await further development of the MRS option before proposing its 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.
The basic requirements for storage of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation currently codified in 10 CFR Part 72 are not being changed, thus no incremental impact on NRC, industry, or the health and safety of the public is anticipated.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 08/19/88 53 FR 31651 Final Action Effective 09/19/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2021; 42 USC 2071; 42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2077; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2099; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2234; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2237; 42 USC 2282 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND 6THER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Keith Steyer/ Charles Nilsen Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3824/3834 2
TITLE:
Implementation of the Use of SF-86, "Questionnaire for Sensitive Positions" CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 11; 10 CFR 25 ABSTRACT:
The final rule changes the forms required to request an NRC l
- personnel security clearance or material access authorization, l
for NRC licensees and othe s, when an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) background investigocion is necessary.
The final ainendments are necessary because as of September 16, 1988, OPM will accept only the Standard Form (SF) 86,for their "Questionnaire for Sensitive Positions" as the basis background investigations. The exception to the use of SF-86 held by NRC (for use of the NRC Form-1, "Personnel Security Questionnaire") is being discontinued. Therefore, there is no reasonable alternative to rulemaking. This rule will have a negligible effect on the general public. NRC resources required for processing this rule through final publication are estimated to be 120 staff hours.
TIMETABLE: '
i Final Action Published 08/16/88 53 FR 30829 Final Action Effective 09/15/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2165; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5841; E.0. 10865; E.0. 12356 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Cynthia G. Harbaugh l Nuclear Regulatory Comission 1 Office of Administration and Resources Management I Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4128 3
TITLE:
Control of Aerosols and Gases CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT:
The final rule is in response to PRM-35-6 which requests that the Commission remove the requirements in Part 35 that radioactive aerosols be administered in rooms that are at negative )ressure relative to surrounding rooms. The petitioner states t1at the imposition of the negative room pressure requirement could have an adverse impact on the delivery of health care to certain patients with pulmonary disease and that this requirement is !
unnecessary to protect workers and public health and safety. !
The staff agrees and has developed a rule change to remove the !
neaative room pressure requirement for aerosols.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 07/22/88 53 FR 27665 Final Action Effective 08/22/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Alan Roecklein Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3740 4
i TITLE:
Emergency Planning and Preparedness Requirements for Nuclear Power Plant Fuel Loading and Initial Low-Power Operations CFR CITATION:
l ABSTRACT:
) The Nuclear Regulatory Connission is amending its regulations to establish more clearly what emergency planning and preparedness requirements are needed for fuel loading and low power operation of nuclear power plants. Current rules provide 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 praparedness of offsite agencies for dealing with accidents that coula affect persons offsite is required at this stage. The Conaission 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 5 percent of rated power). S Section 50.47(d)pecifically, the Cosmission is amendingto include as pre operation, seven standards with offsite aspects that are believed to be appropriate for fuel loading and low power operation. The capability for )rompt notification of the surrounding populace (as distinct from t1e capacity to keep offsite emergency planning agencies informed promptly of plant accidents) is not included in the rule as a requirement for fuel loading and low power operations.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 09/23/88 53 FR 36955 Final Action Effective 10/24/88 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 Consission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Office of the General Counsel 301 492-3918/1740 1
5
TITLE:
Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) for Light Water Nuclear Power Reactors i i
CFR CITATION: 1 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
acceptance The final criteria forrule amendscore emergency regulations concerning(ECCS) by allowing the cooling systems use of realistic methods to demonstrate that an ECCS would protect the nuclear reactor core during a loss-of-coolant accident.
Use of the realistic evaluation model may result in up to a 5 percent power upgrade for some plants. The present value of energy replacement 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.
4 TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 09/16/88 53 FR 35996 Final Action Effective 10/17/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2132; 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2239; 42 USC 2282; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Harry Tovmassisn Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research ,
Washington, DC 20555 (301)492-3566 6
L 1
- ws -- n-,
TITLE:
Facility Form Nuclear Liability Insurance Policy; Miscellaneous Amendment 3 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 140 ABSTRACT:
The final rule amends NRC's regulations by making several minor changes in the Facility Form nuclear liability insurance policy furnished as evidence of financial protection. The two nuclear insurance pools have submitted endorsements to the Facility Form policy that make available a single insurance policy to cover onsite worker claims. This new Master Worker Policy reflects different rating and underwriting treatment than is utilized in the Facility Form policy. The supplementary insurance provided by the new policy enhances protection to the public since payments under its provisions for routine claims by onsite nuclear workers will not reduce the financial protection for the public under the primary and secondary nuclear liability insurance policies provided as evidence of financial protection under the Price-Anderson Act.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 08/18/88 53 FR 31282 Final Action Effective 09/19/88 i LEGAL AV1HORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BI'SINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Ira Dinitz Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1289 4
7
TITLE:
- Revision of Fee S:hedule: Interim Rule CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 171 ABSTRACT:
The interim final rule amends the Commission's regulations concerning the annual charges for licensed sower reactors, on an interim basis, for the 1988 Fis;al Year. T1e interim rule raises the ceiling on the collection of annual fees to an amount that will approximate, but not be less than, 45 percent of the Commission's budget. This action is necessary to provide for the timely collection of fees as required by recently enacted legislation.
The increase will be apportioned among the licensed power reactors in the same manner as under the current fee schedule regulations.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 8/12/88(53FR30423)
Final Action Effective 9/12/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201(w); 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Lee Hiller Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration and Resources Management Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7351 8
f l
l
)
(B)ProposedRules l
mmaa-s-L-- s --4---,A _,
_-eaA a-- - s - ---S-AH-AL. 1,,-s-M +-- - - - --a - --~ -
W t e e i
i I
I
TITLE:
Procedures Involving the Equal Access to Justice Act:
Implementation CFR CITATION:
The proposed rule would implement the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) by providing for the payment of fees and experses to certain eligible individuals and businesses that prevail in agency adjudications when the agency's position is deterr.ined not to have been substantially justified. This proposed regulation is modeled after rules issued by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) and have been modified to conform to NRC's established rules of practice. The proposed rule would further the EAJA's intent to develop government-wide, "uniform" agency regulations and would describe NRC procedures and requirements for the filing and disposition of EAJA applications.
A draft final rule was sent to the Commission in June 1982, but Commission action was suspended pending a decision by the Comptroller General on the availability of funds to pay awards to intervenor parties. This issue was also the subject of litigation in Business and Professional People for the Public Interest V. NRC. 793 F.2d 1366 (D.C. Cir.1986). This litigation is being evaluated to determine what if any changes may be necessary in the proposed rule.
Aoditionally, in August 1985, the President signed into law an enactment renewing the EAJA after its expiration under a statutory sunset requirement. This legislation, Pub. L. No. 99-80, revises the EAJA, and these revisions are being evaluated to determine whether further conforming changes may be necessary in the proposed rule.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 10/28/81 46 FR 53189 Proposed Action Connent Period End 11/28/81 46 FR 53189 Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUT30RITY:
5 USC 504 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Paul Bollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Connission .
Office of the General Counsel '
Washington, DC 20555 ^
301 492-1634 9
l
TITLE:
Informal Hearing Procedures for Materials Licenses Proceedings CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2 l
ABSTRACT:
This proposed rule, being prepared at Commission direction, would provide comprehensive treatment of hearing procedures to be implemented by the Commission for materials licensing proceedings.
There are no reasonable alternatives to rulemaking for implementing these informal hearing procedures. The procedures are expected to reduce the economic burden imposed on a participant in a proceeding.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 05/29/87 52 FR 20089 Proposed Action Comment Period End 08/28/87 52 FR 27821 Final Action Published 11/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2111 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No ;
AGENCY CONTACT:
Paul Bo11werk Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 '
301 492-1634 i
(
id t
10
TITLE:
Issuance or Amendment of Power Reactor License or Permit Following Initial Decision CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2 ADSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend the Commission's "immediate effectiveness" regulation that specifies when an initial adjudicatory decision authorizing the issuance or amendment of a license or permit becomes effective. The proposed rule wculd (1) remuve the existing provision governing the effectiveness of initial decisions regarding power reactor construction perraits and (2) revise the Commission's existing practice re operating licenses. garding "effectiveness reviews" for full-power The proposed rule also would delete language in the existing regulation emanating from Three Mile Island-related regulatory policies, for which action has now been completed.
The proposed rule supersedes two prior proposed rules entitled "Possible Amendments to 'Immediate Effectiveness' Rules," published May 22, 1980 (45 FR 43279), and "Commission Review Procedures for Power Reactor Construction Perosits; Immediate Effectiveness Rule," published October 25,1982(47FR47260).
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 02/04/87 52 FR 3442 Proposed Action Comment Period End 05/C6/87 52 FR 11475 Final Action Published 11/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER No ENTITIES:
AGENCY CONTACT:
Paul Bollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1634 11
l TITLE:
Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings--Procedural ,
Changes in Hearing Process CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) is considering amendments to its rules of practice which address the following aspects of the hearing process: admission of contentions, discovery against NRC staff, use of cross examination plans, timing of motions for sumary disposition and limitations on matters and issues that may be included in proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law, or in an appellate brief submitted by a person who does not have the burden of proof or who has only a limited interest in the proceeding. These proposals were initially developed by the Regulatory Reform Task Force and published for public coment, together with a number of other proposals, as suggestions for procedural changes in the licensing of nuclear power plants (49 FR 14698; April 12, 1984). The Comission has decided not to proceed with the April 1984 3roposals, except to the extent that they were included in t11s proposed rule. Therefore, the April 1984 proposals have been deleted from the regulatory agenda.
The NRC is also considering related amendments on the process of intervention that were developed by former Comissioner Asselstine.
The staff is analyzing public coments received on the proposals and expects to forward a recomendation for the Comission's consideration.
TlHETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 07/03/86 51 FR 24365 Proposed Action Coment Period Extended to 10/17/86 51 FR 31340 Final Action Published 10/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS Oil SHALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Karen D. Cyr Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1637 12 l l
TITLE:
Modifications to the NRC Hearing Process (Limited InterrogatoriesandFactualBasisforContentions)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:
The propose'J rule would expedite conduct of NRC adjudicatory proceedings by requiring intervenors in formal NRC hearings to set forth the facts on which contentions are based and the sources or documents used to establish those facts and limit the number of interrogatories that a party may file in an NRC proceeding. The proposed rule would expedite the hearing prccess by, among other things, requiring intervenors to set forth at the outset the facts upon which their contention is based and the supporting documentation to give other parties early notice of intervenor's case so as to afford opportunity for early dismissal of contentions where there is no factual dispute. Expediting the hearing process should ultimately provide cost savings to all participants in the process. The content of this rule is baing considered as part of the regulatory reform rulemakir,g package.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 06/08/81 46 FR 30349 Proposed Action Coment Period End 06/29/81 Final Action Published 10/00/88 <
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2239 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No i l
AGENCY CONTACT:
Karen D. Cyr Nuclear Regulatory Connission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1637 13
1 l
l l
l TITLE:
NEPA Review Procedures for Geologic Repositories for High-Level Waste CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 60 i
ABSTRACT: i The proposed rule would provide procedures for performing an environmental review of High Level Waste geologic repositories.
Part 51 contains no provisions for the environmental review of a license application for a HLW repository. The Nuclear Waste ,
Policy Act of 1982 establishea requirements for environmental reviews which are at variance with the environmental reviews which the NRC performs in licensing other types of nuclear facilities. This issue must be addressed in order to avoid delay in the U.S. HLW Program. The proposed rule would benefit the public, industry, and NRC by clarifying licensing procedures, thus avoiding case determinations and possible litigation during HLW geologic repository licensing. Minor revisions to Part 60 will be necessary to conform to the environmental requirements of the NWPA.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 05/05/88 53 FR 16131 Proposed Ac' on Comment Period Ends 08/03/88 Final Action Published 05/15/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT: '
James R. Wolf Nuclear Regulatory Commission Otfice of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1641 i
d 14 1
i
l TITLE:
Standards for Protection Against Radiation CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 20 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 ber.ome outdated, most radiation protection 6ctions occur through licensing actions independent of Part 20. A complete revision is necessary to 3rovide better assurance of protection against radiation; esta)lish a clear health protection basis for the limits; reflect current information on health risk, 3 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. These 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 wculo include updating the regulations to reflect :
contemporary scientific knowledge and radiation protection ;
philosophy; implementing regulations which reflect the ICRP risk-based rationale; reducing lifetime doses to individuals receiving the highest exposures; implementing provisions for sumation of doses from internal and external exposures; providing clearly identified dose limits for the public; and providing an understardable health-risk base for protection.
Initial estimates t. cost of implerenting the revision is about $33 million ft. .1 NRC and Agreement State licensees in the initial year and aboMt $8 million in each subsequent year.
This cost does not include any savings which might also be realized by the revision.
15
TITLEhtandardsforProtectionAgainstRadiation TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 03/20/80 45 FR 18023 ANPRM Comment Period End 06/18/80 45 FR 18023 Proposed Action Published 12/20/85 50 FR 51992 Proposed Action Comment Period End 05/12/86 51 FR 1092 Proposed Action Cornent Period Extended to 10/31/86 Final Action for Division Review 02/15/88 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 06/30/B8 Final Action Package to ED0 09/23/88 Final Action to Commission 10/00/88 Final Action Published 12/15/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2111; 42 v5C 2133;
- 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 58<1; 42 USC 5842 ..
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes i'
AGENCY CONTACT:
Harold T. Peterson Nuclear Regulatory Commission '
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3640 16
TITLE:
Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration from Nuclear Power Plants ;
CFR CITATION:
! ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule, which is being initiated in partial response to a petition filed by Edison Electric Institute and Utility Nuclear Waste Management Grcup (PRH 20-15, dated July 31,1984), would amend NRC ;
regulations to allow onsite incineration of waste oil at nuclear power l plants subject to specified conditions. Currently, the only approved i disposal method for low-level, radioactively contaminated waste oil l from nuclear power plants involves absorption or solidification, transportation to, and burial at a licensed disposal site. There is a clear need to allow, for very low activity level wastes, the use of alternative disposal metho'.is 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 savin s to both the public and the industry could thereby be achieved wit out imposing additional risk to the public health and safety. There would be an estimated industry-wide economic 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 Environrnental Protection Agency develops standards on acceptable levels of radioactivity which may be released to the environment on an unrestricted basis. It is estimated that approximately 1-2 person years of NRC staff time will be required to process this rule.
l TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to E00 06/21/88 Proposed Action Published 08/29/83 53 FR 32914 Proposed Action Coment Period End 10/28/88 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 01/27/89 Final Action to EDO 02/10/89 Final Action to Comission 02/28/89 Final Action Published 03/31/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2167; 42 USC 2073 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No i
17 1
2 TITLE:
Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration from Nuclear Power Plants AGENCY CONTACT:
Catherine R. Mattsen Nuclear Regulatory Comission 1 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3638 4
I 4
l 1
l I
i 6
i l t
1 !
i :
.I l
1 i 2 i l .
r I
l i
l8 l,
.1 J
. _ --,,.,--, ------., - ,,,,.-n. - - . , . - , . , , . - , - _ . , . . , , , _ , - - , . . - , _ . _ - - - - . _ . - - . , -- ,---n.-- - -- ,n., . - - _ _ ..,-
\
l l
TITLE:
Fitness for Duty Program CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 26 ABSTRACT: l' l
The proposed rule would create a new part to the Cosmission's I
regulations to require licensees authorized to operate nuclear t power reectors to implement a fitness for duty program that will i provide reasonable assarance that activitier associated with I
nuclear power plant operations are carried out in an e,ivironment that is free from the effects of alcohol and drug abuse. The pro)osed rule provides for basic fitness for duty program elements suc1 as the development of written policy and procedures, provisions for the training of supervisors and employees, standards for drug testing, requirements for employee assistance programs, management actions, and appeal procedures.
The proposed rule represents the culmination of several years of effort in developing a fitness for duty program. On August 5, 1982, the Cosmission published u proposed rule (47 FR 33980).
Rased deferredonandcommentt received and a policy statement wasstaf f analysis, published final rulemaking on August 4, 1986 51 w(as FR27921). On December 1, 1987, the Cossission was briefed on the experiences gained to date under the policy statement and on the status of implementation. The Commission then requested the staff to prepare a new proposed rule.
The estimated incremental cost to industry is between $160.7 million and $243.3 million for the life of the current plants. NRC costs to review and oversee implementation and operation of the '
programs will involve 6 staff persons for a cost between $4 million and $6 million for a 25-year period.
TIMETABLE: i Proposed Action Published 09/22/88 53 FR 36795 i Proposed Action Coment Period End 11/21/88 Final Action Published 07/00/89 s
LEGAL AUTHORITY 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 !
i I EFFECTS OH SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
d Loren L. Bush 2
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20555 301 492-0944 19 l
l
__ m . __ .. . . _ __ _ . _ . __ . _ .
I' t
TITLE:
Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive Mate'fals Licensees i
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70
- ABSTRACT
The proposed rule would require about 30 fuel cycle and other radioactive materials Itcensees to submit an emergency plan that would, among other actions, require the notification of local
, authorities in case of an accident and that the licensee recommend protective actions for the public. The proposed rule is i intended to further r.rotect the public from accidental exposure ,
i tu radiation. The affected licensees are those whose possession l
'imits indicate the potential for an accident that could deliver f 4
a radiation dose offsite exceeding one 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 mort part, required l!
by order. However, the Commission decided that.a rWulation was needed for the long ters. The cost of the rule to licensees was i estimated to be between $26,000 and $73,000 per year per licensee. t
.! The cost to NRC was estimated to be $4,000 per year per licensee. i The NRC will expend about 2 stcff-years of effort to promulgate the rule, i 4
TIMETABLE: ,
4 ANPRH 06/03/81 46 FR 29712 i i :
ANPRM Cossent Period End 08/03/81 46 FR 29712 I Proposed Action Published 04/20/87 52 FR 12921 l j Proposed Action Comment Period End 07/20/87 52 FR 12921 ;
j Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 10/16/87 !
I Final Action to EDO 03/02/88 !
Final Action to Cosmission 07/20/88
- Final Action Puolished 01/30/89 i I
l' LEGAL AUTHORITY, 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 j EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Michael Jamgochian [
Nuclear Regulatory Consission !
i Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research t i Washington, DC 20555 !
l 301 492-3918 i i ;
i
! I i 20 !
i !
l l
TITLE:
Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Equipment CFR CITATION:
l ABSTRACT:
The )roposed rule would amend the present regulations to l I
esta)lish performance standards for industrial radiography exposure devices. Overexposures of radiographers.(and occasionally l
, the general >ublic) are more than double that of other radiation j
! workers and iave been a concern to the NRC for some time.
! Approximately 25-35 percent of the radiogr.phy overexposures are associattd with equipetnt malfunction. The issue of safety requirements for these devices is a primary concern since the devices use relatively :
i high in*,ensity, high energy gamma-ray emitting sources with the potential !
- or serious overexposures. Although a consensus standard for radiographic l exposure devices was published in 1981 (American National Standard N432), '
it is not clear that all manufacturers are adopting the standard. i The alternatives considered were to take no action at this time; 1 amend the regulations to require performance standards for j radiographic devices plus a requirement for radiographers to wear i j ahre riosimeters and simultaneously issue a regulatory guide '
i enJorsing the consensus standard, supplemented by such other j performance standards deemed necessary; and incorporate the
! consensus standard b" reference in the regulations supplemented by i such other performance standards as deemed necessary, plus a e requirement for radiographers to wear alarm dosimeters.
The proposed rule would require licensees to modify
. radiographic devices to meet the performance standards through i design changes and quality contrcl procedures. Costs of j l incorporating the proposed changes are estimated to be a one-time
! cost of $1,625 per licensee to purchase alarm dosimeters and l 1 $850 annually for replacement of devices and alarm dosimeters, ,
l annual calibration of dosimeters and annual maintenance costs, j j [4 termination of the benefits to be derived from the proposed :
, rule are difficult to determine on a monetary basis but the -
4 potential hazards that might be averted include radiation !
J sickness, injury, and even death. NRC resources required for 1 processing this rule to final publication are estimated to be !
0.4 person-years. :
I TIMETABLE: !
) Proposed Action Published 03/15/88 53 FR 8460 l J Proposed Action Comment Period Expires 05/16/88 53 FR 8460 l Proposed Action Public Comment Extended to 08/16/88 53 FR 18096 Final Action to EDO 02/15/89 :
i Final Action to Consiission 03/15/89 !
j Final Action Published 04/17/89 l l <
l 21 J
i i'
TITLE:
1 Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Equipment 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 l
l l .
i i
a l
I i l
I i !
1 l l I
r i
i 22
i l
1 TITLE:
Basic Quality Assurance in Radiation Therapy CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing-to amend its regulations concerning the medical use of byproduct material.
l The proposed amendments would require its medical. licensees to implement certain quality assurance steps that would reduce '
the chance of therapy misadministrations. The proposed action is necessary to provide for improved 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 misadministra-tions, would primarily affect hospitals, clinics, and individual physicians. t J
TINETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 10/02/87 52 FR 36942
- Proposed Action Comment Period End 12/01/87 l Options Paper to Office for Concurrence 05/13/88 l Options Paper on QA Rulemaking to ED0 05/26/88 Revised Options Paper on QA Ru.emaking to EDO 05/31/88 r Option Paper to Comission (SECY-88-156) 06/03/88 SRM Issued Directing Re Proposal of 8asic QA Rule 07/12/88 '
Proposed Action for Division Review 02/10/89 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 03/14/89 Proposed Action to E00 04/14/89 4 Proposed Action to Codeission 04/30/89 l Proposed Action Published 05/30/89 ,
LEGAL AUTHORITY: i j 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 '
EFFECTS ON SMAll. BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Anthoay Tse Nuclear Regulatory Consnission 4 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l
, Washington, DC 20555 1 301 492-3797 4
4 l
l 23 1 ,
l
TITLE:
Alternative Methods for Leakage Rate Testing CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
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 >ower plants. This proposed amendment would explicitly permit tie continued use of a statistical data a salysis technique l that the NRC has considered to be an acceptable method of calculating containment leakage rates. Rulemaking is the only
- cceptable alte'/ native for resolving this issue because the regulations specify the methods the NRC finds acceptable for calculating leakage rates. Because the proposed rule would simply make another method of calculating leakage rates available to the industry, there is no economic impact likely to result from this action.
TIMETASLE:
Proposed Action Published 02/29/88 53 FR 5985 Proposed Action Comment Period End 03/30/88 Final Action to EDO 10/15/88 Final Action to Commission 11/15/88 Final Action Published 12/15/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY: '
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
E. Gunter Arndt Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3945 24
I TITLE:
Licensee Announcement of Inspectors CFR CITATION: 1 l
10 CFR 50 A8STRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to l
ensure that the presence of MRC inspectors on power reactor sites is not announced to licensee and contractor personnel without the expressed request to do so by the inspector. This change will allow the NRC inspector, who is badged et the f acility, to observe ongoing activities as they are being performed without licensee or contractor personnel having advance notice of the inspection.
' TIMETABLE: .
Proposed Action Published 03/18/88 53 FR 8924 Prop sed Action Comment Period End 04/18/88 53 FR 8924 Public Comments Incorporated into Final Rule 6/04/88 Final Action to EDO 09/23/88 Final Action Published 10/00/88
- LEGAL AUTHORITY
42 USC 2?01;~42 USC 58A1 EFFECTS ON Sl4ALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No <
I AGENCY CONTACT:
George Barber s
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulat'on Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1296 ,
i 1
1 25 1
TITLE:
Licensee Action During National Security Emergency CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would allow a licensee during a national security emergency to deviate from a license condition or a technical specification. The Commission previously has granted authority to nuclear power reactor licensees to take reasonable action that
' departs from a license condition or a technical specification in an emergency when the action is immediately necessary to protect the public health and safety and no action consistent with license conditions and technical specifications that can provide adequate or equivalent protection is immediately apparent. This proposed rule will provide the same flexibility to licensees, but for the purpose of attaining national security objectives during a declared national emergency due to nuclear war or natural disaster. ,
The proposed rule change does not significantly impact state and local goverr,ments, health, safety, and the environment; or costs to licensees.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 07/19/88 53 FR 27174 Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 8/18/88 Final Action Published 02/00/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
i Joan Aron 2
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Assessrent and Evaluation of Operational Data Washington, DC 20555 301 492-9001 9
?
l 26
TITLE: !
Extension of Time for the Implementation of the Decontamination Priority and Relationship Provisions of Property Insurance Requirements CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to amend the implementation schedule for the decontamination priority and trusteeship provisions of its proprty insurance regulations contained 166 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(1) to change the effective date from October 4, 1988 to April 1, 1990. This delay in implementation is necessary because the insurers that offer 2roperty insurance for power reactors have informed the Commission t1at they will be unable to include the decontamination priority and trusteeship provisions in their policies within the time currently provided by 10 CFR 50.54(w). Concurrently, the extension of the effective date of the rule will allow the NRC to consider recently submitted petitions for rulemaking that propose changes to improve the efficacy of the NRC's decontamination pr'ority and trust provisions.
1 TlHETABLE:
Proposed Action to EDO 08/10/88 Proposed Action Published 09/19/88 53 FR 36338 Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 10/19/88 Final Action Published 12/00/88 LEGAL AUTliORITY- I 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 I FFFECTS ON SHALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No l
AGENCY CONTACT:
Robert S. Wood '
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washi,'gton, DC 20555 l
27
TITLE:
Primary Reactor Containment Lea.6 age Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50; Appendix J ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule woulo update and revise the 1973 criteria for preoperational and periodic pressure testing for leakage of primary containment boundcries of water-cooled power reactors. Problems have developed in application and interpretation of the existing rule. These result from changes in testing technology, test criteria, and a relevant national standard that needs to be recognized.
The revision is urgently needed to resolve continuing conflicts between licensees and NRC inspectors over interpretations, current regulatory practice which is no longer being reflected accurately by the existing rule, and endorsement in the existing regulation of an obsolete national standard that was replaced in 1981.
The benefits anticipated include elimination of inconsistencies and obsolete requirements, and the addition of 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 exposues is availaole in the Public Docussent Room, and indicates possible savings to industry of $14 million to $300 million and an increase in occupational exposure of less than 1 percent per year per plant due to increased testing.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 10/29/86 51 FR 39538 Proposed Action Cosetnt Period Extended 04/24/87 52 FR 2416 Final Action Undete'1sined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Guntcr Arndt Nuclear Regulatory Consission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20535 i
301 492-3945 28
TITLE:
Tables S-3 and 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 ABSTRACT:
Tne proposed rule provides a narrative explanation of the numerical values established in Table S-3, "Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data," that appears in the Commission's environmental protection regulations. The proposed rule describes the basis for the values contained in Table S-3, the significance of the uranium fuel cycle data in the table, and the conditions governing the use of the table. The proposed rule arends Section 51.52 to .nodify the enrichment value of U-235 and the maximum level of average fuel irradiation. The narrative explanation also addresses important fuel cycle impacts and the cumulative isnpacts of the nuclear fuel cycle for the whole nuclear pcwer industry so 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 NRC and applicants.
The pr: posed rule revision of Section 51.51 and the addition of Appendix B was published for public review and coment on March 4, 1981 (46 FR 15154). The final rulemaking was deferred 3 pending the outcome of a suit (Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. NRC, No. 74-1486) in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) decision of April 27, 1982, invalidated the entire Table S-3 rule. The Supreme Court reversed this decision on June 6, 1983.
The proposed rule to provide an explanatory analysis for Table S-3 las been revised to reflect new developments during the tine the rulaaking was deferreo. Final action on the Table S-3 rule was belo '.n abeyance until new values for radon-222 and technetium-99 could be added to the table and covered in the narrative explanation. The rule is being reissued as a proposed rule because the scope has been expanded to include radiation values for radon-222 and technetium-99 and the narrative explanation has been extensively revised from that published on March 4, 1981 (46 FR 15154).
The staff's estimate is that the completion of a final Table S-3 rule coverin9 the new values for radon-222 and technetium-99, and the revised explanatory analysis will be completed in FY 1989.
A Comission paper presenting the final rulemaking plan and schedule was submitted on August 18, 1986 (SECY 86-242). On September 8,1986, SECY 86-242 was a, proved by the Comission.
29 l
l TITLE:
t Tables S-3 and S-4, Addition of Radon-222 and Technetium-99 Radiation Values, and Addition of Appendix 8. "Table S-3 Explanatory Analysis" TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 03/04/81 46 FR 15154 Proposed Action Comment Period End 05/04/81 Proposed Action for Division Review 05/27/88 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 09/30/88 Proposed Action to EDO 01/30/89 Proposed Action to Cosmission 02/28/89 Proposed Action Published 03/31/89 Final Action to Cosmission 01/26/90 Final Action Published 2/26/90 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2011; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 4321; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 E/FECTS ON SMALL BUSINrSS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No MENCY CONTACT:
Stanley Turel Nuclear Regulatory Connission Office of haclear Regulatory Research Washington, LC 20555 301 492-3739 30
1 l
TITLE:
Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Reactors CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 52 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considerin(I adding a new part to its regulations to improve the reactor icensin The proposed rule would provide for the issuance of ear (Iyprocess.
site permits, standard des 1(in certifications, and combined construction permits and conditiona , operating licenses for nuclear Mmer reactors. The proposed action is intended to achieve tte early resolution of licensing issues, thereby enhancing the safety and reliability of nuclear power plants, and reducing the complexity 4 and uncertainty of the licensing process. Early resolution of licensing issues should afford pubite participation in the licensing process an earlier entry into that process. They are designed to implement as much of the Cumission's proposed "Nuclear Power Plant Standardization and Licensing Act of 1987" as is permissible under its existing statutory authority. The proposed legislation is based on an earlier proposal that was developed by the Cosnission's Regulatory Reform Task Force.
s TIMETABLE:
Propused Action Published 08/23/88 53 FR 32060 Proposed Action Comment Period End 10/24/88 Final Action to Commission 01/09/89 Final Action Published 02/15/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2201; 42 U3C 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2236; ,
42 USC 2239; 4? USC 2282; 42 USC 4842; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Steve Crockett Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1600 31
i TITLE:
, Elimination of Inconsistencies Between NRC Regulations and EPA Standards CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:
TheNuclearWastePolicyActof1982(NWPA)directsNRCto promulgate criteria for the licensing of HLW geologic repositories.
Section 121 (c) of this act states that these criteria must be consistent with standards to be developed by EPA for the disposal of HLW in deep geologic repositories. The proposed rule is needed i in order to eliminate several inconsistencies with the EPA standards, j thus fulfilling the statutory requirement.
I Because the NWPA directs NRC to eliminate inconsistencies betweeh
! Part 60 and the EPA standard, the alternatives to the proposed j action are limited by statute, i i
The public, industry, and NRC will benefit from eliminating !
inconsistencies in Federal HLW regulations. NRC resources needed would be several staff years but will not include contract resources. '
Because the Federal Court invalidated the EPA standards, action on j this rule, which is in response to the EPA standards is undetermined.
l
- TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 06/19/86 bl FR 22280 i Proposed Action Comment Period End 08/18/86 i Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 07/15/87 l
1 Final Action to EDO 07/20/87 ;
i Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTH0kITY l 42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No l
i .
! AGENCY CONTACT:
Frank Costanzf/ Clark Prichard i Nuclear Regulatory Cosmission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research -
Washington, DC 20555
[
301 492-3810/3857 j
e i
32 ,
L
, - - - , - - . -,r-- -, , - , - ,. -_, - , - - , . - - - - - , e , -- -..-
TITLE:
Disposal of Radioactive Wastes i
CFR CITATION:
ABSTRACT:
ze the need to revise the The Cosmission definition instructed of high-level the staffwaste radioactive to analy(HLW) in Part 60 to l conform with the definition in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA).
An ANPRM was publish 2d on February 27, 1987 (52 FR 5992), which recoseended a revision based either wholly or partially on concentrations of radionuclides in the waste. Af ter assessing the public countnts on the ANPRM, and also taking into account recent information, the staff is now recoseending against any revision of the definition of j HLW. Instead, amendments to Part 61 are being recossended that '
would require geologic repository disposal of all above Class C low-levelradioactivewaste(LLW)unlessenalternativehasbeen approved by the Cosmission. This would accomplish the objective of establishing suitable disposal requirements for radiotctive waste
! with a minimal impact on cost burtiens. ;
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 options.
would benefit from this clarification of waste Thepublicandindust30veClassCLLW.
disposal options for a NRC staff time for preparing l
]
this rulemaking is estimated at two-staff years, t j TIMETABLE:
ANPRM Action Publided 02/27/87 52 FR 5992 :
ANPRM Cossnent Period End 04/29/67 ;
ANPRM Consent Period Extended to 06/29/87 52 FR 16403 i Proposed Action Published 05/18/88 53 FR 17709 !
Proposed Action Consnent Period End 07/18/68 !
1 Final Action to E00 04/18/89 !
Final Action to Consission 05/15/89 !
Final Action Published 06/15/89 l LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No i AGENCY CONTACT: i Frank Costanzi/ Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Conmission ;
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3801/3857 1
33
TITLE:
Criteria and Procedures for E.nergency Access to Non-Federal and Regional Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 62 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would establish proceduras 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 emerge,ncy access to operating, non Federal or regional, low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities under Section 6 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA).
Section 6 of the LLRWPAA authorizes the NRC to grant emergency access to any non Federal low-level waste disposal facility, if necessary, to eliminate the inmediate and serious threat to the public health and safety or the comon defensa and security, provided the threat cannot be mitigated by ani alternative.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 12/15/87 52 FR 47578 Proposed Action Coment Period End 02/12/88 52 FR 47578 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 08/08/88 Final Action to EDO 09/15/88 Final Action to Cornission 10/15/88 Final Action Published 11/15/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2021 EFFECTS ON SPALL BUS 1HESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Janet Lambert Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3857 34
I i
TITLE:
Transportation Regulations: Compatibility With the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 71 l ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would, in conjunction with a corresponding rule l 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 l
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 facilitatu the free movement of radioactive materials between countries for medical, research, industrial, and nuclear fuel cycle surposes. !
Consistency of transportation regulations throughout t1e 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 regulations on those of the IAEA can be applied by every other country with consistent regulations to improve its safety program. The action will be handled as a routine updating of NRC transportation regulations. There is no reasonable alternative to rulemaking action. These changet should result in a minimal increase in costs to affected licensees. Proposed changet to 10 CFR Part 71, I based on current IAEA regulations, have been issued for public coment. 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. ,
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 06/08/88 53 FR 21550 Proposed Action Comment Period Extended to 12/06/88 53 FR 38297 :'
Final Action to EDO 07/30/89 Final Action Published 08/30/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Donald R. Hopkins Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l Washington, DC 20555 ;
301 492-3784 35
_ . ~ _ _ _ _ _ .
TITLE:
Safeguards Requirements for Fuel Facilities Possessing Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material
, CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 73 A85 TRACT:
In a staff requirements memorandum dated June 8, ;387, the Comission directed the staff to publish a proposed rule within 120 days which would implement improved safeguards requirements based on the findings of a review ttam which compared DOE and NRC safeguards programs i (SECY-87-28;CNSI). Primary focus is in the following areas: (1) security system for guards, (3) 100 performance evaluations, percent entrance (2)(4) searches, night firing armed qualifications guards at i
meterial access area control points, (5) two protected area fences, and(6)revisionofthedesignbasisthreat. !
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 12/31/87 52 FR 49418 l Proposed Action Comunent Period End 03/30/88 52 FR 49418 '
Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 07/00/88
, Final Action to EDO 09/16/88 ;
4 Final Action to Commission 09/30/88 ;
j Final Action Published 10/30/88 [
! LEGAL AUTHORITY: (
42 11SC 2073; 42 USC 2167; 41 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5844 l
I EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
I Dr. Sandra D. Frattali '
j Nuclear Regulatory Comission 1
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research !
Wcshington, DC 20555 !
j 301 492-3773 l
i~ !
i
, i a
- i 1 1 l
l l
I
, r i
l l
) ,
I I
i TITLE:
Crittria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 140 ABSTRACT:
The final rule will revise the ENO criteria to eliminate the problems that were encountered in the Three Mile Island EN0 determination. It is desirable to get revised criteria in place in the event they are needed.
There are no alternatives to this rulemaking, as the current ENO criteria are already embodied in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 140. The only way to modify these criteria, as this rule seeks to do, is through rulemaking.
There is no safety impact on public health or safety. The ENO criteria provide legal waivers of defenses. Industry (insurers and utilities) claims that a reduction in the ENO criteria could cause increases in insurance premiums. The final rule would also be responsive to PRM-140-1.
It is estimated that approxinately 1.0 staff year of NRC time will be required to process the final rule. No contract funding is anticipated.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 04/09/85 50 FR 13978 Proposed Action Comment Period End 09/06/85 Final Action For Division Review 02/17/87 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 11/25/87 Final Action Package to EDO 11/30/88 Final Action to Conmission 12/30/88 Final Action Published 01/30/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2210; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Harold Peterson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-J738 37
-A
--_. -- .- . . - - - _ = . . - - - _.
s s
l TITLE:
i Reasserting NRC's Sole Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level j Waste Disposal in Agreement States 4
l CFR CITATION:
! 10 CFR 150 ABSTRACT:
j This rulemaking would establish NRC's sole authority for l approving onsite disposal of low-level waste at all
- NRC-licensed reactors and at Part 70 fuel cycle facilities.
l There is a need to amend section 150.15 to authorire one agency (the NRC) to regulate all onsite disposal of low-level i waste in order to prov' de a more comprehensive regulatory i
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 ;
i radioactive material will not present a health hazard at a j
- later date after the site is decossissioned. ;
TIMETABLE: [
t Proposed Action to ED0 06/10/88 !
i Proposed Action Published 08/22/88 53 FR 31880 ;
i Proposed Action Comment Period End 10/21/88 '
Fin 1 Action Published 06/30/89 i LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2021; 42 USC 5841
] l l EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No !
l ;
i AGENCY CONTACT: i i John Stewart !
) Nuclear Regulatory Cosmission i Office of huclear Regulatory Research <
1 Wa!,hington, DC 20555 j 301 492-3618 i :
i f I 1 s I :
l !
i
! i l I 38 f 1
f I
_ _ _ _ _ , - - _ - _ . _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . . _ , _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . . ~ _ , _ , , _
TITLE:
Revision of Fee Schedules CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 170; 10 CFR 171 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would revise the fees charged for licensing services provided by the NRC and charged to persons who operate nuclear power reactors. Theproposedamendmentswould(1)removefeeceilings, increase the amount charged for a license application, and revise the flat fees set out in Part 170; (2) revise the hourly rate for NRC professional time spent providing various regulatory services; (3)increasetheceilingonannualcharges filing exemptions to 10 CFR 171.11; and ) (5; (include monies fr a4)addadeadlinef the Department of Energy High Level Waste Fund. Because the proposed regulation is necessary to implement the most recent fee lefislation enacted by Congress, there is no suitable alternative to ru emaking for these actions. All applicants and licensees that are currently subject to fees collections under the current regulations would be affected by the proposed rule.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 06/27/88 53 FR 24077 Comment Period Ends July 27, 1988 Final Action to Cossiission 10/00/88 Final Action Published 11/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
31 USC 9701; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
H. Lee Hiller Nuclear Regulatory Cosuitssion Office of Administration and Resources Management Washington DC 20555 301 492-7351 39
4
+
5 I
3 I
I i
d 4
4 g
I f .
l 4
i
,)
i I
a t
t i
)
I I
i i i
i l i 1,
f e
k i
l 1
I P
J. f i I
- i T
1 i
I t
b j i I
i i
t l 6 i
l i
0
(C) Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking l
l l
l
l, 1
I i
i e
l I l
I l
l J
I 1
1 1- . - - _ - - - - . _
TITLE:
Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern; Generic Rulemaking CFR CITATION:
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) sought comments on a proposal to amend NRC reflulations to address disposal of radioactive wastes that contain suffic<ently low quantities of radionuclides that their disposal does not need to be regulated as radioactive.
The NRC has alrea# published a policy statement providing guidance for filing petitions for rulemaking to exempt individual maste streams (August 29, 1986; 51 FR 30439). It is believed that
- generic rulemaking could provide a more efficient and effective ;
means of dealing with disposal of wastes below regulatory concern.
Generic rulemaking would su >plement the policy statement which was a response to Section 10 of tw Low-Level tadioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240). The public was asked to comment on 14 questions. The ANPRM requested public cossent on several alternative approaches the NRC could take. The evaluation of public comment topether with the results from a proposed research contract wi 1 help to determine whether and how NRC should proceed on the matter, ,
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 12/02/86 51 FR 43367 ANPRM Cossent Period End 03/02/87 51 FR 43367 Final Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
Pub. L.99-240 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Undetermined AGENCY CONTACT:
Stanley Neuder Nuclear Regulatory Cosumission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3737 41
d 1
TITLE:
Medical Use of Byproduct Material: Training and Experience Criteria CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 35 l ABSTRACT:
! The Consission is considering whether its training and experience
- criteria for individuals involved in medical use of byproduct material need to be revised. Rulemaking may be needed to reduce the chance of misadministrations. The Commission may proceed with rulemaking, assist in the development of national voluntary training standards, or issue a policy statement recosmehding increased licensee attention to training. If the Commission proceeds with
- rulemaking, the NRC could publish criteria in its regulations or I reccgnize medical specialty certificates. The NRC is not able to
! project costs or benefits at this time, and has requested cost / benefit coseents in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published May 25, 1988. The NRC staff is analyzing the comments J received to determine whether regulatory action is necessary. (
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM Published 05/25/88 .
I ANPRM Comment Period End 08/24/88 l Proposed Action Undetermined -
]
! LEGAL AUTHORITY:
1 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 !'
t EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No .
I AGENCY CONTACT:
,' Norman L. McElroy !
Nuclear Regulatory Commission !
i Office 7f Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (
i Washing an DC 20555 ;
301 492-a417 l t
b i
l I l
i l I t
f 42 (
t i i
TITLE:
Comprehensive Quality Assurance in Medical Use and a Standard of Care CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering whether to amend its regulations to require a comprehensive quality assurance program for medical licensees using byproduct materials. The purpose of this rulemaking action is to address each source of error that car lead to a misadministration. An advance ..otice of proposed rulemaking was published to request public corrent on the extent to which in addition to the basic quality assurance steps (being addressed by another rulemaking action, entitled "Basic Quality Assurance in Radiation Therapy") a more comprehensive quality assurance requirerent is needed, and invites advice and recommendations on about 20 questions that will have to be addressed in the rulemaking process.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM Action Published 10/02/87 52 FR 36949 ANPRM Cornert Period End 12/31/87 52 FR 36949 Options Paper to Offices for Cencurrence 05/13/88 Options Paper on QA Rulemaking to EDO 05/26/88 Revised Options Paper on Rulemaking to E00 05/31/88 Option Paper Corpleted 06/03/88 SECY-88-156 Staff Requirements Memorandum Issued 07/12/88 Proposed Action Published Undetermined Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Anthony Tse Wuclear Regulatory Connission Office of huclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1797 43 1
TITLE:
Criteria for Licensing tne Custody and Long-Term Care of Uranium Hill Tallings Sites CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 40 ADSTRACT:
The proposed rule would provide a procedure to license a custodian for the post-closure, long-term control of uranium mill tailings sites required by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Actof1978(UNTRCA). This amendment wou d establish a general license for custody and long-term care of uranium mill tailings by the Department of Energy, othcr designated Federal apencies, or States when applicable. The general license would be formu ated so that it would become effective for a particular site when (1) NRC concurs in the DOE determination that the site has been properly constructed and (2) a turve111ance and maintenance plan that meets the requirements i of the general license has been received by NRC. No impact to the the public or industry is expected as a result of this proposed action.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action for Division Review 11/09/87 ,
I Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 02/10/88 Proposed Action to EDO 03/10/88 Proposed Action to Commission (SECY-88-83) Ob 9,98 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to SECY F 9.2/88 1 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Published 08/25/88 53 FR 32396 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Corment Period End 10/24/88 i Proposed Action Published Undeterminea i i Final Action Published Undetermined i i LEGAL AUTHORITY: 1 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 l l
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENT! TIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Mark Haisfield i Nuclear Regulatory Cosmiission i
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 ;
301 492-3877 ;
I 44 1
11TLE:
Nuclear Plant License Renewal CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
This advance notice of proposed rulenaking announces that the Cosmission is developing regulations for extending nuclear pcwer plant licenses beyond 40 > _ rs. To inform the public, industry, and other government agencies of this activity, the Commission has published NUkEG--1317 "RegJiatory Options forhurlearPlantLicenseRenewal,"andIsrequesting comments on it.
TlHETABLE:
ANPRM Pubitshed 08/29/88 53 FR 32919 ANPRM Comment Period end 10/28/88 Prnposed Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SKALL BUSINESS AND OTiiER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Donald Cleary Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Washington, Regulatory Research DC 2055s 301 4.72-355G B
45 l
\ .
TITLE:
Degree Requirement for Senior oreraters at Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 55 ABSTRACT, The Comission is considering an _ndment to its regulations to require that applicants for a senior operator license of a nutiear power plant hold a baccalaureate degree in engineering or physical science from an accredited institution four years after the effective date of this rule. Other baccalaureate degrees from an accredited institution may be accepted on a case-by-case basis. This contemplated rulemaking action is due to a Comission decision to enhance the levels of engineering and accident management expertise on shift.
The Comission will also isne a policy statement concurrently with this rule related to utility implementation of an accredited degree pregram for reactor operators.
TIMETABLE: ,
ANPRM 05/31/86 51 FR 19561 ANPRM Comment Period Extended to 09/29/86 SECY 87-101 to Comission 04/16/87 Comission Approved Preparation of Proposed Rule 06/24/87 Proposed Action for Division Review 02/IP/86 Proposed Action to Offices for Conecrre.ce 04/08/88 Proposed Action to EDO 08/29/88 Proposed Action to Comission OP/31/88 Proposed Action Published 11/00/88 Final Action for Division Review 02/28/89 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 04/28/89 Final Action to EDO 08/31/C9 Finc.. Action to Comission 09/29/89 Final Action Published 10/31/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY: 1 42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Morton Fleishman Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3794 46
TITLE:
Regulation of Uranium Enrichment Facilities CFR CITATION:
, 10 CFR 76 ABT, TRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering an amendment to its regulations to create a new part that would pertain to uranium enrichment facilities. The construction and operation of these facili',ies are currently licensed under the regulations for otherproductionandutilizationfacilities(e.g.,nuclearpower
,3dnts) in W CFR Part 50. The advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeks connents on whether a separate set of regulations for uranium licensing is desirable.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM Published 04/22/88 53 FR 13286 ANPRM Connent period extended to 10/22/88 Proposed Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SHALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Arthur T. Clark Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4205 s
l 47
-Ahm a24 6-4+ '
A4 ee es + 4-g-,+-i / 4 644M & 4+.hG-M. * -J @% s- -+m ' -
'-e-.44+ M- 4 J A- aD .d 414 ** ei A + 8- -
d f
r
, i i
i 9
P h
I I f t i 4
1 I
-f i
t I 4 i 1 i i l
i d
'I i
4
. i 4
o l
l t
l I
s 4
4 4
i f
I i
r
.k 5
4
,5 1
1 i
4 i
4
---+---,-w-,-ew,.,e e, _m-ew-,ww,- - ---w..-e-e%- -w wey ,,e .w r e a.,w - ge e e- w--
(D)UnpublishedRules l
i i
i t
1 l
l l
l l
.x,. - a- .a a. m,.-- . a.a.,_=.__m-ma ma .a m- ass- - m -
- a- a n. nwm,wmaa a anA__-aaaa,a. s n + -_ _ am-ua a -- a s l
l I.
I 6
l l
l t
i l
1 4
I I
l l
i I
\ ,
)
i i 5
t 1 !
i t
TITLE:
Revised Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings CTR CITATION:
10 CFR 0; 10 CFR 1; 10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 9; 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
Chairman Zech has requested re-submission of this proposed rule for possible re-consideration by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Commission had deferred further consideration of this proposal which would have revised the Commission's procedural rules governing the conduct of all adjudicatory proceedings, with the exception of export licensing proceedings under 10 CFR Part 110.
The proposed rule would shorten and simplify existing Commission procedural rules applicable to domestic licensing proceedings by comprehensively restating the current practice, and revising and reorganizing the statement of those rules to reflect current practice. The changes in this proposed rule would enable the Commission, directly and through its adjudicatory offices, to render decisions in a more timely fashion, eliminate the stylistic complexity of the existing rules, and reduce the burden and expense to the parties participating in agency proceedings.
TIMETABLE:
Submission to the Commission 11/4/88 NPRM Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841; 5 USC 652 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
C. Sebastian Alcot i Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel l Washington, DC 20555 1 301 492-7787 )
1 1
l 49
TITLE:
Relocation of NRC's Public Document Room; Other Minor Nomenclature Changes CFR CITATION:
10 CFR Parts 1, 2, 7, 9, 15, 19, 20, 21, 30, 35, 40, 50, 51, 53, 55, 60, 61, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 81, 100, 110, 140, 150, 170, and 171 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to indicate that its Public Document Room has moved to a new location in the District of Columbia. The hours remain unchanged: 7:45 a.m.
to 4:15 p.m. weekdays. These amendments are being made to inform NRC licenstes and members of the public of this relocation. This i rule also makes minor changes in NRC organization nomenclature to i reflect new internal organizational titles.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 10/00/88 ,
t LEGAL AUTNORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Donnie H. Urimsley Nuclear Regalatory Commission Office of Administration and Resources Management Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7211 l
4 4
50 i
9 1
TITLE:
Availability of Official Records CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:
The proposed amendment would conform the NRC's regulations pertaining <
to the availability of official records to existing case law and "
agency practico. The amendment would reaffirm that the terms of 10 CFR 2.790(c) provide submitters of information a qualified right to have their information returned upon request. This amendment informs the public of three exceptions to the the right to withdraw pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(c) of the NRC's regulations, i.e.,
information submitted in a rulemaking proceeding that subsequently forms the basis for the final rule, information which has been made available to an advisory connittee or was received at an advisory committee meeting, and information that is subject to a pending Freedom of Information Act request. ,
Mditionally, the proposed amendment would add a notice statement to 10 CFR Part 2 that submitters of. documents and information to the NRC should be careful in submitting copyrighted works. The agency in receiving submittals and making its normal distributions routinely photocopies submittals, makes microfiche of such submittals and insures that these fiche are distributed to the POR, LPDRs, all appropriate internal offices, and to the National Technical Information Service Center. This broad distribution and reproduction is made to satisfy the congressional mandate of Section 142(b) of the Atomic Energy Act by increased public understanding of the peaceful uses of atomic energy. Accordingly, copyright owners are on notice that their act of subritting such works to the agency will be considered as the granting to the NRC an implied license to reproduce and distribute according to normal agency ptactice. Natura111y, this noticedoesnotpreventsubmittersfromapplying10CFR2.790(b)(1) procedures to information that contains trade secrets or privileged or confidential conrercial or financial information (proprietary information) and it is recognized that some information in those categories may be copyrighted. The key factor is that it is their proprietary information status that exempts them from public disclosure and not their copyright designation. Lastly, this implied license is not applicable to fair use of copyrighted works or the incorporation by reference of coprighted works in agency submittais, e.g., the referencing of a copyrighted code or standard in a submittal does not affect the copyright of that standard.
(IMETABLE:
Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 7201; 42 USC 5841 51
h I
TITLE:
Availability of Official Records EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Edward C. Shomaker Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1560 I
r i
l I
i
. I l
1 l
I l
--r,, - ,
TITLE:
Negotiated Rulemaking on the Submission and Management of Records and Documents Related to the Licensing of a Geologic Repository for tne i Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste l
l CFR CITATION- '
10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 60 l ABSTRACT:
The Nucitar Waste Policy Act (NWPA) provides three years for the NRC to reach a decision on construction authorization for a high-level waste repository. In order for the NRC to be able to make its decision within the allotted time, ready access to all pertinent records must be assured to all parties in the licensing proceeding. The DOE has committed to j develop an electronic information management system to be used for the licer. sing proceeding. The NRC staff intends to use the process of negotiated rulemaking f, develop a proposed rule that would revise che Commission's discovery procedure and motion practice in 10 CFR Part 2 for the high-level waste licensing proceeding. This rule would require the 90E license application and all supporting records to be provided in a standardized electronic format. All parties to the licensing proceeding would be required to submit all relevant data to this system. In turn, all parties would have access to the data base.
Resource estimates currently under development.
TI".ETABLE:
Notice of Intent Published 12/18/86 51 FR 45338 Notice of Intent /Conmwnt Period Expires 02/18/86 Notice of Formation of Negotiating Committee 08/05/87 52 FR 29024 Proposed Action Published 10/00/88 Final Action to Commission 12/00/88 Final Actiun Published 01/00/89 LEGAL AUTil0RITY:
HWPA, AEA EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: To be determined AGENCY CONTACT:
Francis X. Cameron Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Gcneral Counsel Washington, DC 20555 30I 492-1623 53
liTLE:
Minor Amendments to Physical Protection Requirements CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 75 ABSTRACT:
The Safeguards Interoffice Review Group (SIRG) 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 would: (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 coninon 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 requirements, 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 effnrt over 2 years will be required for the rulemaking.
This is a low priority rulemaking.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to E00 03/00/89 Proposed Action Published 05/7/89 Final Action Published 04/04,30 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Stan Dolins Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3745 54
TITLE:
Revision of Definition of Neeting CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 9 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would return the definition of "meeting" to its pre-1985 wording. The proposal is based on a study of comments submitted on an interim final rule published on May 21, 1985 (50 FR 20889) and the 1987 recommendations and report of the American Bar Association (ABA). Since the pre-1985 wording of the definition of meeting is fully adequate to permit the types of non-Sunshine Act discussions that the NRC believes would be useful, the proposal calls for the NRC to reinstitute its pre-1985 definition of r.eeting, with the intention of conducting its non-Sunshine Act discussions in accordance with the guidelines recommended by the ABA.
TIMETABLE:
Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Peter G. Crane Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1634 l
I 1
~
55
TITLE:
Deletion of Part 11 Requirement for Renewal of "R" Clearances CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 11 ABSTRACT:
This rule will be terminated due to changes and potential changes in the NRC and DOE access authorization program. 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 renrwal requirement for the "R" level licensee clearance is deemed unnecessary, i
TIMETABLE: l Terminated 12/00/88 !
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201(1); 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS ANU OTHER ENTITIES: No AGEl;CY CONTACT:
Sandra D. Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3773 i
i l
l 56 i
TITLE:
Debt Collection Procedures CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 15 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule woul6 amend the regulations concerning the procedures that the NRC uses to collect the debts which are owed to it. The proposed amendments are necessary to conform NRC regulations to the amended procedures contained in the Federal Claims Collection Standards issued by the General Accounting Office and the U.S. Department of Justice. The proposed action is intended to allow the NRC to further improve its collection of debts due to the United States. Because the proposed regulation is ;
necessary to implement the Debt Collection Act of 1982, there is no suitable alternative to rulemaking for this action, j TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 10/00/88 l Final Action Published 01/30/89 l LEGAL AUTHORITY:
31 USC 3711; 31 USC 3717; 31 USC 3718; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT: l Granam D. Johnson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration and Resources Mcnagement Washir.gton, DC 20555 301 492-7535 l
l l
I 57
TITLE:
Twerty-Four Hour Notification of Incidents CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would asend regulations concerning the notification of incidents involving byproduct, source, or special nuclear material possessed by a licensee. The proposed rule would clarify licensee reporting requirements for events involving byproduct, source, or special nuclear material that result in the loss of operation or damage to groperty. The proposed rule would also define the term "immediate in the context of time. The proposed action is necessary because the NRC is not being notified of all incidents that occur involving byproduct, source, or special nuclear material possessed by the licensee. The proposed rule is
- intended to clarify that the notification requirements apply to all licensees subject to the standards for protection against radiation.
Because the proposeo amendments are needed to clarify an existing i regulation, no alternative to rulemaking is acceptable. The '
proposed amendments are not expected to have any economic impact on NRC or its licensees.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to Office Directors 01/06/89 Preposed Action to E00 03/02/89 Proposed Action Published 04/06/89 Final Action for Division Review 09/01/89 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 11/03/89 Final Action to E00 01/05/90 Final Action Published 03/08/90 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSlHESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Joseph J. Mate Nuclear Regulatocy Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3795 58 l
TITLE:
Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defecta and Noncompliance CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
This proposed rule would amend 10 CFR Part 21 and $50.55(e), both of which require the reporting of safety defects by licencees.
In addition, Part 21 requires reporting by non-licensees. This proposed amendment was prompted by the TMI Action Plan Task II, 0.4, and NRC stdff experience with Part 21 and $50.55(e) reporting. i The main objectives of the rulemaking effort are: (1)eliminationof '
I duplicate evaluation and reporting of safety defects; (2) consistent threshold for safety defect reporting in both Part 21 and $50.55(e);
(3) establishment of consistent and uniform content of reporting under both Part 21 and $50.55(e); and (4) establishment of time limits within which a defect must be evcluated and reported.
Approximataly 500 reports are submitted to the Comission annually under Part 21. Approximately 1500 reports are submitted to the Comission annually under $50.55(e). These reports identify both plant specific and generic safety concerns for further NRC regulatory action. Under current rules, these reports have formed the basis for NRC issuance of numerous NRC information notices and bulletins.
The proposed rulemaking will reduce the potential for duplicate ;
reporting and evaluation of safety defects which now exist. The '
rulemaking will establish a rore coherent regulatory framework that is expected to reduce industry reporting and evaluation burden significaatly without reducing safety effectiveness.
Alternatives to this rulemaking approach which were considered varied from establishment of a single rule for all reporting I
of safety defects and operating reactor events to maintaining the status quo for defect reporting. All alternatives were rejected since they would not substantially improve the current safety defect reporting situation.
Current costs of reporting under 10 CFR 21 and $50.55(e) are estimated at $10.43 million annua 11.v for industry and $1.08 million for NRC evaluations. It is ant:cipated that the i industry reporting burden should be reduced by $1.6 millien; while NRC burden should remain the same. Additional industry burden, though minimal, is anticipated in the area of reissuing procedures for reporting and record keeping. l The Commission disapproved this proposed rule on 10/20/86 and
'irovided direction to the staff to revise the proposed rulemaking.
ihe subsequent rulemaking effort has proceeded based on this direction.
59
TITLE:
Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action for Division Review Completed 05/00/85 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 06/05/85 Proposed Action to EDO 11/18/85 Proposed Action to Commission 12/16/86 Commission Action Disapproving Proposed Action 10/20/86 Revised Proposed Action Division for Review 04/00/87 Office Concurrence on Revised Proposed Action 07/24/87 CRGR Review 11/12/87 CRGR Concurrence Comolete 02/12/88 Revised Proposed Action to E00 02/16/86 Revised Proposed Actior, to Commission 09/12/88 Revised Proposed Action Published 10/12/88 Final Action Published 03/12/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2282; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
William R. Jones Nuclear Regulatory Connission Office cf Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4442 I
t J
60
TITLE:
Licensees and Radiation Safety Requiret nts for Large Irradiators CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 36 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission is developing regulations to specify radiation safety requirements anti license requirea ints for the use of licensed radioactive materials in large irradiators.
Irradiators use gama radiation to irradiate products to change their characteristics in som way. The requirements would apply to large panoramic irradiators (tnose in which the radioactive sources and the material being irradiated are in a room that is accessible to personnel while the source is shielded) and certain large self-contained irradiators in which the source always remairis 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 licen:;e irradiators on a case-by-case basis using license conditions. The formalization would make the HRC's requirer. ants t,etter understood and possibly speed the licensing of irradiators. Developnent of the rule will require 2 s taff-years.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to E00 04/05/89 Proposed Action to Comission 05/05/89 Proposed Action Published 06/05/89 Final Action Published 05/05/90 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 ENTITIS: Yes l AGENCY CONTACT: l Stephen A. McGuire Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3757 l
l 1
6l
TITLE:
Equivalent Control Capacity for Standby Liquid Control Systems (SLCS)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would clarify the Comission's regulations pertaining to boiling water reactors (BWR). The current reguletions reouire a standby liquid thatsystem control all boiling (SLCSw)ater with areactors minimummust flowhave capacity and boron content equivalent in control capacity to 86 gallons per minute (gpm) of 13 weight percent of sodium pentaborate solution. in January 1985, a generic letter was issued to all appropriate licensees that provided clarificat!on of the phrase "equivalent in control capacity" contained in section50.62(c)(4). This letter provided the basis for the flow and weight percent of sodium pentaborate decahydrate requirements and described how eguivalency could be achieved for smaller plants. The NRC starf considers the contents of the generic letter to be technically correct and desires that this position be established in the regulations.
This proposed rule would clarify a Connission regulation; thus, no other procedure is appropriate. The technical proposals in the rule were analyzed for safety as part of the original rulemaking procedure, although they were not specifically mentioned. This rule wi not adversely affect the health and safety of the public.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action for Division Review 11/30/87 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 08/30/88 Proposed Action to EDO 09/27/88 Proposed Action Published 10/?1/88 Final Action Published 02/10/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2136; Section 106 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
William R. Pearson Nuclear Regulatory Connission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3764 62 m
TITLE:
Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:
ABSTRACT-The proposed rule would provide functional requireme :ts for !
the maintenance of nuclear power plants and allow industry l initiatives to develop the details of maintenance programs to meet such requirements. The preposed rule would apply to all components, systems and structures of nuclear power plants and would be applicable to existing and future plants. The proposed rule would also require each licensee to develop, implement and maintain a neintenance program, and to formally commit to follow the program.
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 which was issued ,n March 23,1988(53FR9430),
i It is estimated that about 3 staff-years of effort and $600 !
for contract services will be required to process the final,000 rule. j TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 09/06/88 i Proposed Action to EDO 09/26/88 i
Proposed Action to Conmission 10/03/88 i l Proposed Action Published 11/07/88 l
' Final Action for Division Review 02/17/89 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 02/22/89 Final Action to E00 03/27/89 '
Final Action to Commission 04/03/89 '
Final Action to Federal Register 05/01/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
4E USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY C0!iTACT:
Moni Day Nuclear Regulatory Connission Office of Nuclear Reguldtory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3730 1
I i
63 L i
1 l
f TITLE:
Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT.
The Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) Rule, Published July 23, 1985, established a screening criterion, a limit on the degree of radiation embrittlewient of FWR reactor vessel beltline materials beyond which operation cannot continue without additional plant-specific analysis. The rule prescribes how to calculate the degree of embrittlement as a function of the copper and nickel contents of the controlling material and the neutron fluence. The proposed amendment revises the calculative procedure to be consistent with that given in Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.99.
The guide provides an updated correlation of embrittlement data, which received CRGR approval for publication in final form on December 9, 1987.
The need to arend the PTS rule to be consistent with the guide became apparent when it was found that some inedium-copper, high-nickel materials einbrittlenent as worse now than predicted using the PTS rule. A number of PWR's will reach the screening criterion socner 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 from the safety standpoint is to leave the present PTS rule in place. The staff's plant-by-plant analyses found four plants whose reference temperatures are 52 to 68'F higher than previously thought, based on the present rule. This is beyond the uncertainties that were felt to exist when the present rule was published. Another unacceptable alternative that has been evaluated is to change the calculative procedure for the reference temperature and also change the screening criterion. Failure probabilities for the most critical accident scenarios in three plants, when recalculated using the new embrittlement estimates, were somewhat lower, but were quite dependent on the plant configuration and the scenario chosen.
Furthermore, the screening criterion was based on a variety of considerations besides the probabilistic analysis. Reopening the question of where to set the screening criterion was not considered aroductive because of plant-to-plant differences. It is better to 1 ave a conservative "trip wire" that triggers plant-specific analyses.
64
TITLE:
Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule ADSTRACT CONT.
Immediate costs to industry will be those required for each utility to update the January 23, 1986, submittal required by the PTS rule, using fluence estimates that take account of flux reduction efforts in the interim and using the new procedure for calculating RT/ PTS.
In addition, three to five plants will need to make the expenditure of an estimated 2.5 million dollars for the plant-specific analysis in the 1990's instead of 10 to 15 years later.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to E00 12/01/88 Proposed Action Published 02/01/69 Final Action for Division Review 08/01/89 Final Action to ED0 01/01/90 Final Action to Commission Undetermined Final Action Published 03/01/90 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS OF 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 65
TITLE:
Safety Related and Impnrtant to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission proposes to clarify its regulations on the use of the terms "important to safety" and "safety related" by adding definitions of these two terms and of "facility licensing documents" to 10 CFR Part 50 and by discussing how these definitions will be applied in NRC licensing reviews. Significant issues concerning the meaning of these terms as they are used in this part have arisen in Comission licensing proceedings. This proposed rule would define these terms and clarify the nature and extent of their effect on quality assurance requirements, thereby resolving these issues.
Rulemaking was chosen as the method of resolving this issue as a result of the Comission's directive to resolve the issue by rulemaking contained in the Shoreham licensing d: cision (CLI-84-9, 19 NRC 1323, June 5, 1984).
A position paper requesting approval of the staff proposed definitions and additional guidance from the Comission was signed by the E00 on May 29, 1986. In addition to rulemaking, the position paper discusses the alternative of the Comission issuing a policy statement concerning the definitions and their usage.
Since the proposed rule is only clarifying eAlsting requirements, there is no impact on the public or the industry as a result of this rulemaking. It is anticipated that the NRC will expend 3.2 to 4.4 staf f years in developing the final rule over a two-year period. The manpower and time frame will depend on Comission guidance received on the extent to which 10 CFR usage of the terms is to be consistent, i.e., 10 CFR Part 50 only or all of 10 CFR.
The timetable is on hold based ou a decision by the Comission.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to Comission 05/29/86 Comission Decision on SECY 86-164 Undetermined ;
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 L
66
TITLE:
Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGt'.NCY CONTACT:
Jerry N. Wilson i Nuclear Regulatory Comission l Office of Nuclear Reguldtory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3729 l !
l l
l
'l i
i i
l l
i f
4 i.
4 4
i 67 !
l i
TITLE:
- Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (ASME Code, 1586/1987 Addenda)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would incorporate by reference the 1986 Addenda and 1987 Addenda to the 1986 Edition of Section III, Division 1, and Section XI, Division 1, of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code). The ASME Code provides rules for the construction of light-water-reactor nuclear power plant components in Section III, Division 1, and provides rules for the inservice inspection and inservice testing of those components in Section ,11, Division 1.
The proposed rule would update the existing reference to the ASME Code and would thereby permit the use of improved methods for the construction, inservice inspection, and inservice testing of nuclear power plant components. Incorporating by reference the latest addenda of the ASME Code would save applicants / licensees and the NRC staff both time and effort by providing uniform detailed criteria against which the staff could review any single subrission.
This action will be handled as a routine updating of i 50.55a of the NRC regulations. There is no reasonable alternative to rulemaking action. The proposed amendment will be issued for public coment. The task to develop and publish the proposed amendment is scheduled for a )eriod of 7.5 months with an estimated staff effort of 400 p-hrs. T11s is a priority A rulemaking.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Amendment Submitted for Division Review 09/30/88 Office Concurrence on Proposed Amendment Completed 02/10/89 Proposed Amendment to EDO 04/14/88 Proposed Amendment Published 05/14/89 Final Action Published 12/22/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201, 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Gilbert C. Millman Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 (301)492-3872 68
TULE:
Personnel Access Authorization Program CFR CITAT.'ON:
10 CFP 50; 10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:
The Comission has concluded that it is appropriate for each licensee whc, operates a nuclear power plant to establish an access authorize. tion program to ensure that individuals who require unescorted access to protected areas or vital areas of their facilitie; are trustworthy, reliable, emotionally stable, and do not pose s threat to comit radiological sabotage. Accordingly, e
the NRC published a proposed rule on August 1, 1984, which would require an access authorization program at nuclear power plants (49 FR30726).
An alternative Resource proposal Comittee (NUMARCby)the wasNuclear Utility submitted as a Management public r.omant on and this proposed rule. The alternative proposed a voluntary industry comitment to implement an access authorization program at nuclear power plants based upon industry guidelines. Major provisions of this program include background investigation, psychological evaluation, and behaviorial observation.
On June 18, 1986, the Comission approved developing a policy statement endorsing industry guidelines as an alternative to the proposed rulemaking. Comitments to adhere to these guidelines would be formalized through anendrents to the physical security plans and be subject to inspection and enforcement by NRC.
TIMETABLE:
Office Concurrence on Proposed Policy Statement Completed 10/30/87 Proposed Policy Statement / Guidelines to ED0 12/07/87 Proposed policy Statement / Guidelines to Comission 12/15/87 Proposed Policy Statement Published 03/09/88 53 FR 7534 Proposed Policy Statement Coment Period End 05/09/88 Final Policy Statement to E00 12/31/88 Final Policy Staterent Published 02/28/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS ?.ND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENC'I CONTACT:
Sandra Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3773 69
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 ABSTRACT:
The proposJi rule is in res>onse to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (HWPA)section218(a)whic) states in part, that the Secretary of DOE shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector for dry storage of s)ent nuclear fuel at civilien nuclear power reactor sites, with tie objective of
, establishing one or more technologies that the Commission may, by rule, approve for use at setss of civilian nuclear power reactors.
The NWPA also requires that the NRC establish procedures for the licensing of an section 218(a) for y technology use at theapproved by civilian site of any the Commission under nuclear power reactor.
The staff anticipates a significant increase in the demand for use of dry spent fuel storage casks starting in the early 1990s, thus processing of this proposed rule would be timely. NRC resource requirersnts are anticipated to be about two staff years.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action for Division Review 03/02/88 9roposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 07/26/88 Froposed Action to EDO 10/15/88 Proposed Action to Consission 10/30/88 Proposed Action Published Undetermined Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10153; 42 USC 10198 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
William R. Pearson Nuclear Regulatory "'imission Office of Nuclear Rtwalatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3764 70
TITLE:
Night Firing Qualifications for Security Guar (s at Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:
The proposeo 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 familiarization only. There is no req 11rement for standards to measure their effectiveness. The proposed rule would change that by requiring that security guards at nuclear power plants qualify for night firing. The only alternative to rulemaking is to retain the current status.
Part 73, Appendix B, Part !Y, will be amended to require reactor security guards to qualify annually in an NRC-approved night firing
':ourse with their assigned weapons.
The proposed amendment will standardize training and qualific2 tion in night firing and )repare power reactor guard forces to more effectively respond in tie event of an incident occurring in limited lig;1 ting cor.ditions. The cost to industry should he relatively modest, since licensees already operate daylight firing training and qualification facilities and programs. The costs to NRC will also be minimal because it will only require minor licensing, inspection and other regulatory actions. There is no occupational exposure.
It is estimated that 0.4 staff-years of effort over 2 years by the ilRC will be required for the rulemaking.
TlHETABLE:
Proposed Action to E00 03/20/89 Proposed Action to Comission 04/20/89
^~ 7. sed Action Published 06/19/89 7:.-t ?,ction PublishtJ 05/18/90 LEGAL .A M ITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SW.LL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Dr. Sandra 0. Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research i Washington. DC 20555 I 301 492-3773
)
s 71 l
--- -- - -- f
.-a.AAm -
a"- = mmA- m.A- ma--- a ,.2--.m--ma mm-mH-n=e Ammamar.-a.*Mn-m-=4=uu=-= w w= w--
U
,I J
l 5
I i
l l
0 b
l 1
i 1
\
j r
l l .. . .. - - - ,, _. - - -. .-- - _ - --- .-. _ - -- .-- , . . _ . --. .-. ... _ . . . -., --- ---__,,--...------- .,, ....
^
i (A) Petitions incorporated into final rules or petitions denied since ilune 30, 1988 1
I I
l 4
d
mi. 4-h-me-ae.Ahe a m awha smM.ma4_zA-MaC - .4 am _ m-s.,A h s- --ah.M AahJe4 swam Je 44 3a & -Jhe d 4
h 1
l t
1 l
i i.
N t
1 i
i f
1
- l I
l l
l l
r A
s l
.i 1
4 I
i l
I
- -- .--- - _--~.---.--- __ ---- -. .- ---- . - - - - -.. - - - - . . , .-..e - . - ,- - . . - - -,
- - . _ . . - _ _ . - . . - =- - - - . -. _ - -
l 4
i PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-47 .
PETITIONER: Quality Technology Company i PART: 50 :
OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None l
FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: January 12,1987(52FR1200) l
$UBJECT: Establishing an Employee Concerns Pryram and flesolution of Employee-Identified Concerns at Nuclear Facilities 3 SlM4ARY. Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission add to its regulations requirements that all utilities j involved in a nuclear program establish and maintain an t employee concerns program and report to the NRC's Office ofInvestigationallemplogeo-identifiedconcernsrelated i i
to "wrongdoing activities. Based on the petitioner's i j experience with employee concerns programs, the petitioner !
, contends that more than half of employee-identified concerns ,
) are substantiated and that adding these requirements to ;
j the NRC's regulations may ensure resolution of the issues i j
related to these concerns. l 1 Objective. To re !
nuclear program1)(quire thatand establish all maintain utilities involved in a an employee ;
concerns program and (2) report to the NRC's Office of -
1 Investigation all employee-identified concerns related to ,
J "wrongdoing activities." !
j Background. The petitioner conducted or participated in !
i employee concernt programs at several utilities and thinks l
- that r.uch a program is an effective vehicle for obtaining l J accurate and insigntful information about nuclear safety- j i related issues from employees involved in the construction
- or operation of a nuclear facility. The comment period !
- closed March 13, 1987. t i' TIMETABLE: The resolution of this petition was complated !
July 22, 1988. A notice denying this petition was '
published in the Federal Register on July 22, 1988 ,
{ (53FR27701). l CONTACT: Joe Mate i Nuclear Regulatory Commission !
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research !
301-492-3795 i !
1 l !
73 !
I l
i 5
(B)Petitionsforwhichanoticeofdenialhasbeen ,
prepared and is scheduled to be published in the 1 Federal Register next quarter None i
i h
1 1
1 I
l 4
i 1
i i
J l
l l
4 i
d h
I 1
+
l 1
_am-memMm aa a>AAAAm wwm -- ---
men- amam a mmmm_awAw_en,.numm, o_asLAmmaa me - -
-A,2mw_a,,. nan.m--m- m,_m,m-,gse-_o-- -w e ---
I i
l l
i l
i l
l l l
1 l
1 i
I i
l i
I i
l l l ,
i 1
l 1
i i
t I
4 I
l l
)
t i
l I
i 4
I b
1 i
d 1
a l
I
(C) Petitions incorporated into proposed rules None l
I l
l l
l l
1 l
l I
l l
l
I C.
1 myc- . - -
(D) Petitions pending sthff review 1
i l
4 9
d
D' V = '
. - - - - - _ - . . . _ - . _ . _ . . - - . - - = . - - - . - .
t PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-31-4 ;
PETIT 10hER: Gene-Trak Systems ,
PART: 31 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None [
FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 2,1988(53FR2853)
SUBJECT:
Use of Phosphorus-32 in Salmonella and Listeria i Assays l SUMARY: The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its l regulations to establish that 100 microcuries of :
phosphorus-32 used in Salmonella and Listeria assays by
, a food laboratory is an exempt quantity under a general l j license according to 10 CFR 31.11. The petitioner requests l this action because the presence of phospherus-32 in amount $ '
, exceeding currently exempt quantities would require those i
- desiring to use DNA probe assays to apply for and obtain a l' s acific license from the NRC that would authorize this use.
)'
a Tte petitioner asserts that authorizing the use of the assays under a general license would assist food manufacturers j and food laboratories by eliminating the licensing procedure. ;
The paperwork burden on both the NRC and the industry would ,
be reduced. ;
TIMETABLE: Resolution is scheduled for February 1989.
]
- CONTACT
- Harvey Scott j Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-192-3632
] {
i l
l l i
l r I
i i
l i
i 75 i
j l ..
)
i PETITION DOCKET NUM8ER: PRM-40-23 1
l PETITIONER: Sierra Club 1
PART: 40 j OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None j
FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 25,1981(46FR14021);
May 2, 1983 (48 FR 19722)
SUBJECT:
Licensing the Possession of Uranium Mill Tailings at j Inactive Storage Sites.
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioner requests that the Ccanission
' amend its regulations to license the posression of uranium mill tailings of inactive storage sites. The petitioner proposes the following regulatory action to ensure that the
, public health and safety is adequately paotected: (1) repeal 4 the licensing exemption for inactive uralium mill tailings sites subject to the Department of Energf s rr.nedial programs;
! (2) require a license for the possession of byproduct material on any other property in the vicinity of an inactive alli !
I tailings site if the byproduct materials are derived from the sites; or, in the alternative, (3) conduct a rulemaking
- to determine whether a licensing exemption of these sites ,
a or byproduct materials constitutes an unreasonable risk to [
t public health and safety. On Mtrch 23, 1983, the atitioner l
! filed an amendment to the original petition. In tie amendment. :
- the petttioner requests that, in the event that NRC denies '
- the earlier requests, NRC take further action to ensure l 3 that the management of byproduct material located on or !
! derived from inactive uranium processing sites is conducted
) in a manner that protects the public health and safety and t
- the enviror==nt The petitioner also requests that the NRC i take action to govern the management of byproduct material ;
i not subject to licensing under section 81 of the Atomic t l Energy Act. l 4
i Objective. To 11cu se the protection of uranium mill taHfngs at inactive storage sites or take other regulatory
- action to protect tk public health and safety and the environment from the radiological and nonradiological i
hazarus associated with the tailings. The petitioner believes that this action is necessary if NRC is to adequately i
- fulfill its statutory responsibilities under the Uranium j Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act.
l l
76 [
l I
Background. The comment period closed April 27, 1981. Three I comments were received, all stating the petition should be denied. The comment period on the amendment to the petition closed June 30, 1983. Uranium mill tailings are regulated under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of etseq.).TitleIof 1978(Pub.L.95-604,42U.S.C.7901,fEnergy,incensul the Act directs that the Department o l tation with NRC, conduct a remedial action program at !
inactive uranium mill tailings sites. Title !! of the Act authorizes NRC to regulate disposal of the tailings at sctive sites.
TIMETABLE: Resolution of this petition is on hold pending amendments to Part 40 dealing with the custody and long-term care of reclaimed mill tailings sites. Com)letion of this rulemaking is scheduled for 1989, tesolution of '
the petition will be completed following this action.
CONTACT: Mark Haisfield Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-492-3877 I
i .
'l l
t l
l l
i 1 r 77 I
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-31 PETITIONER: Citizens' Task force PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: 10 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: March 24,1982(47FR12639)
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to require that (1) the present ten-mile emergency planning zone radius be extended to twenty miles and include any towns bordering on or partially within tnis zone; (2) all cossunities with a population in excess of 5,000 persons be provided by the respective utility with the funding to purchase, install, and operate radiological monitoring equipment to reach and maintain the level of preparedness deemed necesssry by the affected municipalities; and (3) utilities be required to finance the emergency planning efforts of municipalities located near nuclear reactors.
Objective. To establish an effective notification and evacuation system in cosaunities located rear nuclear reactors.
Background. The consent period closed May 24, 1982.
TIMETABLE: Staff action on the response to the petitioner is scheduled for November 1989 (to be coordinated with the severe accident research program and publication of NUREG-1150); however, this is dependent upon the Cosmission's policy decision in the emergency planning area.
CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Consission Office of Nuclaar Regulatory Research 301-492-3918 78 l
t
l PETITION DOCKET NUMBEk: PRM-50-45 PETITIONER: Kenneth G. Sexton PART: 50 I
OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: October 6,1986(51FR35518)
SUBJECT:
Extending the Emergency Planning Zone
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioner requests that the cosmission amend its regulations to rercJire that current methodologies and analytical techniques be l used to reevaluate the established Emergen:y Planning Zone (EPZ) for reclear p>wer plants. The petitioner is concerned +, hat emergency planning for areas within and beyor,d the 10-mi13 distance provided in the Cosmission's regulations is inadequate because the current 10-mile EPZ was determined with what the petitioner considers outdated methodologies and data.
The petitioner points out that advanced techniques and I new inforswtion obtained through research in the last 10 years have produced improved calculations for determining the size of an EPZ.
Objective. The petitioner believes that there i Is overwhelming justification to request that the size of the EPZ be reevaluated on a site-specific basis, after allowing for review !
of the determination report by any interested l parties. l Background. The comment period for ^his petition, originally to expire on December 5, ,
1986 has been extended to April 15, 1987. '
TIMETABLE: Staff action on the petition is scheduled to be complet:d November 1989.
CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Consission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-492-3918 b
5 79
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-48 PETITIONER: University of Missouri ,
PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None !
FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: March 1,1988(53FR6159)
SUBJECT:
Redefine "Testing Facility" Based on the Function of the Facility Instead of its Power Level SulHARY: The petitioner requests that the Commission adopt a regulation that would add a definition for the term "research reactor" and retefine the term "testing facility" based on T,he function of the facility im.tead of its power level. The petitioner requests this action because the current definition of "testing ,
facility" results in excessive and unnecessary routine regulatory ,
requirements being applied to research reactors which is contrary '
to the intent of Congress in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 l TIMETABLE: The resolution of the petition is scheduled for July 1989. [
CONTACT: Mark Au !
Nuclear Regulatury Connission
- I Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-492-3749 '
l l
l l
l 81
PETITION DOCKET NUM9ER: *PRM-50-50 PETITIONER: Charles Young PART: 50
- OTilER AffECTED PARTS
- None FEDERAL. REGISTER CIT 1. TION: August 26, 1988 (53 FR 32624) l
SUBJECT:
Technical Specifications
SUMMARY
- The petitioner requests the Commission to amend its regulations to rescind the provision that authorize) nuclear power plant operators to oeviate from technical specifications during an eu rgency. The petitioner believes that nuclear power plants should be operated in accordance with the operatfor license and appropriate j technical specifications and that requiring a senior i operator to follow the technical specifications during j an emergency enhances plant safety.
TIMETABLE: The cossent period for this petition expires October 25, 1988. The resolution of this petition is scheduled for a August 1989.
CONTACT: Morton R. Fleishman Nuclear Regulatory Cosmission !
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research !
d 301-492-3794 i :
4 I
i
! i 82 1
< I
PETITION DOCKET NIHBER:
- PRM-50-51 PRM-50-51A, PRM-50-518 PETITIONER: American Nuclear Insurers and MAERP Reinsurance Association, Edison Electric Institute, Nuclear Utility Management and ,
Resource Council, and Nuclear Mutual Limited and Nuclear -
Electric Insurance Limited PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None ,
FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: September 19,1988(53FR36335)
~
SUBJECT:
Changes in Property Insurance Requirements j
SUMMARY
- The petitioners reouest that the Commission amend, after i
notice and opportunity for comment, certain insurance provisions which require that: (1) any insurance claims be paid first for the stabilization of the reactor
- a facility and secondly, for decontamination of the facility, e and (2) any insurance proceeds be paid to a trustee who 1 would disburse the proceeds according to the priorities, j
TIMETABLE: The comment period for this petition expires November 18, ,
, 19B8. The resolution of this petition is scheduled for '
- Ncvember 1989, i
- CONTACT
- Robert Wood i i
huclear Regulatory Commission :
1 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation I
301-492-1280 4 ;
i i i i
I l
l i
83
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: *P RM-50-52 PETIT!0lER: Marvin Lewis PART: 10 OTHER A!FECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: August 23,1988(53FR32913)
SUBJECT:
Financial Qualifications
SUMMARY
- Thf petitioner requests that the Commission reinstate financial qualifications as a consideration in the operating ilcense hearings for electric utilities. The petitioner believes that the financial condition of a utility should be invettigated during the Itcersing hearings. The petitioner also believes that the current rule requires the assumption of financial adequacy and that this assumption nas resulted in several problems that could pose a danger to the public health and safety.
TIMETABLE: The comment period for this petition expires October 28, 1988. The resolution of this petition is scheduled for October 1989.
CONTACT: Harold T. Peterson, Jr.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 301-492-3640 l
84
(E)Petitionswithdeferredaction l
l l
t I ,
I l
h wu _ alum sm.Em m.um m a m s eap-
,uh-----4-me----- - - - - -.- - - _._w -. -.u.-u.- - -- - -
i 1 i i i
l t I
- I
.i i l
f l
i i
I i 1
1
)
i i
i l
i l
l 1
l i
I d
I 4
_. . . - . . . - . - - . _- - -- - .= - _ - - - - _.
l PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM 50-20
(
PETITIONER: Free Environment, Inc., et al. ,
PART: 50 !
OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: 100 FFDERAL REGISTER CITATION: May 19, 1977 (42 FR 25785) i F
l
SUBJECT:
Reactor Safety Measures S0 MARY: Descri) tion. The petition requested that the Commission {
amend ' art 50 before proceeding with the processing of ;
license applications for the Central Iowa Nuclear Project I to require that (1) all nuclear reactors t,e located below !
ground level; (2) all nuclear reactors be housed in sealed i buildings within which permanent heavy vacuums are !
maintained; (3) a full-tism Federal employee, with full [
authority to order the plant to be shut down in case of ;
s be present in all ;
anyoperationalabnormality, nuclear generating stations; and alway (4)theCentrallowa i Nuclear Project and all other reactors be sited at least l 40 miles from major population centers, t Objective. To ensure that additional safety measures !
are employed in the construction and siting of nuclear i power plants. The petitioner seeks to have recossendations ,
and procedures practiced or encouraged by various organizations t and some current NRC guidelines adopted as mandatory requirements in the Cosmission's regulations. l I
Background. The coseent period closed July 18, 1977. ;
Tnree comments were received. The first three parts of !
the petition (see Description sectiot sbove) were !
incorporated with PRM-50-19 for staff action purposes. !
A notice of dental for the third part of the petition was l 1mblished in the Federal Register on February 2,1978 l 443FR4466). A notice of denial for the first two parts l of the petition wts published April 19,1978(43FR16556). l l
TIMETABLE: The staff is preparing e Federal Register package which will i contain a denial for the remaining issue in this petition. '
The notice is cxpected to be published by March 1989.
CONTACT: John Stewart Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-492-3618 .
!5 85
i t
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-100-2 I
PETITIONER: Pubite Interest Research Group, et al.
I PART: 100 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL P.EGISTER CITATION: July 1,1976 (41 FR 27141)
SUBJECT:
Population Density Criteria Near Nuclear Power Plants
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioners request that the C+ c.ission amend its regulations to prohibit the construction of nuclear reactors thtre the population in the surrounding l 1 area exceeds or will exceed specified numerical limits.
The petitioners' proposed criteria would limit permissible l population density to 400 people per square mile within a 40-n11e perinater. The petitioners state that they regard these proposed criteria as interim standards to be used until the Coneission is able to generate its own numerical i standards on population density.
Objective. To restrict utilities from building nuclear ;
j reactors too close to metropolitan areas. '
1
- Background. The comment period closed August 30, 1976. [
I Twelve coseents were received. An NRC staff paper )
! (SECY-78-624) was submitted to the Comnission on i
December 4 1978. In a memorandum to the Executive Director
! for Operations dated February 15, 1979 the Connission i deferredactiononthepopulationdensItysitingcriteria ,
l issue pending submission of the Siting Policy Task Force :
4 report. The petitioners were notified of this deferral by ;
letter dated March 9, 1979. The petitioners were notified !
{ by letter (in July 1980) that the petition would be
- considered in the coittext of the rulemaking on siting l l
criteria. Petitioners were notified by letter on l January 26, 1982, that the proposed rule on siting i
] criteria would be delayed until susmer 1983 to await '
safety goal implementation and source term reevaluation.
Recent events, including the reactor accident at Chernobyl in the USSR, continued uncertainty over certain aspects of t i the accident source ters work, aiid the lack of projected
{ Construction Permit Applications have led the Cosmission's !
j Executive Director for Operations to conclude that this !
- rulemaking should be terminated. However, if the Commission (
decides that further rulemaking on demographic criteria r
, should be undertaken, the unresolved portices of the ,
- petition would be considered in the context of tha'; !
1 rulema king.
86 l
TIMETABLE: The staff has prepared a Federal Register notice which contains a denial for this petition for rulemaking.
The Chairman has requested that the decision to issue the denial of the petition be deferred until the Cosmission has had an opportunity to consider the proposal.
CONTACT: John Stewart Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-492-3618 87 l
-J
=ac .ea. ms v s uc6a m . v o co , - - i ai*o= , vveio =w ., ra v., ... ,
7 '# SOLIOGRAPHIC OATA SHEET NUREG-0936, VOL. 7. NO. 3 Set e stavctions ons f ut agvenst ,
a fif44 0/s.v.,itta 36e.vtet.%s NRC REGULATORY ~ AGENDA i
QUARTERLY REPORT JULY - SEPTEMBER 1988 . o.,e ai oa, cc si,s o l
. . .. OCTOBEYt"
I 1988'"' l
. .. T g a s poa , e..v t . (
OCTOBE" l 19 8 8'
...m.,............,..,.c. . ..m. c . , , . , o. . . 1 ..
DIVISION OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND ;
PUBLICATIONS SERVICES . . c a ca. t ~ww.i. I OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COP 0(ISSION [
WASHINGTON DC 20555 l
..owi.........c................u,..,.c. ...,,,.o.., :
l' QUARTERLY t SAME AS 7 ABOVE !
h"PineQo cos g ato .8 ara . eases I
JULY - SEPTEMBER 1988 l
, , ~ . . . . . . . . . .
i i
- is .. .a c1,m , '
1 I
) l THE NRC REGULATORY AGENDA IS A COMPILATION OF ALL RULES ON WHICH THE NRC !
HAS PROPOSED OR IS CONSIDERING ACTION AND ALL PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING l UHICH HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSION AND ARE PENDING DISPOSITION BY THE COMMISSION. THE REGULATORY AGENDA IS UPDATED AND ISSUED EACH QUARTER.
I l
,o-....6............x...
,. ..,.,. g i.
COMPILATION OF RULES PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING UNLIMITED
, ucsa.,, c6.u.. ic.ve.
l
. .os=t...s as o.e= ei.oso venws UNCLASSIFIED i r.. - )
UNCLASSIFIED o Avvet e o. e.cs, se om.c4 eu,1,$0vteestof eet.ftt4 Ort 1CE 1990 1 1 500 03321 l
).;
!- 6 i
j- ,
jt i
i ln i i i !
t >
f f P
k Ie
/
i ,
r I
i, )-
I:
l.
- - )
l.
L'
( s' I
I.
Q;i ') 1 v
. I g.>
' i
!4 g..5,
,I. .
i h
6 t
3
('.
l
-