ML20204G703

NRC Regulatory Agenda.Quarterly Report,January-March 1986

ML20204G703
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/31/1986
From:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:
References
NUREG-0936, NUREG-0936-V05-N01, NUREG-936, NUREG-936-V5-N1, NUDOCS 8608070364
Download: ML20204G703 (191)

Text

_ .. ._

.. e, NUREG-0936 i Vol. 5, No.1 NRC Regulatory Agenda Quarterly Report January-March 1986 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Offica of Administration p+* "%q, A  !

l l

i l

$$03,$pj060731 0936 R PDR

o ...

Available from l

l i Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office Post Office Box 37082 Washington, D.C. 20013-7082 A year's subscription consists of 4 lasues for j this publication.

Single copies of this publication are available from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 1

i i

l i

1 1

I

. , _ . _ . . - . - _ _ _ - , ___.,,._,,,,-.,_,,,-_-.-_,.,_.._-..___.__,-__..-..--,,.,r -

_ , - . . _ _ _ - _ . . - , . _ , - _ , . ~ , . , _ , _ _ _ . . _ - ,

NUREG-0936 Vol. 5, No.1 NRC Regulatory Agenda Quarterly Report January-March 1986 M nuscript Completed: March 1986 Dits Published: July 1906 Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wrshington, D.C. 20666 p " ~ s,,

l I

k TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I - RULES Pa!Le (A). Rules on which final action has been taken since December 31, 1985

) Separation of Functions and Ex Parte Communications in On-the-Record Adjudications (Part 2).................................. 1 Notice and Comment on Procedures for State Consultation on, and Standards for Making Determinations about Whether License Amendments Involve No Significant Hazards Considerations (Parts 2, 50)................................................... 2 Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures for Environmental Protection; Alternative Site Reviews (Parts 2, 50, 51).......... 3 I Access Authorization for Licensee Personnel: Im National Security Decision Directive (NSDD)plementation 84, " Safeguarding of National Security Information" (Part 25)........................ 5 Residual Contamination in Smelted Alloys (Parts 30,32,70,150)..... 6 i Patient Dosage Measurement (Part 35)................................. 7

, Material Balance Reports (Parts 40,70,150)......................... 8 Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Reactors (Part 50)........ 9 Deletion of the Unusual Event Emergency Classification (Part 50)..... 10 Limiting The Use of Highly Enriched Uranium in Domestic Research andTestReactors(Part50)..................................... 11 General Design Criterion on Human Factors (Part 50).................. 12

Modification of the Policy and Regulatory Practice Governing the Siting of Nuclear Power Reactors (Parts 50, 51, 100).......... 13 I Physical Protection Requirements for Independent Spent Fuel

Storage Installations (ISFSI's) (Part 73)....................... 14 Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants (Part100)...................................................... 15 5 l (B) - Proposed Rules i Revisitn to Ex Parte and Separation of Functions Rules Applicable

to Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings (Parts 0, 2)................. 17 i 111 i

i

. _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ , . , . _ . ~ . . _ . ~ . . - . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _. _ .,_. _ -- -, _ __ _ ._._ , ._.

Page the Equal Access to Justice Act:

Procedures Involving (Parts 1,2).....................................

Implementation 18 Adjudications -- Special Procedures for Resolving Conflicts Concerning the Disclosure or Nondisclosure of Information (Part2)........................................................ 19 Criteria for Reopening Records in Formal Licensing Proceedings (Part2)........................................................ 20 Modifications to the NRC Hearing Process (Limite'd Interrogatories and Factual Basi s for Contentions ) (Part 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Commission Review Procedures for Power Reactor Construction Permits; Immediate Effectiveness Rule (Part 2)........................... 22 Possible Amendments to "Immediate Effectiveness" Rules (Parts 2, 50)................................................... 23 Nondiscrimination on Basis of Age in Federally Assisted Comission Programs (Part 4)............................................... 25 Improved Personnel Dosimeter Processing (Part 20).................... 26 Standards for Protection Against Radiation (Part 20)................. 28 General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities (Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, 72).................................. 30 Radiation Surveys and In-House Inspection Systems in Radiography (Part34)....................................................... 32 Medical Use of Byproduct Material (Part 35).......................... 34 Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Well-Logging Operations (Part 39)............................................ 36 Limited Scope Modification to GDC 4 Requirements for Protection Against Postulated Pipe Ruptures (Part 50)..................,... 37 Consideration of Earthquakes in the Context of Emergency Preparedness (Part 50).......................................... 39 Communications Procedures Amendments (Part 50)....................... 41 Protection of Contractor Employees (Part 50)......................... 43 )

Mandatory Property Insurance for Decontamination of Nuclear Facilities (Part 50)............................................ 44 Station Blackout (Part 50)........................................... 46 iv l

l

1 i

Page ,

Fitness for Duty of Personnel with Access to Nuclear Power Plants (Part 50)....................................................... 48 Operators' Licenses (Parts 50, 55)................................... 49 Personnel Access Authorization Program (Part of Insider Package)

(Parts 50, 73).................................................. 51 Safeguards Requirements for Nonpower Reactor Licensees Possessing Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material (Parts 50, 70, 73).............................................. 53 Explanation to Table S-3 Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data (Part 51)....................................................... 55 Disposal of High-level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories:

Procedural Amendments (Part 60)................................. 57 Changes to Safeguards Reporting Requirements (Parts 70,72,73,74).. 59 Modification of Protection Requirements for Spent Fuel Shipments (Part 73)....................................................... 61 Miscellaneous Amendments Concerning Physical Protection of Nuclear Power Plants (Part of Insider Rule Package) (Part 73)... 63 Searches of Individuals at Power Reactor Facilities (Part of Insider Package) (Part 73).............................................. 65 Material Control and Accounting Requirements for Facilities Authorized to Possess and Use Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material (Part 74).............................. 67 Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (Part 140).......... 69 (C) - Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings: Role of NRC Staff in Adjudicatory Licensing Hearings (Part 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Regulatory Reform of the Rules of Practice and Rules for Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities (Parts 2, 50).......... 72 Financial Responsibility of Materials Licensees for Cleanup After Accidental and Unexpected Releases (Parts 30,40,61,70,72)... 74 v

P,.a ge Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive Materials Licensees (Parts 30,40,70)........................... 76 Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Ground Water Protection and OtherIssues(Part40).......................................... 77 Emergency Core Cooling Systems; Revisions to Acceptance Criteria (Part50)....................................................... 78 (D) - Unpublished Rules Revised Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings (Parts 0, 1, 2, 9, 50).......................................... 81 Effectiveness of an Initial Decision Authorizing Issuance or Amendment of a Power Reactor License or Permit (Part 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Availabili ty of Official Records (Part 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings -- Procedural Changes in Hearing Process (Part 2)............................. 84 Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste (Parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 51, 70, 72, 73,75,150).................................................... 85 Security Requirements for Category II Material at Fixed Sites (Parts 2, 70, 73)............................................... 87 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Nuclear Regulatory Commission Programs (Part 4).................................... 89 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex - Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as Amended (Part 4)......................... 90 Retention Periods for Records (Parts 4, 11, 21, 25, 30, 31, 32, 34, l 35,40,50,60,61,70,71)..................................... 91 Disposal of Low-Level Radioactively Contaminated Waste Oil from Nuclear Power Plants (Part 20).................................. 93 vi

Page Residual Radioactive Contamination Limits for Deconsnissioning (Part20)......................,................................. 94 Posting Requirements for the Protection of Contractor Employees and Extension of Criminal Penalties (Part 21)....................... 95 Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance (Parts 21, 50)........... 96 Adjustment to Fee Schedule Publication (Part 25) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . 98 Licensing of Sources and Devices (Parts 30,32,40,70).............. M Informal Hearing Procedures for Materials Licenses Proceedings (Parts 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 50, 61, 70, 71, 72).........r.... 100 Bankruptcy Filing; Notification Requirements (Parts 30, 40, 50, 61, 70, 72)..................................................... 101 Financial Responsibility Standards for Long Term Care for Low Level Waste Disposal Sites (Parts 30,40,61,70,72)........... 102 Requirements for Possession of Industrial Gauges (Part 31)........... 103 Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Exposure Devices (Part34)....................................................... 104 Broad Scope Modification of General Design Criterion 4 Requirements For Protection Against Dynamic Effects of Postulated Pipe Ruptures (Part50).............................................. 106 Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 (Part 50)....................................................... 107 Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors (Part 50).............................................. 108 Radon 222 Estimate for Table S-3 (Parts 50, 51)...................... 110 Degree Requirement for Senior Operators at Nuclear Power Plants (Parts 50, 55).................................................. 111 Part 51; Conforming Amendments (Parts 51, 60)........................ 112 vii

P_ age Elimination of Inconsistencies Between NRC Regulations and EPA Standards (Part 60)............................................. 113 Definition of High-level Radioactive Waste (HLW) in 10 CFR Part 60

-(Part60)....................................................... 114 Special Nuclear Material Physical Inventory Summary Reports (Part 70)....................................................... 115 4

Rule Shipment to Amendofthe Transportation Low Provisions-Pertaining Specific Activity (LSA) Material (to thePart71)......

116 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Acquisition _ Regulations (Part 20)...... 117 .

Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material (Part 110)....... 118 i

I i

viii

SECTION II - PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING Page (A) - Petitions incorporated into final rules or petitions denied since December 31, 1985 Claims of Negligence -- Radiation Injury Cases (PRM-20-16).......... 119 (B) - Petitions incorporated into proposed rules Final Radiation Survey of a Radiographic Exposure Device (PRM-34-3)..................................................... 121 Intervals Between Required Dosimetry System Calibrations (PRM-35-2)..................................................... 122 Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-50-22) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Exemption of " Low Specific Activity Material" from the Requirements of Part 71 (PRM-71-1, PRM-71-2, and PRM-71-4)..... 125 Elimination of " Pat Down" Physical Searches of Individuals at Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-73-2)................................ 127 Physical Security Requirements at Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-73-3)..................................................... 129 Elimination of Required Log-0ut of Personnel from Vital Areas of Nuclear Power Reactors (PRM-73-7)........................... 131 Elimination of Required Search of Hand-Carried Packages of Personnel at Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-73-8)................... 132 Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (PRM-140-1)........................ 133 (C) - Petitions pending staff review Radiation Protection Standards (PRM-20-6)........................... 135 Standards for Protection Against Radiation (PRM-20-6A).............. 137 Radiation Standards for Uses of Byproduct Material (PRM-30-55).................................................... 138 l

l l

I ix 1

l i

e

.P. age Regulations Governing Unimportant Quantities of Source Material (PRM-40-25).................................................... 140 Plant Security Information (PRM-50-21).............................. 141 Extension of Construction Completion Date (PRM-50-25'and l PRM-50-25A).................................................... 142 Emergency Preparedness (PRM-50-31).................................. 143 Reporting Requirements in NRC Regulations and Documents (PRM-50-36).................................................... 144 Standards for the Levels of Deuterium and Tritium in Water Circulated In and Around Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-50-37)...... 145 Emergency Response Plans for Persons Who Are Both Contaminated with Radioactive Material and Physically Injured (PRM-50-39)... 146 Response to a Reactor Trip for which the Cause Is Undetermined in Eight Hours (PRM-50-40)........................................ 147 Environmental Assessment for High Burnup Nuclear Fuel (PRM-51-6).... 148 Implementation of Certain Environmental Standards Which Have Been Proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (PRM-60-2 andPRM-60-2A)................................................. 150 Transportation of Irradiated Reactor Fuel (Spent Fuel) (PRM-71-10).. 152 Modification of Qualifications for Security Personnel of Nuclear Power Plants and Other Special Nuclear Material Licensees (PRM-73-6)..................................................... 153 (D) - Petitions with deferred action Disposal of Very Low Concentrations of Short-Lived Radionuclides

! (PRM-20-14).................................................... 155 New Methods of Disposal of Radioactively Contaminated Waste Oil from Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-20-15).......................... 156 Licensing the Possession of Uranium Mill Tailings at Inactive Storage Sites (PRM-40-23)...................................... 157 Revised Criteria for Operation of Uranium Mills and Disposition of Tailings or Wastes (PRM-40-24).............................. 159

em Reactor Safety Measures (PRM-50-20),................................. 160 Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle (PRM-51-1).......... 162 Population Density Criteria Near Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-100-2)....................................................

164 0

1 1

Xi

.l r

i

1 l

l Preface The Regulatory Agenda is a quarterly compilation of all rules on which the NRC has proposed, or is considering action as well as those on which it has recently completed action, and all petitions for rulemaking which have been received and are pending disposition by the Commission.

Organization of the Agenda The agenda consists of two sections. Both sections have been updated through March 31, 1986.Section I, " Rules" includes: (A) Rules on which final action has been taken since December 31, 1985, the closing date of the last NRC Regulatory Agenda, (B) Rules published previousl which the Commission has not taken final action, (C)y as published Rules proposedasrules on 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.

Section II, " Petitions for Rulemaking" includes: (A) Petitions denied or incor-porated into final rules since December 31, 1985, (B) Petitions incorporated into proposed rules, (C) Petitions pending staff review, and (D) Petitions with deferred action.

In Section I of the Agenda, the rules are ordered from lowest to highest part within Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). If more than one rule appears under the same part, the rules are arranged within the part by date of most recent publication. If a rule amends multiple parts, the rule is listed under the lowest affected part. In Section II of the Agenda, the petitions are ordered from lowest to highest part of 10 CFR and are identified with a petition for rulemaking (PRM) number. If more than one petition appears under the same CFR part, the petitions are arranged by PRM numbers in consecutive order within the part of 10 CFR.

The dates listed under the heading " Timetable" for scheduled action by the Commission or the Executive Director for Operations (ED0) on particular rules or petitions are considered tentative and are not binding on the Commission or its staff. They are included for planning purposes only. This Regulatory Agenda is published to provide increased notice and public participation in the rule-making proceedings included on the Agenda. The NRC may, however, consider or act on any rulemaking proceeding even if it is not included in this Regulatory Agenda.

Rulemakings Approved by the Executive Director for Operations (ED0)

The Executive Director for Operations (E00) initiated a procedure for the review of the regulations being prepared by staff offices that report to him to ensure that staff resources were being allocated'to achieve most effectively NRC's regulatory priorities. This procedure requires ED0 approval before staff resources may be expended on the development of any new rulemaking. Furthermore, all existing rules must receive ED0 approval prior to the commitment of additional resources.

xiii l

i

1-RULES Rules that have received ED0 approval to date are identified as indicated below. As additional rules receive ED0 approval, they will be identified in subsequent editions of this agenda. Those unpublished rules whose further development has 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.

Symbols Rules that appear on the agenda for the first time are identified by an asterisk "*". Rules that have been epproved by the ED0 are identified by the symbol (+). This agenda contains no major rules as defined in Section 1(b) of Executive Order 12291.

Public Participation in Rulemaking Comments on any rule in the agenda may be sent 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 Room 1131, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC between 8:15 a.m. and 5:15 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.

The agenda and any comments received on any rule listed on the agenda are available for public inspection, and copying at a cost of five cents per page, at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC. Single copies of this agenda may be purchased from the U.S. Government Printing Office (GP0). Customers may call (202) 275-2060 or (202) 275-2171 or write to the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Post Office Box 37082, Washington, D.C. 20013-7082.

Additional Rulemaking Information For further information concerning NRC rulemaking procedures or the status of any rule listed in this agenda, contact John D. Philips, Chief, Rules and Procedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone (301) 492-7086, persons outside the Washington, DC metropolitan area may call toll-free: 800-368-5642. For further information on the substantive content of any rule listed in the agenda, contact the individual listed under the heading " contact" for that rule.

xiv

l j

(A) Rules on which final action has been taken since December 31, 1985

- - - - - -. a - - .

1 u

l l

i l

1 I

l l

i

TITLE:

+ Separation of Functions and Ex Parte Communications in On-the-Record Adjudications CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The issues encompassed in this rule have been included in the proposed rule, " Revision to Ex Parte and Separation of Functions Rules Applicable to Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings," published in the Federal Register on March 26, 1986, 50 FR 10393.

The proposed rule would have amended the Commission's rules of practice regarding the separation of functions and ex-parte communications in on-the-record adjudications. The proposed rule would have allowed the Commission greater flexibility in communicating with its staff by relaxing the restrictions on Commission-staff communications in initial licensing cases.

TIMETABLE:

Withdrawn 03/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

5 USC 554; 5 USC 557 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Janes R. Tourtellotte Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Reform Task Force Washington, DC 20555 202 634-1461 1

TITLE:

Notice and Comment on, Procedures for State Consultation on, and Standards for Making Determinations about Whether License Amendments Involve No Significant Hazards Considerations CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The NRC is publishing a single final rule that combines the two interim final rules implementing, in part, PL 97-415.

Modifications to the final rule are based on further staff review and evaluation of public comments received on the two rules. The rules were published on April 6,1983 (48 FR 14868). They soecify criteria for notice and public comment on, procedures for State consultation on, and standards for making determinations about whether amendments to operating licenses for certain facilities involve no significant hazards considerations. In addition, the rules specify procedures for consultation on these determinations with the State in which the facility of the licensee requesting the amendment is located. The rules permit.the Commission to act expeditiously if circumstances surrounding a request for an amendment require prompt response and to issue an amendment before holding any required hearing, unless a significant hazards consideration is involved.

TIMETABLE:

Interim Final Rule 04/06/83 48 FR 14876 IFR Comment Period Begin Begin 04/06/83 IFR Comment Period End End 05/06/83 Final Rule Published 03/06/86 51 FR 7745 ,

Final Rule Effective 05/05/86 51 FR 7745 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; PL 97-415 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Thomas F. Dorian Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8690 2

9 TITLE:  ;

Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures for Environmental Protection; Alternative Site Reviews ,

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 51 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would have focused on six major issues associated with alternative site selection for nuclear power plants; (1) information requirements, (2) timing, (3) region of interest, (4) selection of candidate sites, (5) comparison of the proposed sites with alternative sites, and (6) reopening of the alternative site decision. The proposed rule would have provided procedures and performance criteria for reviewing alternative sites for nuclear power plants under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The proposal was intended to stabilize alternative site review of a license application by codification of the lessons learned in past and recent review of nuclear power plant sites into an environmentally sensitive rule. The proposed rule would have developed understandable written NRC review and decision making criteria to permit a rational and timely decision concerning the sufficiency of the alternative site analysis.

After considering the comments on one of the six issues in the proposed rule, the Commission published a final rule on one of the six issues on May 28, 1981 (46 FR 28630). That final rule addressed the sixth issue, reopening the alternative site-decision insofar as it relates to operating license proceedings. Because of the lack of construction permit applications, the Commissions Executive Director for Operations has concluded that no further effort should be expended on this rule-making. A Notice of Withdrawal of the proposed rule will be published in the Federal Register to terminate the rulemaking.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 04/09/80 45 FR 24168 NPRM Comment Period Begin 04/09/80 45 FR 24168 NPRM Comment Period End 06/09/80 Withdrawn 07/10/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 4332; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 3

TITLE:

Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures for Environmental Protection; Alternative Site Reviews  !

I AGENCY CONTACT.

Michael Jamgochian

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

, Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4615 i

t 1

i i

I t

l i

1 4

f i

TITLE:

+ Access Authorization for Licensee Personnel: Implementation of National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 84, " Safeguarding National Security Information" CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 25 ABSTRACT:

The Executive Director for Operations has discontinued activitiy on this rulemaking at this time pending OMB's approval of Form SF-189.

The proposed rule would have adopted revised National policy, initiated by the National Security Council and approved by the President, Information Nondisclosure Agreement" (SF-189) be completed by all licensees who request NRC access authorization under Part 25.

TIMETABLE:

Withdrawn 04/11/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2165; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Richard A. Dopp Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4549 r,

5

TITLE:

+ Residual Contamination in Smelted Alloys '

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 32; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 150 j ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is withdrawing this proposed rule, published in the Federal Register on October 27, 1980 (45 FR 70874),

which would have established an exemption from licensing and other requirements for smelted alloys containing residual contamination in the form of low-enriched uranium and/or technetium-99. The proposed rule is being withdrawn in favor of developing an integrated federal policy which would establish consistent guidelines for dealing with the more general issues of decontamination and decommissioning of nuclear facilities as well as the recycling and reuse of decontaminated lands, facilities, materials, and equipment.

TIMETABLE:

Withdrawal Notice Published 03/14/86 50 FR 8842 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2021; 42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2077; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

D. R. Hopkins Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7878 l

l 6

l

1 TITLE: I

+ Patient Dosage Measurement CFR CITATION: '

10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT:

Each specific NRC medical licensee is currently required by license condition to measure radiopharmaceutical dosage before it is administered to a patient. This proposed rule is intended to ensure the consistent application of the requirement and to simplify licensing by replacing the individual license conditions with a single regulatory requirement that would apply to all current and future medical licensees. The proposed rule will require licensees to measure each dosage and make a record of each measurement. Because the requirement is currently imposed by license condition, there will not be cost savings or additional burden; however, the industry and NRC will benefit by having a clear, concise requirement in the regulation.

The proposed rule is being incorporated into a proposed revision of 10 CFR Part 35 (See RIN-3150-AA-73 Medical Use of Byproduct Material).

TIMETABLE:

WITHDRAWN 12/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Norman L. McElroy Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4108 7

l TITLE:

+ Material Balance Reports CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 150 ABSTRACT:

The final rule amends regulations concerning the submission of material balance reports of source material and special nuclear material. The rule will reduce the reporting requirements imposed on affected licensees without adversely affecting the domestic safeguards program or NRC's ability to satisfy existing international and domestic safeguards commitments. This action eliminates the requirement to submit a statement of material balance for U.S. origin source material for all licensees except those reporting under the US/IAEA Safeguards Agreement. It also eliminates the requirement to report the composition of ending inventory on Form 742C for all except nuclear reactor licensees and licensees reporting under the Agreement. The reduction in burden for licensees is expected to total 1480 hours0.0171 days <br />0.411 hours <br />0.00245 weeks <br />5.6314e-4 months <br /> per year.

TIMETABLE:

Final Action 03/21/86 51 FR 9763 Final Action Effective 03/21/86 51 FR 9763 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

June Robertson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 301 427-4233 8

TITLE:

+ Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Reactors CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The Executive Director for Operction approved the termination of this rule on March 5, 1986. The proposed rule would have amended current regulations pertaining to technical specifications for nuclear power reactors. Specifically, the proposed rule would (1) establish a standard for deciding which items derived from the safety analysis report must be incorporated into technical specifications, (2) modify the definitions of categories of technical specifications to focus more directly on reactor operations, (3) define a new category of requirements that would be of lesser immediate significance to safety than technical specifications, and (4) establish appropriate conditions that must be met by licensees to make changes to the. requirements in the new category without prior NRC approval.

TIMETABLE:

WITHDRAWN 03/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Edward Butcher Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8807 9

TITLE:

+ Deletion of the Unusual Event Emergency Classification CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would have deleted the " Unusual Events" emergency class from the Commission's emergency classification scheme. The current emergency classifications are: (1) notification of unusual events, (2) alert, (3) site area emergency and (4) general emergency. This emergency classification scheme has been used by the NRC, FEMA, licensees and State and local governments for at least four years. During this time, the Commission has noted that the reporting of unusual events not only significantly strains the NRC resources, but tends to establish a " cry wolf" syndrome with State and local governments. The NRC emergency operations center receives approximately 20 notifications of unusual events per week. The purposes of the unusual events offsite notifications are to (1) assure that the first step in any response later found to be necessary has been carried out, (2) bring the operating staff to a state of readiness, and (3) provide systematic handling of unusual events information and decision-making. All of these purposes are redundant to the purposes and required licensee actions associated with the

" alert" classification.

At a meeting with Office Directors on June 23, 1986, the Executive Director for Operations (ED0) directed the staff to discontinue development of the rule pending completion of a poll conducted by FEMA of the opinion of the States of the likely impact of the rule. The results of this survey will be considered in the determination of whether to continue work on this rule. In late June, FEMA advised against continuation of the rulemaking which therefore was terminated.

TIMETABLE:

Withdrawn 07/10/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2234; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Michael Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7615 10

i l

TITLE:

+ Limiting The Use of Highly Enriched Uranium in Domestic Research and Test Reactors CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 l ABSTRACT:

The final rule requires that non-power reactors use only low-enriched uranium fuel (LEU), with certain exceptions. The final rule reduces the high-enriched uranium fuel (HEU) in the United States and thereby reduces the potential for theft or diversion. The majority of licensees affected by the final rule are universities operating research and training reactors. To date, four of the 25 affected universities have made the decision to curtail the operation of their research/ training reactors.

TIMETABLE:

Final Action 02/25/86 51 FR 6515 Final Action Effective 03/27/86 51 FR 6515 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: N/A AGENCY CONTACT:

M. L. Ernst Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7936 11

TITLE:

+ General Design Criterion on Human Factors CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

, The Executive Director for Operation approved the termination of this rule on March 5, 1986. The proposed rule would have established a new general design criterion on human factors considerations. The specific factors to be addressed would have included operability, surveillance, maintainability, and human engineering criteria.

TIMETABLE:

WITHDRAWN 03/05/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5846

.1 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: N/A AGENCY CONTACT:

Ann Ramey-Smith Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4522 I

l i

12

TITLE:

+ Modification of the Policy and Regulatory Practice Governing the Siting of Nuclear Power Re?ctors CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 100 ABSTRACT:

This rulemaking was intended to review and revise the Comission's siting regulations to reflect experience gained since the Comission's current reactor siting regulations were published on April 12, 1962 (27 FR 3509). Many developments in this period including work to establish a Comission safety goal and the ongoing review of reactor accident source terms, have brought into question both the existing regulations and their technical support. This rulemaking was intended to resolve those questions.

In the present circumstances a lack of applications for new plants argue that these changes are not needed. Further, the lack of closure on some reactor accident source term issues and the recent reactor accident at Chernobyl in the USSR continue to cast doubt on the validity of reactor accident source term calculations. Because of these uncertainties and the lack of applications the Comission's Executive Director for Operations has concluded that the rulemaking should be terminated.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 07/29/80 45 FR 50350 Withdrawn 07/10/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Michael Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4631 13 l

l

TITLE:

+ Physical Protection Requirements for Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSI's)

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:

The Executive Director for Operations has approved termination of this rulemaking and recommends that it be withdrawn. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires NRC to conduct rulemaking to approve one or more technologies for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power plant sites. The staff is currently working on a dry storage licensing activity which is closely related to the subject ISFSI rulemaking project. The probability of the industry proposing an ISFSI in the forseeable future is low because of the availability of on-site dry spent fuel storage and off-site monitored retrievable storage facilities.

TIMETABLE:

Withdrawn 02/20/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Carl B. Sawyer Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material ' Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4269 14

TITLE:

+ Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION: l l

10 CFR 100 l

ABSTRACT:

The advance notice of proposed rulemaking was published to solicit public comment on the need for a reassessment of the

! Commission's criteria for the siting of nuclear power plants. The Commission determined that this action was necessary as a result of experience gained with application of current criteria and the rapid advancement in the state of the art of earth sciences. The NRC staff was particularly interested in finding out about problems that have arisen in the application of existing siting criteria. The public was invited to state the nature of the problems encountered and describe them in detail.

The Executive Director for Operations (ED0) recommended that the staff defer reactivation of this rule.

TIMETABLE:

Withdrawn 07/10/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Leon L. Beratan Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4370 i

i 15

i (B) Proposed Rules f

I 1

)

a m ,u. a _ e - - --__. 22 m a ..A -2 A I

I l

l l

l S

l l

l I

I I

I i

I i

g , -c - -

TITLE:

• Revision to Ex Parte and Separation of Functions Rules Applicable to Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 0; 10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations dealing with ex parte communications and separation of adjudicatory and nonadjudicatory functions in formal adjudicatory proceedings to update the agency's rules of practice and to incorporate requirements imposed by the Government in the Sunshine Act. Changes are proposed in both the form and the substance of the existing rules to clarify their meaning and to aid agency adjudicatory officials to maintain effective communication with NRC staff personnel and persons outside the agency while at the same time ensuring that proceedings will be conducted fairly and impartially. This proposed rule would supersede a prior proposed rule entitled, "Ex Parte Communications and Separation of Adjudicatory and Non Adjudicatory Functions," (3150-AA00) published March 7, 1979 (44 FR 12428).

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 03/26/86 51 FR 10393 NPRM Comment Period End 05/27/86 51 FR 10393 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

5 USC 554(d); 5 USC 557(d)

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Paul Bollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-3224 l

17

TITLE:

+ Procedures Involving the Equal Access to Justice Act:

Implementation CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 1; 10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule provides new provisions intended to implement the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The provisions would provide for the payment of fees and expenses to certain eligible individuals and businesses that prevail in adjudications with the agency when the agency's position is determined not to have been substantially justified. The basis for these proposed regulations is a set of model rules issued by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) that have been modified to conform to NRC's established rules of practice. The proposed rule would further the EAJA's intent by insuring the development of government-wide " uniform" agency regulations and by providing NRC procedures and requirements for the filing and disposition of EAJA applications. A final draft rule was sent to the Commission in June 1982, but Commission action has been suspended pending a decision by the Comptroller General on the availability of funds to pay awards to intervenor parties. The decision from the Comptroller General has been rendered and is currently the subject of litigation.

Additionally, in August 1985, the President signed into law an enactment renewing the EAJA after its expiration under a statutory sunset requirement. This legislation, Pub. L. No. 99-80 contains revisions to the EAJA that are being evaluated to determine whether further conforming changes may be necessary in the proposed rule.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 10/28/81 46 FR 53189 NPRM Comment Period End 11/28/81 46 FR 53189 Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

5 USC 504 l EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No l

l AGENCY CONTACT:

l Paul Bollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-3224 18 l

TITLE:

+ Adjudications -- Special Procedures for Resolving Conflicts Concerning the Disclosure or Nondisclosure of Information CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering amending its rules of practice to provide special procedures for resolving conflicts concerning the disclosure or nondisclosure of information relating to an NRC investigation or inspection or provided by a confidential source and deemed relevant and material to an adjudication. Prepared at the express direction of the Commission, the proposed amendments apply to all NRC offices that have information relevant and material to an adjudication.

The proposed amendments provide for ex parte in camera presentations and follow guidance contained in the Commission's recent statement of policy on investigations, inspections, and adjudicatory proceedings.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 05/22/85 50 FR 21036 NPRM Comment Period End 08/23/85 50 FR 30446 Final Action 05/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Jane R. Mapes Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8695 19

TITLE:

+ Criteria for Reopening Records in Formal Licensing Proceedings CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering amending its  !

regulations to codify and improve the standards that apply to motions to reopen records in formal adjudications. This rulemaking would affect any party who wishes to reopen an evidentiary record .

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 12/27/84 49 FR 50189 NPRM Comment Period End 02/11/85 49 FR 50189

. Final Action 05/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Carole F. Kagan Nuclear Regulatory Commission

, Office of the General Counsel i Washington, DC 20555 202 634-1493 i'

I l

I 20

l TITLE: l

+ Modifications to the NRC Hearing Process (Limited Interrogatories and Factual Basis for Contentions)

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would expedite conduct of NRC adjudicatory proceedings by requiring intervenors in formal NRC hearings to set forth the facts on which contentions are based and the sources or documents used to establish those facts and limit the number of interrogatories that a party may file in an NRC proceeding. The proposed rule would expedite the hearing process 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 being considered as part of the regulatory reform rulemaking package.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 06/08/81 46 FR 30349 ANPRM Regulatory Reform Rule 04/12/84 49 FR 14698 Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2239 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Trip Rothschild Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-1465 21

TITLE:

+ Commission Review Procedures for Power Reactor Construction Permits; Immediate Effectiveness Rule CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would amend the immediate effectiveness rule with regard to rules of practice for granting a power reactor construction permit to conform to those for granting an operating license. It (1) would retain the requirement that the Commission conduct a limited review of an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's decision to grant a construction permit pending completion of administrative appeals and (2) would delete the requirement that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board conduct a similar review. The proposed rule would not affect the separate Appeal Board and Commission appellate reviews of the merits of Licensing Board decisions. It would reduce somewhat the time required for administrative review of construction permit decisions while retaining direct Commission oversight prior to permit issuance.

The comment period closed November 24, 1982. Nine comments were received. Half of the comments favored the proposed rule while half opposed it. This proposed rule does not preclude further action on five alternatives for amending the "Immediate effectiveness" rule presented in an earlier notice on May 22, 1980 (45 FR 34279).

The public comment period on the " Regulatory Reform Proposal Concerning the Rules of Practice and Rules for Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities" (49 FR 14698) closed June .

11, 1984. As a result of staff evaluation of these comments and further staff review of the "immediate effectiveness" issues, a rule is being proposed that will supersede this proposed rule and another entitled, "Possible Amendments to 'Immediate Effectiveness' Rules."

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 10/25/82 47 FR 47260 l NPRM Coment Period End 11/24/82 47 FR 47260 Next Action Undetermined LEGAL. AUTHORITY: .

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 l EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No l

l AGENCY CONTACT:

Paul Bollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-1465 22

TITLE:

Possible Amendments to "Immediate Effectiveness" Rules CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule indicates that the Commission is considering five alternative amendments to the "immediate effectiveness" rule for construction permit proceedings. Under the original "immediate effectiveness" rule (36 FR 828, January 19,1971) construction of a nuclear power plant could begin on the basis of an initial decision by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) even though that decision was subject to further review by the Commission. The Commission is concerned that the rule often

. prevented it from reviewing a case until construction was well underway and that this might have (1) allowed commitment of large sums of money to altering sites before a final decision was made on site-related issues and (2) promoted piecemeal review rather than promoting early resolution of all licensing issues to be considered. Present rules provide for limited review of ASLB decisions by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (ASLAB) and the Commission prior to issuance of construction permits.

1 This proposed rule would help to determine whether NRC should return to the former "immediate effectiveness" rule or adopt one of the following alternatives:(1) require the ASLAP to make a separate ruling on the question of effectiveness, or (2) require final ASLAB and Commission decisions on the merits of certain construction-related issues prior to authorizing issuances of the construction permit; (3) require final ASLAB and Commission decisions on the merits of all issues prior to authorizing issuances of the construction permit; and, return to the former "immediate effectiveness" rule, but relax the standards for obtaining a stay of the ASLAB decisions.

The public comment period on the " Regulatory Reform Proposal Concerning the Rules of Practice and Rules for Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities" (49 FR 14698) closed June 11, 1984. As a result of staff evaluation of these comments and further staff review of the "immediate effectiveness" issues, a rule is being proposed that will supersede this proposed rule and +

another entitled, " Commission Review Procedures for Power Reactor Construction Permits; Immediate Effectiveness Rule."

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 05/22/80 45 FR 34279 NPRM Comment Period Begin 05/22/80 45 FR 34279 NPRM Comment Period End 07/07/80 Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 23

- - - - - - -r r --,-- - - - -- ----, . - - , , ,

TITLE:

Possible Amendments to "Immediate Effectiveness" Rules AGENCY CONTACT: 1 Paul Bo11werk

. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-3224 <

i 4

I i

1 i

I i

I i

i i

I l

l 1 I

24

4 l

TITLE: I

+ Nondiscrimination on Basis of Age in Federally Assisted l Commission Programs CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 4 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would implement the provisions of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended. The proposed amendment makes.it unlawful for any recipient of Federal financial assistance to discriminate on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the NRC.

The Act also contains certain exceptions that permit, under limited circumstances, continued use of age distinctions or factors other than age that may have a disproportionate effect on the basis of age. The Act applies to persons of all ages. The proposed rule is necessary to comply with the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, which directs that all Federal agencies empowered to provide Federal financial assistance issue rules, regulations, and directives consistent with standards and procedures established by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).

NRC's proposed and final regulations have been modeled after those HHS guidelines as published in 45 CFR 90.

t A copy of the draft final regulations was transmitted to the Office of the General Counsel of the Civil Rights Division, HHS to comply with the requirement that final agency regulations not be published until the Secretary of HHS approved them. HHS has indicated its approval of the draft final rule in a letter transmitted to the NRC.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 09/21/81 46 FR 46582 '

NPRM Comment Period End 11/20/81 Office Concurrence on Final Rule Completed 09/00/85 Final Action Package to E00 10/00/85 Next Action 09/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 6101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Edward E. Tucker Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization / Civil Rights, Washington, DC 301 492-7697 l 25 l

TITLE:

+ Improved Personnel Dosimeter Processing CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:

The notice of proposed rulemaking seeks comment on a proposal to add amendments to 10 CFR Part 20 that would improve the accuracy and consistency of reported occupational radiation dose measurement by requiring proficiency tests of dosimetry processors who perform dosimetry for NRC licensees. The proposed amendments would require NRC licensees to have personnel dosimeters (devices carried or worn by each radiation worker to

measure radiation exposure received during work) processed by a 3 dosimetry service that is accredited by NBS/NVLAP..The Commission j considered five alternatives for establishing a regulatory program intended to improve personnel dosimetry processing. These alternatives included

no change in current requirements; a requiring licensees to participate in performance testing without specifying a testing laboratory; requiring licensees to i participate in performance testing conducted by an NRC-specified l testing laboratory; a request from Congress for the authority for

NRC to license personnel dosimetry processors directly; and i requiring licensees to obtain dosimetry services from an NRC-operated or contracted dosimetry service.

I An evaluation of estimated annual costs to the dosimetry l processing industry resulting from an NRC rule requiring licensees to' utilize dosimetry processors accredited under an NBS/NVLAP program was projected to be about $717,000. This would result in an estimated net annual increase in the cost of providing monitoring for each worker per year of $0.51, a 2.1%

annual increase. The major benefit of the proposed rule would be increased accuracy and reliability of dose measurement to workers in licensed installations. Other benefits include continued i assurance of personnel dosimeter processor competence with minimal NRC staff and resource allocation; formulation of a

program that can easily be utilized by other agencies; value to the industrial licensee through legal credibility of a nationally-recognized accreditation program; and value to the worker through more accurate assignment of dose. The staff is currently analyzing the comments received on the NPRM.

l 4

4 26

.. . _ _ .- , . . . _ . , . . . _ _ . . . . . - - - - - - , - . _ . . _ . . . . - _ - - ~ . _ _ . . _ , __ . _ _ _ _ , _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _

i TITLE:

l + Improved Personnel Dosimeter Processing TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 03/28/80 45 FR 20493 i

1 ANPRM Comment Period End 06/27/80 45 FR 31118 NPRM 01/10/84 49 FR 1205 NPRM Comment Period End 03/12/84 49 FR 1205 Final Action For Division Review 11/12/85 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 04/15/86 Final Action to ED0 05/07/86 Final Action Published 06/30/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:

Don Nellis Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 4

Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4588 27 h

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 thirty years ago. Since Part 20 contains the NRC standards for protection against radiation which are used by all licensees and affects exposures of workers and members of the public, it should be the most basic of the NRC regulations. However, because the present Part 20 has become outdated, most radiation protection actions occur through licensing actions independent of Part 20. A complete revision is necessary to. provide better assurance of protection against radiation; establish a clear health protection basis for the limits; reflect current information on health risk, dosimetry, and radiation protection practices and experience; provide NRC with a health protection base from which it may consider other regulatory acticns taken to protect public health; be consistent with recommendations of world authorities (ICRP);

and apply to all licensees in a consistent manner.

Alternatives to the complete revision considered were no action; delay for further guidance; and partial revision of the standards. They were rejected as ignoring scientific advancements; being unresponsive to international and national guidance; and correcting only some of the recognized problems with the present Part 20. Benefits would include updating the regulations to reflect contemporary scientific knowledge and radiation protection philosophy; implementing regulations whit.h reflect the ICRP risk-based rationale; reducing lifetime doses to individuals receiving highest exposures; implementing provisions for summation of doses from internal and exte.rnal exposures; providing clearly identified dose limits for the public; providing understandable health-risk base for protection; and placing constraints on collective dose evaluations at levels where risks are trifles.

Initial estimates of the cost of implementing the revision is about $33 million the initial year and about $8 million in subsequent years. This cost does not include any savings which might also be realized by the revision.

28

l l

TITLE:

+ Standards for Protection Against Radiation l

TIMETABLE

l ANPRM 03/20/80 45 FR 18023 '

ANPRM Comment Period End 06/18/80 45 FR 18023 NPRM 12/20/85 50 FR 51992 NPRM Comment Period End 05/12/86 51 FR 1092 Final Action for Division Review 08/00/86 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 12/00/86 Final Action Package to ED0 03/00/87 Final Action Published 06/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES

Yes AGENCY CONTACT:

Robert E. Alexander Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20655 j 301 427-4370 4

l i

i i

f 29 1

l I

TITLE:

General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72 ABSTRACT:

The advance notice of proposed rulemaking sought comment on a proposal to develop a more explicit policy for decommissioning nuclear facilities. Based on such comment, coordination with the States, public meetings, and a large technical data base which was developed, a proposed rule was issued which, if adopted would provide more specific guidance on decommissioning criteria for production and utilization facility licensees and byproduct, source, and special nuclear material licenses. This action is intended to protect public health and safety and to provide the applicant or licensee with appropriate regulatory guidance for implementing and accomplishing nuclear facility decommissioning. Although it is planned to provide additional guidance through regulatory guides, it is necessary to amend the regulations in order to achieve appropriate assurances that funds for decommissioning will be available and the decommissioning will be carried out in an orderly manner.

The major cost impact of the proposed rule would involve proper planning at all stages of nuclear facility operation. Proper planning includes providing for (1) financial assurance that funding will be available for decommissioning, (2) maintenance of records that could affect decommissioning, and (3) careful planning of procedures at the time of decomissioning. For non-reactor facilities affected by financial assurance requirements, it is estimated that the major impact will result in an aggregate expenditure of 21 staff-years ($1.6 million) spread over 5 years (or $320,000 peryear).

For the approximately 110 power reactors estimated to be affected (i.e., those with operating licenses and those under construction which are at least two-thirds complete) plus 75 research and test reactors, it is estimated that the major impact will result in an aggregate expenditure of 3.8 staff-years ($288,000) spread over 3 years. These expenditures will ensure that adequate measures have been taken to protect the health and safety of occupational workers, the public, and the environment within the confines of optimum cost benefit consideration.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 03/13/78 43 FR 10370 NPRM 02/11/85 50 FR 5600  !

NPRM Comment Period End 07/12/85 50 FR 23025 l Final Action for Division Review 11/01/86 Office Concurrence on Final Rule Completed 03/15/87 Final Action to ED0 07/01/87 Final Action Published 10/30/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY: 30 42 USC 2201

TITLE:

General Requirements for Decomissioning Nuclear Facilities EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:

, Keith G. Steyer/ Catherine Mattsen l Nuclear Regulatory Comission

< Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

. Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7910 i

i i

31 l

~ TITLE:

i + Radiation Surveys and In-House Inspection Systems in i Radiography CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 34 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would require that the in-house inspection

! description in a radiography license application specify a method for inspecting each radiographer and radiographer's assistant's i ~ knowledge of applicable regulations, license conditions, and performance of established procedures at intervals not exceeding three months. This action is intended to further ensure that radiographic operations are conducted safely.

The cost of performing the inspection is estimated to be

$120.00 per worker or $432,960 per year for the entire industry.

l There is no impact on the NRC staff. The proposed rule would also require a licensee to perform and record a radiation survey of a

~

radiographic exposure device made when storing the device after i use instead of recording the results of the radiation survey made

after the last exposure. This action, which is taken in response

!. to a petition for rulemaking (PRM-34-3) is intended to provide an '

~

acceptable procedure for assuring that the sealed source has been properly stored within the device.

Alternatives to rulemaking included the preparation of guidance j recommending a time-of-storage survey in a license condition. These approaches would not have a regulatory l basis and also would not be adaptable by agreement states.

. Requiring an additional radiation survey at the time of storage l provides additional assurance that accidental exposures will not j occur to members of the public as well as workers.

{ The cost of this survey requirement to the entire industry is

! estimated to be $541,200 annually ($150.00 per radiographer).

There are no additional recordkeeping costs. Impact on NRC staff is negligible since inspectors will review the time-of-storage

survey record rathe.r than the last use survey record. NRC staff time for processing this rule to final publication is estimated to be 0.4 staff years.

i Twenty comments were received on the proposed rule, most of i' l which were opposed to the three month inspection of radiographers l

with a roughly 50-50 split on the storage survey issue.

TIMETABLE NPRM 10/04/84 49 FR 39168 NPRM Comment Period End 11/18/84 49 FR 39168 Final Action for Office Concurrence 04/25/86  ;

Final Action to ED0 05/01/86 Final Action Published 05/00/86 32 I

_ . _ _-- - _ _ . . _ . - _ . - . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ .- _ _ _ - . = . _ _ . , . . _ _ _ . . - .

l TITLE:

+ Radiation Surveys and In-House Inspection Systems in Radiography.

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Undetermined l

. AGENCY CONTACT

! Alan K. Roecklein Nuclear Regulatory Commission j Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research  ;

! Washington, DC 20555 '

l 301 427-4358 i

I i<

a l

I i

i i

l 1  :

i i

1 f

i 6

l i

i

}

!. 33 i

I

\

i

- - . - , , ~ , - - , , , - , - - - - . . . ~ - - -

,,. _ ,,,~

---,-,,---,--,..--_-------.----.-_-,._,,__,-_L

TITLE:

+ Medical Use of Byproduct Material CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would revise Part 35 to modify the process for licensing and regulating the medical use of radioactive byproduct material. Requirements that apply to medical licensees are scattered in the regulations, license conditions, the individual licensee's application, and licensing branch policy statements.

The purpose of the proposed rule is to consolidate and codify the requirements in the regulation. This rule will result in a clearer understanding of NRC requirements for all medical licensees. This revision is necessary in order to provide a clear consolidated statement of requirement. The only way to impose requirements on all licensees is by license condition or regulation; therefore no alternative action was considered.

Because most of the requirements contained in this regulation are currently imposed by regulation or license condition, there will be no significant cost savings or additional burden; the industry and NRC will benefit by having a clear, concise, complete regulation. The Commission approved publication of the proposed revision, but has some comments that need to be resolved before the proposed rule can be published for public comment.

A previously published proposed rule requiring that the activity of each radiopharmaceutical dosage be measured before it is administered to a patient has been incorporated into this proposed revision of Part 35. (See 46 FR 43840; September 1, 1981

- RIN 3150-AA12 Patient Dosage Measurement).

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 07/26/85 50 FR 30616 NPRM Comment Period End 11/18/85 50 FR 30616 Final Action for Division Review 04/30/86 Office Concurrence on Final Rule Completed 06/30/86 Final Action Package to EDO 07/31/86 Final Action Published 11/01/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes 34

TITLE:

+ Medical Use of Byproduct Material AGENCY CONTACT: )

Norman L. McElroy Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4108 ,

s 35

. TITLE:

+ Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Well-logging Operations CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 39 4

ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would establish specific radiation safety requirements applicable to licensees who perform operations such as well-logging, mineral-logging, and subsurface use of radioactive materials in tracer studies. The proposed rule is necessary because current NRC regulations address these 1

operations in a general way without providing the specific guidance necessary to ensure that these operations are performed safely. As an alternative to the status quo, the proposed rule would adopt the requirements similar to those in the suggested State Regulations for Control of Radiation Part W as new NRC regulations. The potential costs for industry to implement these requirements would be about $1,300,000/yr. However, because most of the requirement is already imposed by license conditions, the

< net increase in cost would be about $350,000 per year for the industry or about $2000 per licensee. The rule would establish a l consistent, comprehensive set of the requirements that would 1 minimize the effort required to obtain reciprocity for NRC licensees to operate in Agreement States or vice versa. The rule l

would require about one staff-year effort.

TIMETABLE:

, NPRM 04/08/85 50 FR 13797 NPRM Coment Period End 07/08/85 50 FR 13797 Comment Period Extended to 10/09/85 50 FR 32086 Final Action for Division Review 01/17/86 Office Concurrence on Final Rule Completed 04/14/86 Final Action Package to ED0 06/16/86 Final Action Published 08/15/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

l 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Stephen McGuire Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7901 1 36 l

l l

l t

TITLE:

+ Limited Scope Modification to GDC 4 Requirements for Protection Against Postulated Pipe Ruptures CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would permit licensees and applicants to use newly developed analytical methods involving widely accepted advanced fracture mechanics theories for determining that certain pipe ruptures need not be treated in the design basis for dynamic effects. Implementing of the rule would facilitate the removhl of unnecessary pipe whip restraints and jet shields from existing nuclear power plants and plants under construction as well as future plant designs. This would reduce inservice inspection cost and, in addition, would reduce inspector radiation exposure.

The need and urgency for addressing the issue stems from the widespread acceptance of the analysis results and the research findings pertaining to pipe rupture coupled with increasing confidence in its applicability.

Prior to the last few years, there was no sound technical basis for excluding certain pipe ruptures from. the design basis. Now it is clear that it is possible to defend the exclusion of PWR primary loop double ended guillotine pipe ruptures, and that the scope may be extended to other piping. A benefit derived from the rule would be avoidance of extensive exemptions to General Design which would be the only acceptable alternatives to the proposed rule. The rule only requires minimum addition and/or modification of the existing text of GDC 4. Two staff years will be needed to complete this rulemaking.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 07/01/85 50 FR 27006 NPRM Comment Period End 09/02/85 50 FR 27006 Final Rule for Division Review 10/00/85 Office Concurrence on Final Rule Completed 12/00/85 Final Rule Package to EDO 01/00/86 Final Action 04/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SHALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 37

TITLE:

+ Limited Scope Modification to GDC 4 Requirements for Protection Against Postulated Pipe Ruptures

-AGENCY CONTACT:

John A. O'Brien Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7854 1

l 4

1 1

e i

38

- - . - . -- -- -,-.. -.-,-..-, -,..,----,,-~.,--n. e ,_e. , , . , - , -----n,- - - , - ,- - --- - - - -n--n . , ,,, - - -.-. -

TITLE:

l + Consideration of Earthquakes in the Context of Emergency l Preparedness i CFR CITATION:

1 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would consider the need to take into account the complicating effects of earthquakes on emergency preparedness. Existing regulations require that nuclear power plants be designed to safely shut down for most earthquakes. The I probability of earthquakes large enough to cause major onsite I damage that would result in a significant radiological release from the plant is low; and for large earthquakes, offsite damage could make prior offsite emergency plans' premised on normal conditions marginally useful.

One alternative to the proposed rule change would be to require that the emergency plans specifically address the impact of earthquakes. Another alternative would be to adjudicate the issue i on a case by case basis.

The proposed amendment will not greatly affect the industry since licensees are required to have approve emergency response plans which are flexible enough to assure that appropriate protective measures can be taken to mitigate the consequences of a nuclear emergency. The public will not be affected as adequate emergency preparedness at nuclear reactors will be assured.

The staff anticipates that there will be no increase in cost to the NRC, State, and local governments and to licensees associated with the proposed rule change because it is interpretative in nature.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 12/21/84 49 FR 49640 NPRM Comment Period End 01/22/85 49 FR 49640 Final Action for Division Review 06/20/85 Office Concurrence on Final Rule Completed 07/15/85 Final Action Package to EDO 07/30/85 Final Action Published 05/30/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 39 j

i

i TITLE:

Consideration of Earthquakes in the Context of Emergency i Preparedness AGENCY CONTACT:

Michael Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7615 l

1 1

l 40

i

-TITLE:

+ Communications Precedures Amendments l

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

l This proposed rule would amend the regulations which establish the procedures for submitting correspondence, reports, applications, or other written communications pertaining to the domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities.

The proposed amendments are expected to resolve confusion regarding submittal procedures and improve the communication process with the affected applicants and licensees.

The proposed amendments would (1) simplif making Part 50 submittals to the NRC; (2)y thethe facilitate proce'dures timely for dissemination of Part 50 submittals to NRC staff; (3) reduce postage and copying costs for applicants and licensees by requiring fewer copies of submittals; (4) establish a central NRC receipt point for Part 50 submittals; (5) include the NRC

, Resident Inspectors in the formal communications; and (6) i supersede all outdated submittal directions contained in other i sources of submittal guidance, such as Regulatory Guide 10.1 (Revision 4) and NRR Generic Letter 82-14. Although these documents accressed the problem, they did not entirely resolve the confusion. Moreover, subsequent changes in the organizational structure of NRC were not reflected in the j guidance documents.

The current regulations also cause unnecessary delays in the i dissemination of information to NRC staff. For example, any l

document submitted to an NRC Regional Office will not usually be disseminated to NRC Headquarters staff until two weeks later.

These problems can be resolved only by amending 10 CFR Part 50, since the current regulations are the source of the problems. The proposed rule is expected to reduce postage and copying costs for i

licensees and applicants subject to 10 CFR Part 50. An annual savings of $140,000 is estimated. In addition, the NRC is

expected to realize a small savings in postage costs. Preparing 4

and publishing this rule would cost NRC approximately 320 hours0.0037 days <br />0.0889 hours <br />5.291005e-4 weeks <br />1.2176e-4 months <br /> i of staff time at $60 per hour for a total of $19,200.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 03/26/85 50 FR 11884 NPRM Comment Period End 05/28/85 Final Action for Division Review 07/01/85 Office Concurrence on Final Rule Completed 04/15/86 j Final Action Package to ED0 04/30/86 Final Action Published 05/30/86 41

TITLE:

+ Communications Procedures Amendments LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Steve Scott Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8585 i

4 1

i j

i 42

--..,y,,-._, . . . ~ , . - , . . - - - . _ , . _,-,.~--.--~,,.n-- n-.,,_ - - .. -,.-.,na, , . -,,,,~---------r --. ,, ,, ,, . , , - - - - - - . - -

TITLE:

+ Protection of Contractor Employees l CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 l ABSTRACT:

l The proposed rule would require 10 CFR Part 50 licensees, permittees, and applicants to ensure that procurement documents they issue or modify, specify that contractors and subcontractors post a notice to employees related to employee protection. The required notice would contain information notifying employees that an employer is prohibited from discriminating against an employee engaging in protected activities and that an employee may seek a remedy for prohibited discrimination by filing a complaint with the Department of Labor.

The proposed amendment would affect licensees, permittees, applicants, and their contractors and subcontractors who are contractually responsible for construction of basic components or production and utilization facilities. Although there is no health and safety reason for addressing the issue, NRC is interested in protecting employees from discrimination. However, because Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act does not give the NRC direct authority over contractors and subcontractors and it clearly envisioned that the Department of Labor would be the principal agency in ensuring the rights of nuclear industry employees; the NRC plans to withdraw this proposed rulemaking and incorporate the issues into a new proposed rule on " Posting Requirements for the Protection of Contractor Employees and Extension of Criminal Penalties (RIN 3150-AC08)."

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 07/06/83 48 FR 31050 NPRM Comment Period End 09/06/83 48 FR 31050 Final Action 09/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2282; 42 USC 5851 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Anthony J. DiPalo Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7613 43

l TITLE:

+ Mandatory Property Insurance for Decontamination of Nuclear Facilities CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would require an increase in the amount of on-site property damage insurance from the current minimum of $585 million to $1.02 billion. The NRC believes that such insurance should be required so that the financing and pace of cleanup following an accident ooes not become a public health and safety problem. Recent studies indicate that as much $1.06 billion may be required to cover on-site cleanup of the worst reactor accidents if inflatior and other factors are included. Other issues addressed in the proposed rule are whether the Federal government can preempt State law *. hat prohibits certain public utilities from buying insurance offered by mutual companies or requiring payment of a retrospective premium and whether a priority of payment of insurance proceeds for decontamination and cleanup can be imposed. Action in these areas is required for the same reason as imposition of general insurance requirements, i.e.

to remove the financial aspects of recovery after an accident ,

from having an adverse impact on public health and safety.

Alternatives to the proposed rule that were considered included (1) requiring a lower dollar amount and (2) not explicitly requiring insurance above that currently required but rather allowing the necessity for additional insurance to be determined by economic regulators at the State level.

The impact of the proposed rule on licensees would probably not be large. Most licensees currently purchase insurance in excess of $1.02 billion. Approximately 10 licensees would be required to

, carry more insurance than they otherwise would for an annual l incremental premium cost of roughly $1 million per year. Thus the total impact of the rule would be approximately $10 million per year. The impact on the public would generally be positive in j that public health -and safety would be better protected. The

impact on the NRC would be minimal with respect to increasing the

! amount of insurance. A decontamination priority, if it were l invoked, could require additional hearings with attendant costs.

One-half of a staff-year is required by OSP to continue the rulemaking, with minimal impact on other offices. expected.

l 44

TITLE:

l + Mandatory Property Insurance for Decontamination of Nuclear l

Facilities TIMETABLE:

-ANPRM 06/24/82 47 FR 27371 ANPRM Comment Feriod End 09/22/82 47 FR 27371 NPRM 11/08/84 49 FR 44645 NPRM Comment Period End 02/07/85 49 FR 44645 Final Action for Division Review 05/17/85 Office Concurrence on Final Rule Completed 03/18/86 Final Action Package to ED0 03/18/86 Final Action Published 07/31/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

1 42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Robert S. Wood Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of State Programs Washington, DC 20555 301 492-9885 l

45

TITLE:

+ Station Blackout CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

NRC is proposing to amend its regulations to require light water nuclear power plants to be capable of withstanding a total loss of alternating current (AC) electrical power, called Station Blackout, to the essential and nonessential switchgear buses for a specified duration. A proposed regulatory guide, to be issued at the same time as the proposed rule, would provide guidance on how to determine the duration.

The proposed requirements were developed in response to information generated by the Commission's study of Unresolved Safety Issue A-44, Station Blackout. The proposed rule is intended to provide further assurance that a loss of both off-site, and emergency on-site electric AC power systems will not adversely affect the public health and safety.

A regulatory analysis has been prepared for the proposed rule.

The estimated public risk reduction is 80,000 person-rem over 25 years, and the estimated total cost for industry to comply with the proposed rule is $40 million. This results in an overall cost benefit ratio of about 2,000 person-rem per million dollars.

The alternatives to this proposed rulemaking are to take no action or to provide only guidance for plants to be able to cope with a station blackout period. To take no action would not yield any reduction in public risk from station blackout events. To provide guidance only, since there is presently no requirement for nuclear power plants to be able to cope with a total loss of AC power, would not result in any basis for enforcement. The proposed rule is the recommended alternative based on its enforceability and, in part, on the favorable cost / benefit ratio.The staff discussed this proposal on 09/11/85 and 11/14/85 with the Commission.

TIMETABLE:

NPR'103/21/86 51 FR 9829 NPRM Conment Period End 06/19/86 51 FR 9892 Final Action for Division Review 12/30/86 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 03/30/87

. Final Action to ED0 06/00/87 Final Action Published 06/30/87 46

TITLE:-

Station Blackout LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: N/A AGENCY CONTACT:

Alan Rubin Nuclear Reguh. tory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8303 i

l l

I s

47 t

0

TITLE:

+ Fitness for Duty of Personnel with Access to Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

At a Commission meeting, October 17, 1984, the Commission directed the staff to draft a policy statement on programs for training and qualification in lieu of publishing this proposed " Fitness for Duty" rule and other proposed training and qualification amendments. On December 10, 1984, the NRC decided to separate the policy statement on fitness for duty from the policy statement on training and qualifications.

Therefore, this proposed rule is being withdrawn. The policy is being established to allow power reactor applicants and licensees to develop and implement their own fitness-for-duty programs during a 2-year period. Nothing in the policy statement limits NRC's authority or responsibility to follow up on operational events or its enforcement authority when regulatory requirements are not met.

A proposed policy statement was submitted to the Commission on January 1, 1985, as SECY 85-21. A proposed fitness for duty withdrawal statement was submitted to the Commission on April 12, 1985, as SECY 85-21A.

Finally, a staff position paper reaffirming the proposed policy statement was submitted to the Commission on August 26, 1985, as SECY 85-218. SECY 85-21,85-21A, and 85-218 await disposition by the Commission.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 08/05/82 47 FR 33980 NPRM Comment Period End 10/04/82 47 FR 33980 Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2237 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Loren Bush Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8080 48

TITLE:

+ Operators' Licenses CFR CITATION:

l 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 55 l

l ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission was proposing to amend its regulations to (1) require each holder of and each applicant for a license to operate a commercial nuclear power plant to establish and use a systems approach in developing training programs and establishing qualifications requirements for civilian nuclear power plant operators, supervisors, technicians, and, as appropriate, operating personnel; (2) clarify the regulations for the issuance of licenses to operators and senior operators; (3) revise the requirements and scope of written examinations and operating tests for operators and senior operators; (4) codify procedures for the administration of requalification examinations; and (5) describe the form and content for operator license applications.

The proposed rulemaking was in response to Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. A regulatory analysis showed a public risk reduction of 268,000 person-rem at a cost of $240.4 million dollars resulting in a value/ impact ratio of 1,100 person-rem / $million. Coordinated industry objections to the rulemaking were the subject of a Commission meeting on April 9,1984. Industry requested that the NRC issue a policy statement rather than a rule. Consequently, at an October 17, 1984, Commission meeting, the Commission directed the staff to publish the portion of the proposed rule revising 10 CFR Part 55

" Operators' Licenses," and to draft a Policy Statement on programs for training and qualification of nuclear power plant personnel. The proposed revision was published for comment on November 26, 1984, and the effective Policy Statement was published March 20,1985.

The Policy Statement replaces the portion of this proposed rule that would have added requirements to 10 CFR Part 50 on training and qualification of plant personnel. The training programs are to be developed and implemented by industry during a two-year period. The policy statement provides guidance regarding NRC's support of the industry-managed training accreditation program and states NRC's continuing responsibility to independently evaluate applicants' and licensees' implementation of training programs.

49

TITLE:

Operators' Licenses TIMETABLE:

NPRM 11/26/84 49 FR 46428 NPRM Comment Period End 02/24/85

-Final Action for Division Review 10/00/85 Office Concurrence on Final Rule Completed 12/00/85 Final Action Package to ED0 04/00/86 Final Action Published 05/00/86 i

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

4 42 USC 2137; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 10226 l

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Bruce Boger Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4868 i

i 50

TITLE:

+ Personnel Access Authorization Program (Part of Insider Package)

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would establish a personnel screening program for individuals requiring unescorted reactor facility access, thus providing increased assurance of the trustworthiness and emotional stability of a reactor site population. Study has indicated that disoriented or dis ones who might also be psychotic)atgruntled nuclear employees (especially reactors are of primary safeguards concern because of their inside position.

While the Commission has stated that at present it is satisfied with the level of safeguards in place at reactors, it approved publication of the proposed rule for public comment (49 FR 30726) as one means of further assuring protection of public health and safety. The public comment period concluded March 7, 1985.

Extensive comments were received and analyzed.

Alternatives to rulemaking that were investigated, included endorsing an ANSI standard through a regulatory guide, issuing a policy statement that endorses industry developed guidelines, using staff position papers, and implementing license conditions.

These alternatives were rejected because some would not produce and industry standardized program while other lacked regulatory authority.

The proposed regulation will protect against the " insider" threat at reactors through the use of three components: (1) a background investigation to determine past history, (2) a psychological assessment to determine current emotional stability, and (3) a continual behavioral observation program to detect behavioral changes in an individual once granted unescorted access.

Primary benefit to the public and licensees is an increased assurance of the trustworthiness and emotional suitability of individuals working in a nuclear reactor environment. Benefits to the NRC result from the use of a codified program that assures i that a uniform approach, meeting minimum requirements, will be applied in screening reactor personnel.

The net increase in cost per licensee site for all existing or planned 1

power stations over their remaining useful lives is $2 million per site. The net increase in cost to the NRC due to estimated time in reviewing proposed plans and enforcement activities is $822,700.

This is a one-time implementation cost; yearly operational costs are judged to be negligible.

51

TITLE:

Personnel Access Authorization Program (Part of Insider Package)

TIMETABLE:

., NPRM 08/01/84 49 FR 30726 NPRM Comment Period End 03/07/85 Office Concurrence on Final Rule Completed 08/27/85 ,

l Final Action Package to ED0 10/18/85 Final Action Package to Commission 11/29/85 Final Action Published 06/30/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Priscilla A. Dwyer Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards i Washington DC 20555 301 427-4773 I

52

TITLE:

+ Safeguards Requirements for Nonpower Reactor Licensees Possessing Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 73 l ABSTRACT:

When the Commission approved the set of final physical protection requirements for fuel cycle facilities possessing formula quantities (five formula kilograms or more) of strategic special nuclear material (SSNM), they exempted nonpower reactors from these requirements and, instead specified a set of interim requirements. At that time the staff was directed to develop a set of permanent physical protection requirements for this class of nonpower reactors.

This rulemaking is needed: (1) to replace current interim regulations and establish permanent physical security requirements for nonpower reactor licensees who possess a nonexempt formula quantity of SSNM, (2) to provide protection against insiders, and (3) to arrange for a response by local law enforcement or other agencies in time to prevent a theft of a formula quantity.

The staff is using a performance-oriented regulatory approach which would give affected licensees flexibility in designing cost-effective measures for implementing the requirements of the final rule by allowing licensees to take advantage of existing requirements at an estimated cost increase of $1,100 to $5,100 for improvements and $300 to $7,900 for annual operating costs .

per facility. Public comments on the new NPRM have been received and analyzed. Further action on this rule has been deferred based on a February 23, 1984 memorandum from the Office of the Secretary.

TIMETABLE:

Interim Final Rule 11/28/79 44 FR 68199 NPRM 07/27/83 48 FR 34056 NPRM Comment Period End 11/28/83 48 FR 34056 Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2071; 42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2152; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2239; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 53

TITLE:

+ Safeguards Requirements for Nonpower Reactor Licensees Possessing Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material AGENCY CONTACT:

Carl J. Withee Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4768 e

I j

ii j

i 54

TITLE:

+ Explanation to Table S-3 Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 51 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule provides a narrative explanation of the numerical values established in Table S-3, " Table of Uranium Fuel

, Cycle Environmental Data." that appears in the 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 narrative explanation also addresses important fuel cycle impacts and the cumulative impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle for the whole nuclear power industry so that it may be possible to consider these impacts generically rather than repeatedly in individual licensing proceedings, thus reducing litigation time and costs for both NRC and applicants.

The proposed rule was published for public review and comment (46 FR 15154, March 4, 1981), but the final rulemaking was deferred pending the outcome of a suit (Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v NRC, N0. 74-1486) in the U.S. Court of Appeals.

The U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) decision of April 27, 1982, invalidated the entire Table S-3 rule. The Supreme Court reversed this decision on June 6, 1983.

The proposed rule to provide a narrative explanation for Table S-3 was revised to reflect new developments and the passage of time while the rulemaking was deferred. However, final action on the Table S-3 rule was held in abeyance until new values for radon-222 and technetium-99 can be added to the table and covered in the narrative explanation. On October 7, 1984, EPA promulgated new radon standards for inactive uranium mill sites and in October 1985 NRC published revised uranium milling regulations conforming to the new EPA standards. However, EPA received, in August 1985, a court order requiring them to establish radon standards for active uranium mills. Considering this further delay in making final estimates of total radon releases from uranium milling and the fact that there are no open licensing cases involving issues which would be covered by the narrative explanation of Table S-3 of the new values for radon-222 and technetium-99, the staff is preparing a Con. mission Paper recommending this rulemaking be deferred until such time as it may be needed for review of nucler power of new nuclear power plant license applications. i TIMETABLE:

NPRM 03/04/81 46 FR 15154 NPRM Comment Period End 05/04/81 46 FR 15154 1 Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2011; 42 USC 4321 55

f TITLE:

Explanation to Table S-3 Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Glenn A. Terry Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4283 T'

.l 1

i.

s i

4 l

56

TITLE:

Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories:

Procedural Amendments CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would revise procedures regarding NRC reviews of license dpplications for disposal of high-level radioactive wastes in geologic repositories. The procedures are being revised principally to conform to the provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Specifically, the proposed rule would clarify that NRC begins its review in this

! licensing process after DOE provides NRC a site characterization plan and that usual rules of practice apply to licensing of these repositories.

It would also provide that the NRC may publish a notice inviting comments on its analysis of a plan.

The proposed rule would also change some of the procedures for the

participation of States and Indian tribes in the licensing process.

Without the proposed rule, there would be major incongruities between the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and 10 CFR Part 60. Alternatives to the proposed rule would be changing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or doing nothing and allowing incongruities to exist, with subsequent risk of litigation against NRC.

State and Indian tribes will be affected in that procedures for their participation in the licensing process for geologic repositories

, will be chanced. This should not result in any additional costs or expenditares of resources on the part of the public, NRC, or the nuclear waste management system. The public, and especially States and Indian tribes, will benefit from increased clarity in procedures for licensing.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 01/17/85 49 FR 2579 NPRM Comment Period Begin 01/17/85 49 FR 2579 NPRM Comment Period End 03/18/85 Final Rule for Division Review 07/01/85 Office Concurrence on Final Rule Completed 09/21/85 Final Rule Package to ED0 10/11/85 Final Rule Published 05/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2021a; 42 USC 2071; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2201(o);

42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 4332; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846; 42 USC~5851; 42 USC 10141 b

57

TITLE:

Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories:

Procedural Amendments EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Clark Prichard

. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4586 1

J l

l i

f I

58 l

i

TITLE:

+ Changes to Safeguards Reporting Requirements CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 74 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would amend reporting requirements of section 73.71 for reports of unaccounted for shipments, suspected thefts, unlawful diversion, and other safeguards events. (Conforming amendments are included for 10 CFR Parts 70, 72, and 74). The

! staff has found the present requirements confusing to licensees l and therefore, difficult for licensees to properly implement.

l These difficulties have contributed to safeguards event reports that lack unifonnity and contain insufficient data for analysis.

Safeguards event reporting requirements are necessary to permit timely response by the NRC to safeguards incidents and to identify possible generic deficiencies in safeguards systems.

Until the requirements for reporting are clarified and simplified, the problems identified above will continue to exist.

This is considered to be a matter of moderate urgency. An alternative to rulemaking is issuance of additional or revised guidance on the present requirement. However, such guidance would lack regulatory authority. Since the problems have arisen over the abstract nature of the present requirement, it appears the best solution is to correct the source of the problem by amending i the existing rule.

The proposed amendments redefine, in clearer terms, the events to be reported and classify certain of these events into different reporting categories. The current 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> telephonic notification is deleted. All events would be either telephonically reported within one hour or logged in licensee records to be submitted to the NRC quarterly. Concurrent with the rule revision, a revised regulatory guide is being developed which provides a format for reporting to the NRC and gives examples of what types of events should be reported.

There is expected to be no cost impact to the public. Benefits to licensees will be clearer, simpler regulations, and a reduction in telephonic and written report making. While the proposed regulations will require more detailed, standardized written reports, the reduction in the number of telephone and written reports is expected to re3 ult in a net cost decrease to industry of $641.600 incurred on an annual basis.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 08/27/85 50 FR 34708 NPRM Comment Period End 12/31/85 50 FR 48220 Final Action for Division Review 02/00/86 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 04/30/86 Final Action Package to ED0 05/00/86 Final Action Published 07/30/86 59 l

i TITLE:

+ Changes to Safeguards Reporting Requirements LEGAL AUTliORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Priscilla A. Dwyer Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4773 i

i

! 60 4

i l

TITLE:

+ Modification of Protection Requirements for Spent Fuel Shipments CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would moderate the current requirements for the protection of spent fuel shipments against radiological sabotage.

Current requirements are based on release assumptions and health effects

calculations that were made in the 1970s. Data from recently completed research shows that the release and health effects would be far lower than believed at the time the current requirements were issued. In addition, during 1985, comprehensive coordination was carried out with States and the Department of Transportation to assure that perceived safety issues were adequately addressed. The rulemaking is proceeding on a priority basis.

Alternatives to the proposed rule were (1) to leave the current requirements in place and (2) to eliminate all requirements.

Alternative one was rejected because the current requirements, based on the conclusions drawn from recent research, were judged to be overly stringent. Alternative two was rejected because the research indicates that a certain level of safeguards is essential to the protection of spent fuel shipments.

The proposed rule provides the level of safeguards deemed essential to the protection of spent fuel shipments while affording an annual savings of

$74,000 to the affected licensees who make approximately 250 shipments per year. The public would not be affected by the rulemaking because all needed requirements would be retained. Occupational exposure would not change significantly. The current annual NRC resource commitment would be about 1.5 staff years, and the costs for travel expenses would be about $8,000. NRC resources for the rulemaking have been set at 0.5 staff year for FY 1986.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 06/08/84 49 FR 23867 HPRM Comment Period End 09/10/84 Final Action for Division Review 02/24/86 Office Concurrence on Final Rule Completed 03/31/86 Final Action Package to ED0 04/30/86 Final Action Published 06/30/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2167; 42 USC 2073 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 61

TITLE:

+ Modification of Protection Requirements for Spent Fuel Shipments AGENCY CONTACT:

Carl B. Sawyer Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4186 i

62

TITLE:

+ Miscellaneous Amendments Concerning Physical Protection of Nuclear Power Plants (Part of Insider Rule Package)

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would require in Nuclear Power Plants (1) access control to vital areas,(2) the protection of certain physical security equipment, (3) revised requirements for key and

! lock controls, and (4) revised authority to suspend safeguards i measures during emergencies. (Years of operating revealed a need

for clarification and refinement.) The requirements will clarify

! policy in these areas and reduce unnecessary burden on the industry while maintaining plant protection. This rule is a revision of the proposed rule entitled, " Access Controls to Nuclear Power Plant Vital Areas." Initial development of a final rule produced significant changes, particularly in the criteria for personnel access controls to vital areas, resulting in the need to publish a revised rule. This proposed rule and the other components of the insider rule package were reviewed by the NRC Safety / Safeguards Review Committee which considered a number of alternative approaches to vital areas and provided recommendations that are reflected in the proposed rule.

Since requirements for protecting Nuclear Power Plant vital areas have been in effect for some time, and modifications to those requirements are needed, alternatives to this rulemaking such as revised guidance would be inappropriate in that they would carry the force of a regulation.

Implementation cost for these improvements is $10,200 per site; however, a net annual savings of $15,000 per site is anticipated in the cost of industry operations because of reduced key and local control requirements. The impact on NRC operations will occur in the area of licensing review of amended licensee security plans and Inspection and Enforcement staff support time.

Initial cost to the NRC is estimated to be $175,700. There is no significant NRC operational costs resulting from this rule.

TIMETABLE: '

NPRM 08/01/84 49 FR 30726 NPP.M Coment Period End 03/07/85 Final Action Package to E00 10/18/85 Final Action to Commission 11/29/85 Final Action Published 06/30/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2101; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 63

TITLE:

+ Miscellaneous Amendments Concerning Physical Protecticn of

, Nuclear Power Plants (Part of Insider Rule Package)

AGENCY CONTACT:

Priscilla A. Dwyer Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4773 i

i.__

4 4

l l

I k

i 64

i TITLE:

+ Searches of Individuals at Power Reactor Facilities (Part of Insider Package)

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 73 l

l ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would revise the search requirements for individuals entering the protected area of nuclear power plants.

Under the proposed requirements, all persons would be subject to equipment searches for firearms, explosives and incendiary devices. Physical searches would be required only when search equipment is not working properly or when the licensee suspects that an individual is attempting to carry into the plant prohibited devices or material. Random searches were considered as an alternative, but were dismissed as being possibly disruptive. Since licensees already possess the necessary equipment, this rule will affect only licensee procedures at negligible additional cost.

Since requirements for searches have been in effect for some time, and modifications to those requirements are needed, alternatives to this rulemaking such as revised guidance would be inappropriate in that they would not carry the force of a regulation.

The most expensive items in the industry cost have already been absorbed, equipment and search personnel; thus cost to the industry is minimal. This impact on NRC operations will occur in the area of licensing review of amended licensee security plans. Initial cost to the NRC is estimated to be $58,600. There are no significant NRC operational costs resulting from this rule.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 08/01/84 49 FR 30726 NPRM Comment Period End 03/07/85 49 FR 30726 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 08/27/85 Final Rule to ED0 10/18/85 Final Action to Commission 11/29/85 Final Action Published 06/30/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 65 1

TITLE:

+ Searches of Individuals at Power Reactor Facilities (Part of Insider Package)

AGENCY CONTACT:

Priscilla A. Dwyer

! Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards ,

i Washington, DC 20555 r i 301 427-4773 1

1 i

l 66 l

1

TITLE:

+ Material Control and Accounting Requirements for Facilities Authorized to Possess and Use Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 74 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rulemaking would replace existing material control and accounting (MC&A) requirements for fuel cycle facilities that are authorized to possess and use formula quantities of strategic special nuclear material (SSNM).

It would establish a performance oriented regulation that emphasizes timely detection of formula quantity SSNM losses and provides for more conclusive resolution of discrepancies than is currently achievable. Experience with existing regulations has demonstrated weaknesses in the area of alarm resolution principally because of a lack of timely detection of anomalies and poor loss localization capabilities. The rulemaking would alleviate these liabilities by requiring tests on a more timely basis on small plant subdivisions.

An alternative to the rule would be to implement the concepts through license amendments for the four involved licensees; however, such an action would be inconsistent with the Administrative Procedures Act and the direction provided in NRC's Policy and Program Guidance document. The protection of the public health and safety will be enhanced through earlier detection and more prompt resolution of anomalies potentially indicative of an SSNM loss.

In response to public comments, the staff has re-evaluated certain technical provisions of the proposed rule and concluded that some modifications were warranted. Concurrent with the rule modifications, the acceptance criteria and regulatory analysis are being revised. The cost to the NRC to complete this rulemaking is estimated to be four staff years which includes time for the review of the plans submitted in response to the rule.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 11/18/81 46 FR 45144

1. NPRM Comment Period End 02/09/82 46 FR 56625 NPRM 02/02/84 49 FR 4091 NPRM Comment Period End 09/05/84 49 FR 4091 Final Action for Division Review 04/00/86 Office Concurrence on Final Rule Completed 09/00/86 Final Action Package to ED0 10/00/86 Final Action Published 02/00/87 67

TITLE:

Material Control and Accounting Requirements for Facilities Authorized to Possess and use Formula Quantities'of Strategic Special Nuclear Material LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

C. W. Emeigh Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4769 F

l 0

I J

68 5

)

TITLE:

+ Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 140 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would revise the criteria the Commission currently follows in determining an extraordinary nuclear occurrence (EN0), in order to overcome the problems that were encountered following the Three Mile Island (TMI) accident when the present criteria were applied. The proposed criteria would focus on items that can be readily counted or estimated within a relatively short time following an accident (i.e., substantial release of radioactive material or radiation offsite and substantial exposure levels). The revised criteria will provide for speedy satisfaction of legitimate claims in the event of an EN0. Because EN0 criteria are administrative criteria for use by the Commission, they do not impose any requirement upon a licensee.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 04/09/85 50 FR 13978 NPRM Comment Period End 08/13/85 Final Action For Division Review 06/30/86 Office Concurrence on Final Rule Completed 07/31/86 Final Action Package to ED0 08/31/86 Final Action Published 12/31/86

, LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2210; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

l Harold Peterson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4353 a

69

I l

(C) Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking

1 i

TITLE:

Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings: Role of NRC Staff in Adjudicatory Licensing Hearings CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The role of the NRC staff in initial proceedings was among the issues discussed in an enclosure to a January 2, 1985, memorandum to the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development from Chairman Palladino. This discussion stated that the Commission has decided that the NRC's role in these proceedings should not be changed.

Therefore, a notice of withdrawal will be prepared and the action l proposed by this advance notice of proposed rulemaking will be I terminated.

l The Commission considered amending its Rules of Practice concerning what role the NRC staff should have in adjudicatory licensing hearings to most effectively contribute to the protection of the public health and safety. The ANPRM invited public comments and suggestions on four t options and related questions, briefly described below. Option 1 would have limited staff participation in contested initial licensing proceedings to only those controverted factual issues it disagreed with on a technical basis or rationale. Option 2 would have required the NRC staff to supply the Commission and the Licensing Board with its view and analyses on every substantive issue raised in an initial licensing proceeding but would have prohibited the staff's participation in any procedural matter. Option 3 would have retained the status quo, i.e.,

the NRC staff would have continued to participate as full party on all issues. Option 4 would have expanded public involvement in the prehearing stage of initial licensing proceedings, and this option could have been used in conjunction with any of the first three options. The staff woud have subsequently addressed each substantive issue raised in the Safety Evaluation Report.

Following review and analysis of the comments received, as well as advice supplied by the Commission's legal offices, the Commission chose Option 3.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 11/02/83 48 FR 50550 ANPRM Comment Period End 01/03/84 48 FR 50550 ANPRM Comment Period Extended 01 03/84 48 FR 54243 Notice of Withdrawal 08/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSIN'ESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Linda Gilbert Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7678 71

TITLE:

+R:gulatoryRsformoftheRulesofPracticeandRulesfor Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

This proposed rule would amend thirty-three sections of two parts affecting the hearing process associated with the issuance of all NRC licenses. Streamlining the hearing process would ultimately provide cost savings to all participants in the process. However, intervenors may initially be required to provide more information than is now required at some added expense.

In the screening process, the most significant changes would (1) establish a screening Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) to act as a clearinghouse for all requests for hearings, petitions for leave to intervene, and proposed contentions, (2) require a participant in a hearing to show that he or she has an interest to protect in the proceeding, and (3) require evidence of a factual dispute for a contention to be admitted.

During the conduct of hearings, the most significant changes would (1) not hear discovery requests requiring the staff to support positions other than its own, (2) permit the ASLB to decide the case on the basis of written material, (3) permit the ASLB to appoint a panel of technical experts if needed, (4) allow presiding officers to raise issues on their own motion (sua sponte) only in unusual cases, (5) allow sumary disposition motions to be filed at any stage of the proceeding, (6) allow the Commission to designate a hearing examiner in lieu of a three-member ASLB, and (7) require the filing of cross examination plans.

During the decision-making process, the most significant changes would (1) remove the ASLB as an independent appeal board but place it organizationally directly under the Commission to review, as before, ASLB decisions, and give its recommendations to the Commission, (2) allow any generic issue resolved in an initial licensing comment period (3) proceeding allow to betocodified, an intervenor allowing participate in a 45 day discussing only those items he or she introduced, and (4) reinstate the immediate effectiveness of an ASLB decision on an operating license, construction permit, or work authorization.

The proposals, submitted by the Commission's Regulatory Reform Task Force suggest ways to improve the reactor licensing process.

TIMETABLE:

, ANPRM 04/12/84 49 FR 14698 l ANPRM Comment Period End 06/11/84 49 FR 14689 Next Action 06/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 72

TITLE:

+ Regulatory Reform of the Rules of Practice and Rules for Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

l. Linda Gilbert Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7678 i

73 l

TITLE:

+ Financial Responsibility of Materials Licensees for Cleanup After Accidental and Unexpected Releases CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72 ABSTRACT:

The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeks comments on the advisability of having NRC require a mechanism to assure financial capability on the part of certain NRC materials licensees (e.g., fuel fabricators and users of sealed radiation sources) to undertake prompt cleanup of accidental releases or contamination, both on and off site. Estimates for cleanup costs in the recent past have ranged up to $2 million for a single event. To date, cleanup has been conducted by the State or Federal government, but frequently public monies are used only after lengthy delays.

Use of an alternative, i.e. , the 1980 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA),

is effectively blocked by EPA policy. CERCLA provides funds for cieanup if the owner or operator is unable to do so and if the release is not covered by " Price-Anderson" provisions, which address liability and do not provide funds for cleanup per se.

EPA maintains that NRC has full authority to require cleanup of accidental releases by licensees; thus, CERCLA public funds should not be used for this purpose.

Cost to licensees of the possible different financial assurance mechanisms is based on proprietary information. Staff is inviting comments in response to the ANPRM to address costs aspects, as well as scope of coverage and availability of alternative mechanisms. After evaluating the comments, the staff will recommend to the Commission if the rulemaking should continue. The estimated NRC resources necessary for the ANDRM in FY86 are 1.2 FTE.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 06/07/85 50 FR 20906 ANPRM Comment Period Begin 06/07/85 50 FR 20906 ANPRM Comment Period End 10/05/85 Proposed Rule for Division Review 11/15/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Rule Completed 12/15/86 Proposed Rule Package to ED0 01/01/87 .

l Proposed Rule Published 04/01/87 Final Rule Published 12/31/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Undetermined 74

TITLE: ,

+ Financial Responsibility of Materials Licensees for Cleanup '

After Accidental and Unexpected Releases I AGENCY CONTACT:

Mary Jo Seeman i Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 i

301 427-4647 l-f d

i 1

75

TITLE:

+ Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive Materials Licensees CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would require about 30 fuel cycle and other radioactive materials licensees to submit an emergency plan that would among other actions, require the notification of local authorities in case of an accident and that the licensee recommend protective actions for the public. The proposed rule is intended to further protect the public from accidental exposure '

to radiation. The affected licensees are those whose possession _

limits indicate the potential for an accident that could deliver 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).

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 06/03/81 46 FR 29712 ANPRM Comment Period End 08/03/81 46 FR 29712 Proposed Rule for Division Review 02/08/85 Office Concurrence on Proposed Rule Completed 09/25/85 Proposed Rule Package to EDO 10/30/85 Proposed Rule Published 06/13/86 Final Action Published 05/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS Oh SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY C]NTACT:

Stephen A. McGuire fluclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7636 l

l l

76

TITLE:

+ Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Ground Water Protection and Other Issues CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 40 ABSTRACT.

The advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeks comment on NRC's tentative approach to making further amendments to its uranium mill tailings regulations. The contemplated rulemaking proceeding is intended to incorporate groundwater provisions and other requirements established by the Environmental Protection Agency for similar hazard;us wastes into NGC regulations. This action is necessary to make NRC regulations consistent with EPA standards as required by the Uranium Mill Tai. lings Radiation Control Act.

Alternatives to this action involve timing and scope.

Comments on th ANPRM will help de: fine the nature and scope of the action. EPA has estimated that compliance with their groundwater standards and with the stability, radon release, and other requirements recently pronulgated will cost the industry from about $310 million to $540 million for all tailings generated by the year 2000. The range depends on the eventual cost of groundwater protection for future tailings. The EPA regulations are binding on NRC licensees in the interim.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 11/26/84 49 FR 46425 ANPRM Comment Period End 03/01/85 50 FR 2293 Proposed Rule for Division Review 12/06/85 Office Concurrence on Proposed Rule Completed 01/24/86 Proposed Rule Package to ED0 01/30/86 Proposed Rule Published 05/23/86 Final Rule Published 04/22/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 7901 Note EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT: ,

Kitty S. Dragonette Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, D.C. 20555 301 427-4300 77

TITLE:

+ Emergency Core Cooling Systems; Revisions to Acceptance Criteria CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would amend regulations concerning acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems (ECCS) by changing the methods used to demonstrate that an ECCS would protect the nuclear reactor core during a loss-of-coolant accident. This action is proposed because research has shown that calculations performed under current requirements result in estimates of cooling system performance are significantly worse than estimates based on the improved knowledge gained from this research and because the operation of some nuclear reactors is being unnecessarily restricted. This results in increased cost of electricity generation. The proposed rule would allow use of the best information currently available to demonstrate that the ECCS would protect the yeactor core during a loss-of-coolant accident.

The proposed rule would apply to all applicants for and holders of construction permits for light water reactors.

Because the proposed rule represents a significant change in a regulatory requirement, the staff is currently preparing a sumary of ECCS research performed over the last 10 years which will serve as the technical basis for the proposed rule and a regulatory guide which will provide definition of what constitutes an acceptable best estimate model and acceptable methods of performing the uncertainty evaluation. The estimated cost to the NRC of this rulemaking is 2-3 staff years and

$200,000 of contractor support.

l TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 12/06/78 43 FR 57157 ANPRM Comment Period Begin 12/06/78 43 FR 57157 ANPRM Comment Period End 02/05/79 Proposed Rule for Division Review 04/15/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Rule Completed 05/15/86 Proposed Rule Package to ED0 06/00/86 Proposed Rule Published 10/00/86 Final Rule Published 06/00/87 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 78

. - ._ - . . . _. - . . .-=

TITLE:

+ Emergency Core Cooling Systems; Revisions to Acceptance '

Criteria AGENCY CONTACT:

L.M. Shotkin Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4254 f

I L

l 6

I 4

4

! 79

\

l f

I i

(D) Unpublished Rules

- A - e l

t 9

a h

l I

I i

f t

I f

f

(

l l

I I

I i

i l

h l

TITLE:

'+ Revised Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings

.CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 0; 10 CFR 1; 10 CFR 2; 10 CFR '9; 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has deferred further consideration of this p' roposal which would have revised the Commission's procedural rules governing the conduct of all adjudicatory proceedings, with the exception l

of export licensing proceedings. The proposed rule would comprehensively restate current practice, retitle the hearing office, and revise and reorganize the Commission's procedural rules. The changes set out in this proposed rule are intended to enable the Commission to render decisions in a more timely fashion and reduce the burden and expense to the parties participating in the proceedings.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841; 5 USC 552 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

B. Paul Cotter, Jr.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7787 81

TITLE:

Effectiveness of an Initial Decision Authorizing Issuance or Amendment of a Power Reactor License or Permit CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

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. Changes are proposed that would (1) remove the existing provision governing the effectiveness of initial decisions regarding power reactor construction permits and (2) revise the Commission's existing practice regarding " effectiveness reviews" for full-power operating licenses. The proposed rule also would delete language in the existing regulation emanating from Three Mile Island-related regulatory policies, action upon which has now been completed.

The proposed rule would supersede 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 Permits; Immediate Effectiveness Rule," published October 25, 1982 (47 FR 47260).

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 05/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Paul Bollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-3224 82

TITLE:

Availability of Official Recards CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The proposed amendment would conform the NRC's regulations pertaining to the availability of official records to existing case law and agency practice. The purpose of the amendment is to 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 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 l final rule, information which has been made available to an advisory committee or was received at an advisory committee meeting, and information that is subject to a pending Freedom of Information Act request.

i TIMETABLE:

Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Paul Bollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-3224 83

TITLE:

Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings-- Procedural Changes in Hearing Process CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing 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 summary 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 comment.

The NRC is also proposing related amendments on the process of intervention that were developed by Commissioner Asselstine.

TIMETABLE:

Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

George Esymontt Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Reform Task Force Washington, DC 20555 202 634-3302 l .

l l

l l

l 84 i

- .- . . . . -- . . - -- _- -- ~ - - . - _ - . -

TITLE:

+ Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 19; 10 CFR 20; 10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 75; 10 CFR 150 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule will revise existing regulations to cover specific licensing requirements for the storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a monitored retrievable storage installation (MRS). This revision, required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, is intended to ensure that the Commission has in place the appropriate regulations to fulfill the requirements contained in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 concerning the licensing of facilities which could be part of the MRS program.

Paragraph (d) of Section 141 of the NWPA provides that any monitored retrievable storage installation pursuant to Section 141 shall be subject to licensing by the Commission. The

! Commission could await further development of the MRS option i

before proposing its MRS rules. However, this approach could result in unnecessaq congress authorizes'y delay inofreviewing construction an MRS. Thea license application Department of if

Energy (D0E) is required to complete a detailed study of the need j for and feasibility of a MRS installation. In a proposal to be submitted to Congress, DOE must include the establishment of a J federal program for the siting, development, construction, and operation of facilities capable of storing spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Site specific designs, specifications, and cost i estimates must also be included in the proposal.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Rule for Division Review 06/03/85 Office Concurrence on Proposed Rule Completed 09/23/85 Proposed Rule Package to ED0 10/08/85 Proposed Rule Published 06/26/86 i Final Action Published 06/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

1 42 USC 2021; 42 USC 2071; 42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2077; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2099; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232;

42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2234; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2237; 42 USC 2282 i

i EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 4

i

85 i

TITLE:

+ Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste AGENCY CONTACT:

William R. Pearson Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7663 J

1 t

i i

i s

)

L 36 l

TITLE:

+ Security Requirements for Category II Material at Fixed Sites l CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would amend the physical protection requirements for special nuclear material of moderate strategic significance (Category II) at fixed sites. Since the publication of Category II safeguards regulations in 1979, there have been several terrorist acts which involved coordinated actions against separate targets, showing an ability and willingness by at least some adversary groups to plan their attacks in advance and to closely coordinate and execute simultaneous acts by geographically separated parties. While there is no available evidence of such acts being directed against US nuclear facilities, multiple thefts of Category II material could result in the accumulation of a quantity of material of high strategic significance.

The proposed amendments would increase physical protection requirements for those Category II licensees who possess SSNM, including those licensees who possess a formula quantity but implement only Category II requirements because their fuel is irradiated to at least 100 rem /hr at three feet. The amendments also limit the use of the 100 rem /hr exemption to a reduction of one physical protection category with no reduction below the requirements of low strategic significance (Category

, III). In addition, minor conforming amendments are also being proposed for Parts 2 and 70.

The alternatives considered were requiring improvements for only one or two of the three major functions of the security system and continuing with status quo.

The benefit of the proposed rule is that it is designed to make the measures used to protect Category II quantities of high enriched uranium, plutonium, and uranium-233 more resistant to attempted theft of material by external adversaries as well as by a single internal adversary. The proposed requirements will result in an estimated cost of $6,700 to $11,600 to each affected licensee initially and $1,600 to $2,900 annually thereafter.

About 0.8 staff years will be expended in completing the proposed rule.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Rule for Division Review 08/30/85 Office Concurrence on Proposed Rule Completed 11/20/85 Proposed Rule Package to E00 07/31/86 Proposed Rule to Commission 08/31/86 Final Action Published 12/00/86 87

TITLE:

Security Requirements for Category II Material at Fixed Sites LEGAL AUTHORITY:

-42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 i

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTIT!iS: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Carl Withee Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4768 i

i i

I C

I l

88 o

TITLE:

+ Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Nuclear Regulatory Commission Programs CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 4 1

ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would provide for the enforcement of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicap, in programs or activities conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The proposed rule would make it unlawful for the NRC to discriminate, on the basis of handicap, in employment or the conduct of its activities. The proposed rule would place the same obligations on the NRC that are placed on the recipients of Federal financial assistance.

TIMETABLE:

Final Action 06/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2021; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 29 USC 794; 29 USC 706 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

. Edward E. Tucker Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization Civil Rights Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7697 l

1 89

1 TITLE:

+ Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex - Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as Amended CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 4 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would implement the provisions of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The proposed rule sets out the requirements necessary to comply with the legislation and the procedures to be followed by appropriate officials within the NRC in enforcing the requirements. The requirements of the proposed rule would apply to each recipient of Federal financial assistance from the NRC.

TIMETABLE:

Final Action 06/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 20 USC 1681; 20 USC 1682; 20 USC 1683; 20 USC 1685; 20 USC 1686 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Edward E. Tucker

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization Civil Rights Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7697 l

l 90 l

TITLE:

Retention Periods for Records CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 4; 10 CFR 11; 10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 25; 10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 31; 10 CFR 32; 10 CFR 34; 10 CFR 35; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; l 10 CFR 60; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 71; ...

ABSTRACT:

i This proposed rule would establish a specific retention period for certain NRC-required records. It would also provide a uniform standard acceptable to the NRC for the condition of a record throughout a specified retention period. Further, the rule would establish throughout NRC regulations, with some exceptions, uniform retention periods of three years, five years, ten years, and the life of a license. This rule would bring NRC regulations into compliance with the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR 1320.6) that requires a specified retention period for each required record. It also implements NRC's 1982 commitment to 0MB to establish a record retention period of determinable length for each required record.

Amending twenty one parts of NRC regulations to specify clearly what records to retain, how long to retain them, and the condition of a record useful for NRC inspection, will be mutually beneficial to applicants and licensees and to the NRC.

Recordkeeping labor for NRC's approximately 6,700 licensees who would be affected by the rule can be divided into four functions: (1)preparingthereport,(2)storingthereport,(3) files, and (4) retrieving the report information.

The principal savings to the licensee, dispersed over the period licensed, would be in physical storage space and associated storage equipment and materials. The burden of recordkeeping would be reduced approximately 10 percent annually for these licensees by the proposed rule. An estimated 466,323 hours0.00374 days <br />0.0897 hours <br />5.340608e-4 weeks <br />1.229015e-4 months <br /> associated with recordkeeping or $28,000,000 annually would be saved. Preparing and publishing this rule would cost NRC approximately 500 hours0.00579 days <br />0.139 hours <br />8.267196e-4 weeks <br />1.9025e-4 months <br /> of staff time at $60 per hour for an estimated total of $30,000.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Rule for Division Review 01/00/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Rule Completed 03/00/86 Proposed Rule Package to ED0 07/00/86 Proposed Rule Published 07/00/86 Final Action Published 08/00/87 .

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 91

W TITLE:

Retention Periods for Records EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

R. Stephen Scott Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Office of Administration Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8585 4

i i

1 j

l J

1 l

)

92 i

TITLE Disposal of Low-Level Radioactively Contaminated Waste Oil from Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule, which is in partial response to a petition filed by Edison Electric Institute and Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (PRM-20-15) would amend NRC regulations to specify the criteria and limits to allow on-site incineration of waste oil. Currently, the only approved disposal method for low-level radioactively contaminated waste oil from nuclear power plants involves absorption or solidification, transportation to, and burial at a licensed disposal site. There is an urgent need for alternative disposal methods which are inost cost-effective i from a radiological health and safety standpoint and, at the same time, conserve limited disposal capacity at low-level waste burial sites. Both the public and industry, increased savings to ratepayers without undue risk to the public health, and l

conservation of limited disposal capacity at low-level waste burial sites. Alternatives to rulemaking are to maintain the status quo or to wait until the Environmental Protection Agency develops Federal guidance on acceptable levels of residual radioactivity which may be released on an unrestricted basis.

There would be an estimated industry-wide economic savings of approximately $1.3 million to $2.6 million per year. It is estimated that approximately 0.3 person years of NRC staff time will be required to process this proposed rule.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action for Division Review 06/00/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 07/00/86 Proposed Action to ED0 08/00/86 Proposed Action Published 10/30/86 Final Action Published 12/31/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Don F. Harmon Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4566 93

TITLE:

+ Residual Radioactive Contamination Limits for Decommissioning CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would establish residual radioactive contamination limits (including induced and other volumetric radioactivity as well as removable and fixed surface contamination) which must be met before structures and lands can be released on an unrestricted, unregulated basis. Structures and lands with residual radioactive contamination below these limits would be eligible for unrestricted release without regulatory restrictions from a radioactivity standpoint.

The proposed amendments are necessary to provide licensees with quantitative criteria to use during decommissioning relative to cleanup of structures and lands intended to ensure that structures and lands used in NRC licensed facilities and 3

activities will be decontaminated in a manner that adequately protects public health before being released on an unrestricted,

unregulated basis.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action for Division Review 03/15/87 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 08/15/87 Proposed Action to ED0 11/01/87 Proposed Action Published 01/01/88 Final Action 01/01/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

i 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Undetermined AGENCY CONTACT:

Don F. Harmon Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4566 94 i

TITLE:

+ Posting Requiren,ents for the Protection of Contractor Employees and Extension of Criminal Penalties CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 21 l

! ABSTRACT:

! The proposed rule would combine the Extension of Criminal l Penalties and Protection of Employees Who Provide Information i into the above titled proposed rule. The proposed rule would l require the posting of the provisions of section 223 (b) of the l Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act which notify any individual director, officer, and employee of a firm constructing or supplying the components of a nuclear power plant of the provisions of section 223(b) and 210.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Rule for Division Review 05/00/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Rule Completed 07/00/86 Proposed Rule Package to ED0 09/00/86 Proposed Rule Published 09/00/86 Final Action Published 09/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Stanley P. Turel Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatcry Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7925 95

,_ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ __ __ _ . . . . ~ _

i TITLE:

+ Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance i CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

This proposed rule would amend Part 21 and sec. 50.55(e) both of which require the reporting of safety defects by licensees. This 4 effort was prompted by TMI Action Plan Task II,J.4 and has as its main objectives: (1) elimination of duplicate reporting among all requirements, (2) consistent reporting among all reporting 4

requirements, (3) establishment of uniform and clear definitions for defects which need to be reported, (4) establishment of

uniform time limits within which a defect must be reported and evaluated and, (5) establishment of uniform content for reporting

~

of defects.

j Approximately 450 to 500 reports are issued annually under Part i 21 and sec. 50.55 (e) respectively. The reports identify plant-specific safety concerns and potential generic safety

! concerns for further NRC followup. These reports form the basis

for numerous NRC bulletins and information notices.

1

!; This proposed rulemaking will reduce the potential for duplicate reporting and evaluation that now exists and will

establish a more coherent regulatory framework that is expected i to reduce industry and NRC burden in this area without

! sacrificing safety effectiveness.

} Alternatives to this approach varied from establishment of a

! single rule for all reporting to maintaining a status quo for

! defect reporting. All alternatives were rejected since they would

, not result in any substantial improvement to the present regulatory framework.

Current costs of reporting under Part 21 and section 50.55 (e)

', are estimated at $12,400,000 annually for industry and $2,900,

! 000 annually for NRC-evaluations . It is anticipated that industry reporting burden with the proposed rulemaking will be l reduced by 36,800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br /> or $2,208,000 while NRC burden should be j increased by $100,000. Additional burden to industry and NRC, i

while minimal, is anticipated in the areas of adherence to time schedules, and enforcement,.recordkeeping respectively.

t i TIMETABLE:

1 Proposed Rule for Division Review 05/00/85 l Office Concurrence on Proposed Rule Completed 06/05/85

! Proposed Rule Package to EDO 11/18/85

! Proposed Rule to Connission 12/16/85 l Next Scheduled Action Undetermined 96

TITLE:

+ Proposed Revisions ~to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2282; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Rabindra N. Singh Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4149 l

l 97

TITLE:

+ Adjustment to Fee Schedule Publication CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 25 ABSTRACT:

The final rule revises current regulatory requirements regarding the frequency of formal publication of changes to the Access Authorization Fees charged by NRC. Currently, section 25.17 states that revised fees will be published in the Federal Register during July of each year. A more accurate and efficient regulatory requirement would be to revise the access authorization fee schedule concurrent with the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) notification to NRC of its background investigation rate changes since NRC's fees are wholly dependent on the rate charged by OPM. This rulemaking will keep the public and industry promptly informed of current fees while at the same time decrease, to the fullest extent possible, unnecessary future NRC rulemaking requirements. There is no additional burden or cost to the public or industry resulting from this rulemaking. The savings to NRC per year are estimated to be $13,200. NRC resources needed for rule-making are estimated at less than .1 FTE.

TIMETABLE:

Final Action for Division Review 04/00/86 Office Concurrence on Final Rule Completed 04/00/86 Final Action Package to ED0 05/00/86 Final Action Published 06/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2165; 42 USC 5841; 31 USC 9701 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No i AGENCY CONTACT:

l Richard A. Dopp Nuclear Regulatory Comission i Office of Administration l Washington, DC 20555 l 301 492-4124 l

98

TITLE:

+ Licensing of Sources and Devices CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 32; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would require applicants for a license to manufacture or distribute sealed sources or devices that contain sealed sources to submit specific radiation safety information for NRC consideration and approval before they begin marketing products containing the sources or  !

devices. The proposed rule would establish consistent procedures concerning the pre-marketing approval of products containing sources and devices. The proposed action is necessary because current NRC regulations clearly require pre-market approval for certain products but are less clear regarding pre-market approval for other products. By resulting in improved communication with manufacturers and distributors, the proposed rule would result in the timely and efficient consideration of radiation safety features thereby reducing administrative costs to the licensee, the product user, and the NRC.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action for Division Review 08/00/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action 12/00/86 .

Proposed Action to EDO 01/00/87 Proposed Action Published 03/00/87  ;

Final Action Published 12/00/87 l LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2071; 42 USC 2092 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:

Vandy L. Miller Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4002 99

TITLE:

+ Informal Hearing Procedures for Materials Licenses Proceedings CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 32; 10 CFR 33; 10 CFR 34; 10 CFR 35; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 71; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 72.

ABSTRACT:

This proposed rule, being prepared at Conmission direction would provide comprenensive treatment of hearing procedures to be implemented by the Commission for materials licensing proceedings. In addition, the proposed rule would encompass the objective of the proposed rule, " Jurisdiction of Adjudicatory Boards," identified as 3150-AA53 which is being deleted from OMB's Unified Agenda. 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:

NPRM 06/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2111 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Paul Bollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-3224 l

100

TITLE:

+ Bankruptcy Filing; Notification Requirements CFP, CITATION:

10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CF'R 61; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would require licensees to notify the appropriate regional office of the NRC in the event of a bankruptcy proceeding involving the licensee. There is no action required of a licensee by these amendments unless and until a bankruptcy petition is filed.

Notification of the NRC in cases of bankruptcy would alert the Commission so that it may deal with potential hazards to the public health and safety posed by a licensee that does not have the resources to properly handle licensed radioactive material or clean up possible contamination. Instances have occurred in which materials licensees have filed for bankruptcy and NRC has not generally been aware of this.

The net overall impact on industry of this rule should be negligible since this rule only consists of one additional notification beyond that already required by the United States Code and that is simply a notification of NRC by mail. The net effect on NRC should be a reduction in staff resources since it would put NRC in a better reactive mode for proceeding with necessary enforcement actions.

The benefit of the rule is that it will assist in protection of the public health and safety by reducing the risk of radiation exposure to the public and workers by enabling NRC to be aware of potential licensee problems in handling and disposing of radioactive materials caused by severe economic problems.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action for Division Review 02/06/86 Office Concurrence on Prconsed Action Completed 04/20/86 Proposed Action to EDO 04/30/86 Proposed Action Published 05/15/86 Final Action Published 04/30/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:

Frank Cardile Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7815 101

TITLE:

+ Financial Responsibility Standards for Long Term Care for Low Level Waste Disposai Sites CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule is designed to provide standards to ensure that each licensee responsible for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste possesses an adequate bond, surety, or other financial arrangement to insure completion of all requirements established by the Commission for decontamination, decommissioning, and site closure. Section 151 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act authorizes the NRC to develop standards for financial arrangements for low-level radioactive waste site closure. Comments on the NPRM will define the nature and scope of the action.

TIMETABLE:

Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 10171 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

John Surmeier Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4404 t

l l

l 102

TITLE:

• Requirements for Possession of Industrial Gauges CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 31 ABSTRACT:

The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeks comment on NRC's intent to modify its requirements concerning the possession of industrial gauges that are used to make hazardous or inconvenient measurements.

Because some gauges have been improperly maintained, improperly transferred, or inadvertently discarded, the NRC believes that additional measures are necessary to avoid potential radiation exposure and the expenses that are incurred when it becomes necessary to retrieve manufactured items that have been fabricated from contaminated material. The NRC is considering a reporting program under which a gauge user would periodically report that a gauge is still in use or to whom the gauge has been transferred.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 11/30/85 NPRM 07/31/86 FINAL ACTION 01/31/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2114; 42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESSES AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:

Norman L. McElroy Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4108 103

__________ l

TITLE:

+ Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Exposure Devices CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 34 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would amend the present regulations to establish performance standards for industrial radiography exposure devices. Overexposures of radiographers (and occasionally the general public) are more than double that of other radiation workers and have been a concern to the NRC for some time. Approximately 25-35% of the radiography overexposures are associated with equipment malfunction. The issue of safety requirements for these devices is a primary concern since the devices use relatively high intensity, high energy gamma-ray emitting sources with the potential for serious overexposures.

Although a consensus standard for radiographic exposure devices was published in 1981, (American National Standard. N432) it is not clear that all manufacturers are adopting the standard. The alternatives considered were to take no action at this time, adopt the consensus standard in the regulations, endorsing the consensus standard by a regulatory guide, and endorsing the consensus standard by reference in the regulatiens along with such other performance standards deemed necessary and simultaneously issuing a regulatory guide in support of the proposed regulation.

The proposed rule would require licensees to modify radiographic devices to meet the performance standards through design changes and quality control procedures. Costs of incorporating the proposed standards are estimated to be of the order of $250,000 per year or approximately $230.00 per year per licensee. Determination of the monetary value of the benefits gained are difficult, but in view of the potential hazards involved in radiography incidents, the safety benefits far outweigh the costs involved. NRC resources required for processing this rule to final publication are estimated to be 0.4 person-years.

TIMETABLE:

l Proposed Action for Division Review 05/30/86 l Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 07/23/86 Proposed Action to ED0 08/08/86 Proposed Action Published 09/15/86 Final Action Published 12/31/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes I

104 l

l

TITLE:

Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Exposure Devices i AGENCY CONTACT:

Donald O. Nellis Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4588 l

105

TITLE:

+ Broad Scope Modification of General Design Criterion 4 Requirements For Protection Against Dynamic Effects of Postulated Pipe Ruptures CFR CITATION:

4 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The proposed broad scope modification of General Design Criterion 4 (GDC 4) would allow demonstration of piping integrity by i analyses to serve as a basis for excluding consideration of i dynamic effects associated with pipe ruptures. A proposed rule

! published July 1, 1985 (50 FR 27006) was limited to the primary loops of pressurized water reactors (PWRs), whereas this proposed rule would cover all high energy piping in all light water reactors (LWRs). The modification will permit the general but selective removal of pipe whip restraints and jet impingement shields from operating plants, plants under construction and ,

i future plant designs, but will not impact other design requirements.

The only alternatives to rulemaking would be the granting of partial exemptions to GDC 4 or reinterpretation of the text of a the existing rule. The staff has, however expressed that i extensive use of exemptions to authorize the elimination of pipe whip restraints is inappropriate. Therefore, it appears most '

appropriate to undertake rulemaking at this time.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Rule for Division Review 05/03/85

Office Concurrence on Proposed Rule Completed 10/28/85 Proposed Rule Package to ED0 04/00/86 Proposed Rule Published 07/00/86 Final Action Published 12/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY

( 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

John A. O'Brien Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7854 l 106 l

l l

I

TITLE:

+ Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to clarify its regulations on the use of the terms "important to safety" and

" safety related" by adding two new definitions to 10 CFR Part 50 and by discussing how these definitions will be applied in NRC licensing reviews. Significant issues concerning the meaning of these terms as they are used in.this part have arisen in Commission licensing proceedings. This proposed rule would define these terms and clarify the nature and extent of their effect on quality assurance requirements, thereby resolving these issues.

The rulemaking should not impact licensees or the public because it clarifies existing requirements. The additional burden on NRC to prepare and implement this rule will be very nominal because current practices will not be changed.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Rule for Division Review 02/21/85 Office Cor.currence on Proposed Rule Completed 03/20/85 Proposed Rule Package to ED0 04/04/85 Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Edward T. Baker Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4874 107

TITIE:

+ Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50, Appendix J ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would update and revise the 1973 criteria for preoperational and periodic pressure testing for leakage of primary containment boundaries of water-cooled power reactors Problems have developed in application and interpretation of the existing rule. These result from changes in testing technology, test criteria, and a relevant national standard that needs to be recognized. It is proposed to revise the rule as noted to make it current and improve its usefulness.

The revision is urgently needed to resolve continuing conflicts between licensees and NRC inspectors over interpretations, current regulatory practice which is no longer being reflected accurately by the existing rule, and endorsement in the existing regulation of an obsolete national standard that was replaced in 1981.

The benefits anticipated include elimination of inconsistencies and obsolete requirements, and the addition of greater usefulness and a higher confidence in the leak-tight integrity of containment system boundaries under post-loss of coolant accident conditions. The majority of the effort needed by NRC to issue the rule has already been expended.

Still remaining are presentation of the proposed rule for public comment and integration of appropriate public comments.

A detailed analysis of costs, benefits, and occupational exposures is available in the Public Document Room, and indicates possible savings to industry of $14 million to $300 million and an increase in occupational exposure of less than one percent per year per plant due to increased testing.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action to ED0 03/31/86 Proposed Action Published 07/00/86 Final Action Published 04/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 108

TITLE:

Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors AGENCY CONTACT:

Gunter Arndt Nuclear Regulatory Commission

' Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7893 l

l I

i 4

109 l

TITLE:

+ Radon 222 Estimate for Table S-3 CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 51 ABSTRACT:

In a Federal Register notice published on April 14, 1978, the Comission deleted the radon-222 value from Table S-3 because it was recognized to be underestimated. Pending rulemaking action to provide a new estimate for radon-222 in Table S-3, the environmental effects of radon are subject to litigation in individual nuclear power plant licensing proceedings. The proposed rule was to deal with this question generically for all nuclear power plants; however, the NRC does not expect to receive applications for new nuclear power plant licenses within the near future, and certain regulatory issues related to radon have not yet been resolved.

The Comission directed the staff to combine the radon rulemaking with the final rule to add the narrative explanation for Table S-3 and, also to incorporate the chanaes to add a technetium-99 estimate to Table S-3.

This would complete Table S-3 and would remove all environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle from further consideration and litigation in individual nuclear power plant licensing cases. However, the final rule cannot be formulated until EPA completes the development of additional radon standards which are scheduled to be issued about the middle of 1986, and the Commission completes its review of ALAB-701, which is being held in abeyance for the completion of EPA's radon standards and for further resolution of the de minimis argument concerning the effects of exposure to low levels of Ediation. The Comission staff has recommended that the Table S-3 rulemaking be discontinued until needed for review for new reactor license applications.

TIMETABLE:

EPA's New Radon Standards Promulgated 10/07/84 E00 Approved Staff Recomendation to Discontinue Rulemaking 11/29/85 Final Action (Comission Paper to ED0) 05/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

William E. Thompson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-9024 110

TITLE:

• Degree Requirement for Senior Operators at Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 55 ABSTRACT:

The Commission is considering an amendment to its regulations to require, after January 1,1991, that applicants for licenses as j a Senior Operator of a nuclear power plant hold a baccalaureate j degree in engineering or a related science from an accredited

institution. Other baccalaureate degrees from an accredited l institution may be accepted on a case-by-case basis. This contemplated rulemaking action is due to a Commission decision to enhance the levels of engineering and accident management expertise on shift. The current requirement, for candidates with a baccalaureate degree, of two years of responsible nuclear power plant operating experience, would be amended to require one year of operating experience on a like commercial nuclear reactor operating at greater that twenty percent power. The Commission is also considering issuing a policy statement concurrently with this rule related to utility implementation of the rule.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 05/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS: No AGENCY CONTACT:

F. H. Rowsome Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4813 111

TITLE:

+ Part 51; Conforming Amendments CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would provide procedures for performing an environmental review of High Level Waste geologic repositories.

Part 51 contair:s no provisions for the environmental review of a license applicstion for a HLW repository. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established requirements for environmental reviews which tre at variance with the environmental review which NRC perform in licensing other types of nuclear facilities. This issue must be 'iddressed 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. Alternatives are to take no action, issue an ANPRM, or ask Congress for additional legislation.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Rule for Division Review 01/15/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 01/15/86 Proposed Action to ED0 07/01/86 Proposed Action Published 10/01/86 Final Action Published 06/01/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

James R. Wolfe Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8694 l

l l

112

TITLE:

+ Elimination of Inconsistencies between NRC Regulations and EPA Standards CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 directs NRC to promulgate criteria for the licensing of HLW geologic repositories. By section 121 (c), these criteria must not be inconsistent with standards to be developed by EPA for the disposal of HLW in deep geologic repositories. This proposed rule is needed in order to eliminate several inconsistent'es with the EPA standards, thus fulfilling the statutory requirement. The EPA Standard is scheduled to be promulgated in August, 1985. The alternative is to ask Congress to amend the NWPA. The public, industry, and NRC will benefit from eliminating inconsistencies in Federal HLW regulations.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Rule for Division Review 12/15/85 Office Concurrence on Proposed Rule Completed 02/28/86 Proposed Rule Package to ED0 03/15/86 Proposed Rule Published 06/01/86 Final Action Published 01/15/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 -

301 427-4586 113 i I

TITLE:

+ Definition of High-Level Radioactive Waste (HLW) in 10 CFR Part 60 CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:

This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeks to revise the definition of HLW in Part 60 to reflect certain changes in the legal definition of HLW contained in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Because of the complex issues involved in revising the definition of HLW, which affects virtually the entire radioactive waste management system, the staff is proposing an ANPRM rather than a proposed rule. A revision of the definition of HLW would affect DOE's plans for a geologic repository, State plans for regional compacts to manage low-level waste, Federal vs. State responsibility for some above Class C wastes, costs of waste disposal for certain waste generators, and the development of new technologies and facilities to dispose of certain types of wastes. A definition of HLW which reduces uncertainty about responsibility for different types of wastes would benefit the radioactive waste management system. NRC staff time for processing this rule is estimated to be 4 staff years.

Alternatives to rulemaking would be to take no action or request Congress to amend the NWPA. The rulemaking would eliminate uncertainty and reduce costs for the public, industry, and NRC.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action for Division Review 07/00/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 09/00/86 Proposed Action to ED0 11/00/86 Proposed Action Published 01/00/87 Final Action Published 12/00/87 i

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 10101 l EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 i 301 427-4586 l

114

TITLE:

+ Special Nuclear Material Physical Inventory Summary Reports CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 70 ABSTRACT:

With this proposed rule, previously entitled " Material Status Reports", the NRC is amending its regulations on special nuclear material control and accounting to require the reporting of summary results of physical inventories. These amendments would codify reporting of physical inventory data that has been provided voluntarily by licensees since.1975.

Since the affected licensees are already supplying this information voluntarily, there will be not additional costs to these licensees.

i TIMETABLE:

l- Proposed Rule for Division Review 01/25/85 Office Concurrence on Proposed Rule Completed 10/30/85 Proposed Rule Package to ED0 01/31/86 Proposed Rule Published Undetermined Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Sandra Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4368 115 4

TITLE:

+ Rule to Amend the Transportation Provisions Pertaining to the Shipment of Low Specific Activity (LSA) Material CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 71 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would define two classes of LSA materials with specified shipping or packaging requirements. The two classes represent a consolidation of five classes of LSA materials and surface contaminated objects (SCO) now in the 1985 regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In addition, the proposed rule provides special consideration for the inherent safety associated with the shipment of solid, nonflammable objects which are not dispersible in water. A new requirement of the amended rule would impose a dose rate limit on LSA materials.

This requirement, which is philosophically consistent with the proposed IAEA regulations, is considered necessary to keep current and future LSA shipments within the envelope of safety originally conceived for such materials. This proposed rule would be responsive to PRM-71-1, PRM-71-2 and PRM-71-4. A new regulatory analysis is currently being developed by the staff which evaluated the financial impacts of having to close heavily traveled roads as a result of a large spill of LSA material.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Rule for Division Review 06/30/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Rule Completed 08/29/86 Proposed Rule Package to ED0 10/31/86 Proposed Rule Published 11/28/86 Final Action Published 05/31/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; j 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:

Donald R. Hopkins Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7878 l

1 l

116

TITLE:

+ Nuclear Regulatory Commission Acquisition Regulations CFR CITATION:

48 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would implement and supplement 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) System and specify those agency policies, procedures, contract clauses, solicitation provisions, and forms governing the contracting process. In publishing the proposed rule, the NRC will comply with P.L.98-577 and the FAR 1.303 which requires that agency regulations be published in the Federal Register and codified in 48 CFR. The proposed rule will enable prospective contractors to become familiar with NRC contracting regulations and enable the preparation of contractual documents which protect the interest of the NRC. NRC resources needed for this rulemaking are estimated at 1,120 staff hours at an estimated cost of $67,200.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Rule for Division Review 10/31/85 Office Concurrence on Proposed Rule Completed 05/02/86 Proposed Rule Package to E00 01/31/86 Proposed Rule Published 05/30/86 Final Action Published 09/30/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No

, AGENCY CONTACT:

( Edward L. Halman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4210 117

TITLE:

+ Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 110 ABSTRACT:

The final rule amends regulations pertaining to the export of nuclear material by requiring certain holders of export licenses to notify the Commission in writing at least 40 days prior to reexporting Canadian-origin nuclear material or equipment, expanding the general license for byproduct material to allow the export of Americium-241 contained in industrial process control equipment, and to update the list of countries in the provisions setting out restricted destinations. The final rule is necessary to implement portions of the United States /

Canada Agreement for Cooperation, to correct an oversight in the current regulations, and to continue the policy of facilitating nuclear cooperation with countries sharing the non-proliferation goals of the United States.

TIMETABLE:

Final Action 04/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 2153 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: N/A AGENCY CONTACT:

Elaine 0. Hemby Nuclear Regulatory Commission g Office of International Programs Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7984 1

118

(A) - Petitions incorporated into final rules or petitions denied since December 31, 1985 i

}

- - - -- m -a ----m - m'~ - --_ , ,- - - - s I

i l

I A

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-20-16 PETITIONER: A. N. Tschaeche PART: 20 OTHER AFFECTED PART(S): NONE FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: May 5, 1986 (51 FR 16535)

SUBJECT:

Claims of Negligence - Radiation Injury Cases

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to state that full compliance with the Commission's regulations is evidence acceptable in a court of law that the licensee was not negligent, and that the Commision's regulations must be violated before a prima facie case is pleaded on the issues of negligence and causa-tion in any action to recover for injuries claimed to have resulted from exposure to ionizing radiation. The petitioner further states that there is no evidence that demonstrates any harm to an individual or group of individuals, whether they be workers or members of the general public, from activities licensed by the NRC when those activities are performed in accordance with NRC regulations.

Objective. To clearly tell the public that it should have no concerns if the NRC's regulations are followed, to reassure licensees that their compliance with regulations is sufficient to protect them against the claim of negli-gence in situations covt:ad by those regulations, and to demonstrate that the NRC intends compliance with its regulations to constitute the absence of negligence.

Background. The comment period expires TIMETABLE: Complete. Petition denied May 5, 1986 (51 FR 16535)

CONTACT: William J. Olmstead Office of the Executive Legal Director (301) 492-7203 119

(B) - Petitions incorporated into proposed rules l

l

.m l

1 1

I

(

I l

l l

i i

l l

l t

l I i

l I

i l

t I

i B

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-34-3 PETITIONER: Chicago Bridge and Iron Company PART: 34 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: November 23, 1982 (49 FR 52722)

SUBJECT:

Final Radiation Survey of a Radiographic Exposure Device

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner proposed an amendment that would require the licensee to survey and record the survey results whenever the exposure device was placed in storage. This is in addition to the survey made at the l end of each exposure. Based on comments received on the petition, the staff agrees that this change should be made.

The prespnt 934.11(d) requires that the licensee conduct an in-house' inspection of radiographers and radiography 1 assistants every 3 months. The current regulation is not  !

specific and a clarification of this section is needed.

Objective. To rcquire that a licensee survey an expcsure-device after it is placed in storage and record the results of the survey.

Background. A proposed rule addressing these subjects was published October 4, 1984 (49 FR 39168). The comment period expired November 18, 1984.

TIMETABLE: The final rule is scheduled to be published in May 1986.

CONTACT: Alan K. Roecklein Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-427-4358 121

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-35-2 PETITIONER: The American Association of Physicists in Medicine PART: 35 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: January 29, 1982 (47 FR 4311)

SUBJECT:

Intervals Between Required Dosimetry System Calibrations

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner proposes that the Commission amend its regulations to permit a longer interval between required calibrations of teletherapy dosimetry systems.

Current regulations require calibration by the National Bureau of Standards or an accredited Regional Calibration Laboratory every two years. The petitioner indicates that the waiting period for instrument calibration is currently about six months and is expected to increase, and that dosimetry systems do not have to be calibrated that frequently.

Objective. The petitioner proposes a regulation that would allow a longer interval between calibrations while providing for suitable dosimetry system constancy checks. The petitioner's proposed alternative is intended to reduce the six-month waiting period for instrument calibration without adversely affecting dosimetry system reliability.

Background. The comment period closed March 30, 1982. The staff met with representatives of the National Bureau of Standards on January 21, 1982, to discuss the extent of and reasons for the instrument calibration backlog. Pending final resolution, affected licensees will receive relief in the form of case-by-case variances. Medical licensees may benefit by not having to have dosimetry equipment calibrated so frequently. In response to the petition, a proposed rule, similar to that suggested in the petition, is being incorporated into a proposed revision of 10 CFR Part 35,

" Medical Use of Byproduct Material", which was published for public coment on July 26, 1985 (50 FR 30616); NRC resources are noted there. The comment period for this proposed rule closed Novembe 18, 1985.

122 l

l l

I l

TIMETABLE: The final rule is scheduled to be published about November 1986.. Action to complete the petition for rulemaking will follow.

CONTACT: Norman L. McElroy >

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards /

301-427-4108

/

I e

123

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-22 PETITIONER: Public Interest Research Group, et al.

PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: August 8, 1977 (42 FR 40063)

SUBJECT:

Decomissioning of Nuclear Power Plants

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request that the Comission amend its regulations to require nuclear plant operators to post bonds before each plant's operation to ensure that funds will be available for isolation of radioactive material upon decomissioning. The petitioners state that their proposal would ensure that power companies which operate reactors, rather than future generations, bear the cost of decomissioning. The petitioners also request that the Comission amend its regulations to require that operators of nuclear power plants already in operation be required to establish plans and immediately post bonds to insure proper decomissioning.

Objective. Since decomissioning will not occur until after the 40-year operating license has expired and may require substantial expense for years thereafter, the petitioners seek to ensure that companies which are now financially stable continue to have the capacity to pay decomissioning costs when necessary.

Background. The original comment period closed October 7, 1977, but was extended to January 3, 1978. Sixty-two coments were received, a majority of which oppose the petition. A notice denying the petition in part was peblished in the Federal Register on June 22, 1979 (44 FR 35523). The partial denial covered that part of the petition seeking an immediate rulemaking requiring the posting of surety bonds. Other issues and funding alternatives raised in the petition have been incorporated into the ongoing rulemaking on decomis-sioning criteria for nuclear facilities. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking for that proceeding was published on March 13, 1978 (43 FR 10370), and the proposed rule was published February 11, 1985 (50 FR 5600). The coment period for this proposed rule ended July 12, 1985.

TIMETABLE: Comission action on the final rule is scheduled for October 1987.

CONTACT: Catherine Mattsen Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7661 124

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-71-1, PRM-71-2, PRM-71-4 PETITIONER: Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA)/D0E (PRM-71-1)

American National Standaf ds Inst. Committee N14 (PRM-71-2)

Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. (PRM-71-4)

PART: 71 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: PRM-71-1, September 22, 1975 (40 FR 43517);

PRM-71-2, Ariril 15, 1976 (41 FR 15921); and PRM-71-4, January 27, 1977 (42 FR 5149).

SUBJECT:

Exemption of " Low Specific Activity Material" from the Requirements of Part 71

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners requested that the Commission amend its regulations at Q@71.7 and 71.10 to exempt " low specific activity material," as defined in 971.4(g), from the requirements of Part 71. The petitioners stated that the Department of Transportation (D0T) Hazardous Materials Regulations, 49 CFR 170-189, provide a specific exemption for " low specific activity material" in which these materials are exempted from the normal packaging requirements.

Petitioners further stated that this exemption would make Part 71 more consistent with both the 1967 regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and with the 1972 revised edition of the IAEA regulations.

Objective. To exempt " low specific activity material" from the packaging requirements of 10 CFR Part 71 to achieve compatibility among the regulations of the NRC, DOT, and IAEA.

.y<:kground. Comments were received on these petitions over e 9eriod of one and one-half years. Altogether, five favorable comments were received. In Jul Commission approved a proposed revision (y 1979, theSECY-79-192) to the NRC transportation regulations in 10 CFR Part 71 to make them more compatible with those of the IAEA, including the requested revision to 571.7 to exempt " low specific activity material" from the requirements of Part 71. The proposed rule change was published in the Federal Register on August 17, 1979 (44 FR 48234). During the development of the final rule, however, the transportation program office (NMSS) reversed its earlier decision to exempt " low i

125

5 specific activity material" from Part 71 until a deficiency in the rule is corrected and directed that action on the petitions be delayed until a new rulemaking action is initiated to correct the deficiency. That new proposed rule is scheduled for completion by November 1986.

TIMETABLE: Commission action on the petition is scheduled for May 1987, when the final " low specific activity" rule is scheduled to be published.

CONTACT: Donald R. Hopkins Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7878 4

126

_n a-- - .--

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-73-2 PETITIONER: Wisconsin Electric Power Company, et al.

PART: 73 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: September 15, 1977 (42 FR 46431)

SUBJECT:

Elimination of " Pat Down" Physical Searches of Individuals at Nuclear Power Plants i

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request elimination of the

requirement for " pat down" physical searches of individuals i enteriim a protected area of a nuclear power plant. The petitioners contend that the requirement is unnecessary in g that comparable highly sensitive facilities such as those used to store nuclear weapons do not have such a requirement.

The petitioners state that their petition would permit " pat

, down" searches and that individuals entering a protected area would be put on notice that they are subject to these searches. Existing requirements for the use of detection equipment would not be affected. The petition includes proposed amendatory text to Part 73. The petitioners also have submitted a memorandum in support of the petition.

Objective. To eliminate the requirement for " pat down" physical searches of individuals entering a protected area of a nuclear power plant.

Background. The comment period closed October 17, 1977.

Approximately 100 comments were received. Eighty comments were from utilities and supported the petition. The other 20 disagreed with the petition. Currently effective regulations require, in part, that licensees conduct physical " pat down" searches of their employees and other persons before allowing them to enter a protected area of a power reactor facility. However, NRC has extended to i licensees relief from this requirement while a proposed rulemaking proceeding in physical searches is conducted.

The most recent notice granting a continuation of this relief was published in the Federal Register on December 1, 1980 (45 FR 79492). The Commission notified the petitioner that action on the petition has been delayed pending resolution of the rulemaking proceeding to modify require-ments for physical searches at nuclear power plants.

Implementation of the proposed revised pat-down search rule would not represent any increased costs to individual licensees.

127 r n ,

TIMETABLE: Commission action on the petition for rulemaking is pending issuance of the final rule on pat-down searches. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on August 1, 1984 (49 FR 30738), and the comment period for the rule was extended to March 7, 1985 (49 FR 48200). Publication of the the final rule is scheduled for June 1986.

Publication of resolution of this petition is scheduled for August 1986.

CONTACT: Kristina Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301 427-4754 9

128

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-73-3 PETITIONER: KMC, Inc., et al.

PART: 73- l OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: July 10, 1978 (43 FR 29635)

SUBJECT:

Physical Security Requirements at Nuclear Power Plants l

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests amendment of 973.55 l to include a statement that, if a nuclear power reactor licensee meets the specific requirements for physical protection against an insider threat, as provided for in the Commission's regulations, a licensee will also meet the general-performance requirements for physical protection

! provided in 973.55. The petitioner contends that while 573.55(a) permits licensees to suggest alternative measures that would achieve equivalent levels of physical protection, experience has shown that these proposed alternatives have

not been accepted by the NRC staff. The' petitioner states that the NRC has required additional features, beyond the

, requirements in 673.55, to meet the general performance

! requirements for physical security protection.

Specifically, the petitioner requests amendment of l paragraph (a)(2) of 973.55 that provides requirements for protection against " insider" threat (that is, a threat i from an individual inside_a plant, including an employee of the utility). The requested change would state that a utility that meets the specific requirements in

, paragraphs (b) through (h) of 573.55 would satisfy the general performance requirements for physical security in 573.55. The petitioner provides specific amendatory language in the petition and also has submitted a memorandum in support of the petition.

Objective. To limit NRC staff from imposing on utilities additional requirements for physical security protection above those requirements in 573.55 by stating that a utility, when it satisfies the specific requirements for ,

physical protection against an insider threat (as provided

' in the Commission's regulations), will also meet the

! general performance requirements for physical protection

against an insider threat.

Background. The comment period closed September 8, 1978.

t Four comments on the petition were received. On November 11, 1978, the NRC notified the petitioner that action on the petition would be delayed because the currently effective physical security requirements in $73.55 were under review.

129

-- - .--- - - .- - . _,.. - - - - ,.- =_- - .. - - ,_ -

The NRC has extended to licensees partial relief from the physical security requirements in G73.55. The most recent notice extending this relief was published in the Federal Register on December 1, 1980 (45 FR 79410). The NRC published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on December 1, 1980 (45 FR 79492), which would modify the physical security requirements in Q73.55. Action on the petition is delayed pending resolution of policy questions raised by the petition in current rulemakings.

TIMETABLE: Commission action on the petition for rulemaking was pending issuance of the final " Insider Rule." However, per a conversation with Dr. Knuth, KMC, Inc., action on the petition is no longer needed. KMC, Inc.,

intends to send a letter requesting that the petition be withdrawn. Publication of the resolution of this petition is scheduled for June 1986.

CONTACT: Kristina Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301 427-4754 130

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-73-7 PETITIONER: Wisconsin Electric Power Company, et al.

PART: 73 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 16, 1982 (47 FR 6658)

SUBJECT:

Elimination of Required Log-Out of Personnel from Vital Areas of Nuclear Power Reactors

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request that the Commission elimimte the log-out requirement at nuclear power reactors for individuals given access to normally unoccupied vital areas. The petitioners contend that the requirement is not only unnecessary from a safety l standpoint, but may be detrimental to safe plant shutdown and effective plant response to other emergencies. The petitioners also contend that sensitive facilities have no similar requirement. The petition includes proposed amendatory text that would achieve these modified requirements.

Objective. To eliminate the log-out requirement at nuclear power reactors for individuals given access to normally unoccupied vital areas.

Background. The comment period closed April 19, 1982.

Nine comments on the petition were received, Action on the petition is delayed pending resolution of policy questions in current rulemakings.

TIMETABLE: Commission action on the petition will follow publication of the final " Miscellaneous Amendments Rule." The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on August 1, 1984 (49 FR 30735),

and the comment period for the rule was extended to March 7, 1985 (49 FR 48200). Publication of the fina, rule is scheduled for June 1986.

Publication of the resolution of this petition is scheduled for October 1986.

CONTACT: Kristina Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301 427-4754 131 l

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-73-8 PETITIONER: Wisconsin Electric Power Company, et al.

PART: 73 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 16, 1982 (47 FR 6657)

SUBJECT:

Elimination of Required Search of Hand-Carried Packages of Personnel at Nuclear Power Plants

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request that the Commission eliminate the requirement for searches of i and-carried personal effects of screened employees entering a protected area of a nuclear power plant. The petitioners contend that the requirement is unnecessary as demonstrated by the absence of these kinds of searches in comparable Federal programs. The petitioners also contend that the requirement is an ineffective means of preventing insiders frora sabotaging the plant. The petition includes proposed amendatory text that would achieve this requested change.

Objective. To eliminate the required search of hand-carried personal effects of screened employees entering a protected area of a nuclear power plant.

Background. The comment period closed April 19, 1982.

Ten comments on the petition were received. Action on the petition is delayed pending resolution of policy questions in current rulemakings.

TIMETABLE: Comission action on the petition will follow publication of the final " Pat-Down Rule." The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on August 1, 1984 (49 FR 30738), and the comment period for the rule was extended to March 7, 1985 (49 FR 48200). Publication of the final rule is schedule'd f or June 1986. Publication of the resolution of this petition is scheduled for November 1986.

CONTACT: Kristina Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (301)427-4754 132

-. . - . - . . - . . . - . .- - ._ - - - ~

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-140-1 PETITIONER: Public Citizen Litigation Group and Critical Mass Energy Project PART: 140 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDEPAL REGISTER CITATION: August 28, 1979 (44 FR 50419) .

April 9, 1985 (50 FR 13978) l

SUBJECT:

Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence

SUMMARY

Descri) tion. The petitioners request that the NRC (1)

find t1at the accident at Three Mile Island was an extraordinary nuclear occurrence (EN0) and (2) amend Subpart E of Part 140 to make less stringent the criteria used for determining that an extraordinary nuclear occurrence has occurred. Part 140 of the Comission's regulations provide procedures and requirements for

, determining the financial protection required of licensees

i. and for the indemnification and limitation of liability l of licensees. Subpart E of Part 140 sets forth the i procedures the Comission will follow and the criteria the

Comission will apply in determining whether there has

! been an EN0.

Objective. To change the criteria used by the Commission to make a determination that an EN0 has occurred.

Background. The comment period closed on December 31, 1979. One coment was received. The petitioners are property owners in the vicinity of TMI and contend that their property was sharply decreased in value as a result of the accident. In addition, the petitioners contend that "the Comission's established criteria have been i easily met" in that the damages resulting from the i accident exceed those levels necessary to be considered an ENO. This portion of the petition was considered to be a-public 'coment on the Comission's request for information on the TMI EN0 determination and was resolved by the Comission's EN0 decision of April 16, 1980. A proposed '

! rule revising the EN0 criteria was coment April 9, 1985 (50 FR 13978) published

the commentfor public period i expired September 6, 1985 (50 FR 32086).

j TIMETABLE: The final rule is scheduled for publication in December l 1986.

CONTACT: Harold T. Peterson, Jr.

i Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l 301-427-4353

]

133 J

(C) - Petitions pending staff review

4- __-_ a --.

I l

l l

1 6

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-20-6 PETITIONER: Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

PART: 20 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: October 29, 1975 (40 FR 50327)

SUBJECT:

Radiation Protection Standards

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its radiation protection standards as they apply to the maximum permissible whole body dose equivalent for occupational exposure. Specifically, the petitioner requests (1) that for individuals under the age of 45, the whole body radiation exposure limit would not exceed 0.5 rem in any l

calendar year and 0.3 rem in any calendar quarter and (2)

that individuals over 45 years of age may receive up to 3 l rems per quarter whole body dose as long as the whole body l

dose does not exceed 0.5(M-18) + X(N-M) rem (where M is not less than 45, N equals the individual's age in years and X is calculated to reduce the cumulative somatic risk by a factor of 6 below the cumulative somatic risk associated with exposure at 5 rem / year from age 18). The petitioner also requests that hearings be held to determine the "as low as practicable" extent to which the exposures can be maintained below the proposed regulations.

Objective. To reduce the genetic risk associated with radiation exposure at the occupational level by a factor of i 10 and to reduce the somatic risk by a factor of 6.

Background. The initial comment period closed December 29, 1975, but was extended to February 12, 1976. The comments received included three letters supporting the petition, one proposing an alternative set of reduced limits, and 52 opposing the petition. The petitioner filed a supplement to the petition, dated November 4, 1977, requesting the consideration of recent epidemiological studies. This issue was included in the hearing on occupational radiation protection that was jointly sponsored by EPA, NRC, and OSHA.

The staff presented a paper to the Commission on August 17, 1978. The tentative staff position was that the petitioner's request to lower the occupational dose limits should be denied, but the staff has deferred its final recommendation pending the following actions. Proposed EPA guidance was published in the Federal Register on January 23, 1981. EPA /NRC/0SHA 135

hearings were held in April 1981. The question of occupational dose limits was addressed by the staff in work on the revision of 10 CFR Part.20. The question was also addressed by an interagency working group led by EPA to develop new guidance to Federal agencies to be issued by the President. The Presidsnt is expected to issue this guidance soon, and the staff will then make recommendations to the Commission regarding this petition.

TIMETABLE: The Federal guidance is now being reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The President's signature is expected before the end of May 1986.

CONTACT: Robert E. Alexander Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-427-4370 136

I PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-20-6A PETITIONER: Rosalie Berte11 PART: 20 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: August 21, 1978 (43 FR 37018)

SUBJECT:

Standards for Protection Against Radiation

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission (1) amend its Standards for Protection Against Radiation as they apply to the maximum whole body dose equivalent for occupational exposures to ionizing radiation, (2) include in 10 CFR Part 20 those diseases that indicate above-normal susceptibility to leukemia or radiation damage, and (3) review in one hearing this petition consolidated with the petition (PRM-20-6) filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The amendnent in item (petitioner states that the requested 1) would have the by the reduction of the individual's biological ability to cope with chronic and malignant disease, as would be achieved by reducing the current maximum whole body dose for occupational exposure by a factor of 50.

Objective. To reduce the current permissible whole body dose equivalent for occupational exposure by a factor of 50.

Background. The comment period expired October 20, 1978.

Four comments were received, one favoring and three opposing the petition. This petition has been combined with an earlier petition (PRM-20-6) from the National Resources Defense Council, Inc., that addresses the same issues. The question of occupa-tional dose limits was addressed by the staff in work on the revision of 10 CFR Part 20. The question was also addressed

by an interagency working group led by EPA to develop new guidance to Federal agencies to be issued by the President.

, The President is expected to issue this guidance soon, and 3

the staff will then make recommendations to the Commission regarding this petition.

TIMETABLE: The Federal guidance is now being reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The President's signature is expected before the end of May 1986.

CONTACT: Robert E. Alexander Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-427-4370 137

l PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-30-55 PETITIONER: State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection PART: 30 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: 31, 32, 33 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: August 11, 1977 (42 FR 40791)

SUBJECT:

Radiation Standards for Uses of Byproduct Material SUPMARY: Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the purpose of l adopting new national standards for users of radioactive byproduct materials. The petitioner states that the Commission Radiation Standards for byproduct material facilities and nuclear power plants differ drastically.

The petitioner states that a nuclear power plant's sophis-ticated control equipment is designed to handle different types of potential accidents and still keep radiation exposure to the public within acceptable limits, while a byproduct material facility (e.g., radiopharmaceutical plant) does not have the same capabilities. Furthermore, the petitioner states that because byproduct material plants have unrestricted siting, more people are in the vicinity of a byproduct facility than a nuclear power plant and would be affected by radiation exposure resulting from i an accident.

Objective. The petitioner proposes that the Commission take the following actions to reduce unnecessary public exposure to radioactive substances emitted from byproduct material facilities: 1. Establish criteria to quantify the "as low as reasonably achievable" emission reduction policy for major facilities using byproduct materials from man-made fission reactions and require existing plants to meet these criteria. 2. Establish siting criteria for these facilities that would form a basis for evaluating the accep-li tability of new plant locations in terms of radiation doses l to the public. 3. Require new and existing byproduct facili-ties to develop and implement offsite environmental surveil-l lance programs to provide information on levels of radio-activity in the environment around these facilities.

Background. The comment period closed October 11, 1977.

l Six connents were received, all opposing the petition. The

staff is developing a final position on the petition. This petition was combined with an earlier petition (PRM-50-10) from the State of New Jersey that dealt with similar issues.

PRM-50-10 was withdrawn on September 15, 1983 (48 FR 41429).

138 l

._- - _ _ _ - _ _ . . - - - _ _ - , . . . _ _ _ - - - - . . - - - ~ ,, . ~ - . _ - - . _ _ _ . _ _ - - - . - . _ _ _ _ _ _

TIMETABLE: The petitioner has verbally indicated during a telephone conversation that it intends to withdraw this petition for ,

rulemaking. The staff is preparing a notice of withdrawal '

based on this conversation with the petitioner.

CONTACT: Richard P. Grill Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-427-4615 l

lj 139 i

PETITION DOCKET NUMBF.R: PRM-40-25 PETITIONER: State of Alabama PART: 40 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: NONE FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: December 31, 1985 (50 FR 53335)

SUBJECT:

Regulations Governing Unimportant Quantities of Source Material

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations governing unimportant quantities of source material. The petitioner suggests that the NRC examine the exempticn from licensing for prodacts or parts of products fabricated of or containing tungsten or magnesium-thorium alloys whose thorium content is less than 4 percent by weight and either remove the restriction on this exemption or set out the restriction as part of a general license.

The petitioner believes that in placing a restriction on an exemption, the NRC has created a structurally deficient regulation that may lead to unintentional violations by persons who may receive products covered by the exemption and be unaware of any further restrictions.

Objective. To ensure that a person who obtains an exempt product covered by the exemption is aware of any limitations placed on the use of the product.

Background. The comment period for this action closed March 3, 1986. Only one comment was received, and it opposed the petition.

TIMETABLE: Staff action on the petition is scheduled to be completed December 1987.

CONTACT: John Hickey Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-427-4093 l

140

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-21 PETITIONER: Northern States Power Company and Wisconsin Electric Power Company PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: 2 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: July 21, 1977 (42 FR 37458)

SUBJECT:

Plant Security Information

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request that the Commission l

- amend its regulations (1) in 650.34(c) to include plant security information within the definition of Restricted Data, or, alternatively, within the definition of National Security Information; (2) in 92.905 to ensure that discovery of plant security information is subject to the protections of Subpart I of Part 2; (3) in Subpart I of Part 2 to explicitly recognize that the protections required by the Subpart extend to information not under Conraission control; and (4) to delete 62.790(d)(1) that curre'nt'1 could permit disclosure of plant security information wite.out the protections of Subpart I of Part 2.

Objective. To protect plant security information from unauthorized disclosure and to ensure that licensees' security plans are not compromised.

Background. The comment period closed September 19, 1977.

Twelve comments were received, nine of which endorsed the petition. Consideration to grant the petition was under review based on Pub. L.96-295 (NRC FY 80 Authorization Bill) that amended the Atomic Energy Act by adding Section 147, " Safeguards Information," which directs the Commission to prescribe regulations or issue orders to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of safeguards information that specifically identifies the licensees' or applicants' detailed security measures, etc.

TIMETABLE: Staff response on this petition is scheduled to be completed in September 1986.

CONTACT: Kristina Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301 427-4754 i

141

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-25, PRM-50-25A PETITIONER: State of Illinois and the Porter County Chapter of the l Izaak Walton League of America, Inc., et al.

PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 4, 1980 (45 FR 7653)

SUBJECT:

Extension of Construction Completion Date

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners filed essentially identical petitions which request that the Commission amend its regulations in Part 50, s50.55, to require that a " good cause" proceeding concerning a requested amendment of a construction permit to exceed the latest construction completion date must consider whether a permittee has shown good cause for the continued construction of a nuclear power plant in light of all the circumstances at the time the application is considered. The petitioners further request that the Commission determine that " good cause" is not limited to the reasons why construction was not completed by the latest completion date in the construc-tion permit.

Objective. To prevent frustration of the statutory purposes of Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, which permits the extension of the completion date for construction of a nuclear power plant only for good cause shown.

Background. The comment period closed April 4, 1980. Six comments were received, including two from the petitioners on jurisdictional issues. Comments filed by parties other than the petitioners opposed the petition. The Atomic Safety l and Licensing Board (ASLB) and the Commission have ruled on- l the " good cause" issue which is the subject of this petition.  !

The matter was alluded to in the Bailly case before the U.S.

Court of Appeals. The staff is preparing a proposal for the Commission. The state of Illinois has formally

withdrawn its petition. The other petitioners have verbally l consented to the withdrawal, but have not yet formally withdrawn their petition. However, in the absence of documentation of the verbal consent, the staff proposes to deny the petition.

I TIMETABLE: Notice of denial is scheduled for publication by June 1986.

CONTACT: Barry Pineles Office of the Executive Legal Director

. 301-492-7688 l 142 l

I

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-31 PETITIONER: Citizens' Task Force PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: 70 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: March 24, 1982 (47 FR 12639)

SUBJECT:

Emergency Preparedness

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to require that (1) the present ten-mile emergency planning zone radius be extended to twenty miles and include any towns bordering on or partially within this zone; (2) all communities with a

population in excess of 5,000 persons be provided by the respective utility with the funding to purchase, install, and operate radiological monitoring equipment to reach and maintain the level of preparedness deemed necessary by the affected municipalities; and (3) utilities be required to finance the emergency planning efforts of municipalities located near nuclear reactors.

Objective. To establish an effective notification and evacuation system in communities located near nuclear reactors.

Background. The comment period closed May 24, 1982.

TIMETABLE: Commission action on the response to the petitioner is scheduled for December 22, 1986 (to be coordinated with the severe accident research program and publication of NUREG-1150).

CONTACT: Stephen A. McGuire Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7636 143

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-36 PETITIONER: Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group (NUBARG)

PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: 73 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: June 21, 1983 (48 FR 28282)

SUBJECT:

Reporting Requirements in NRC Regulations and Documents

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations in 10 CFR Parts 50 and 73 to eliminate what the petitioner believes are duplicative and unnecessarily burdensome reporting requirements. The petitioner also requests that the Commission amend the technical specifica-tions in licenses of nuclear power plant licensees and revise existing NRC guidance documents to reduce what the petitioner feels are duplicative reporting provisions contained in those documents. The petitioner specifically requests that revisions be made to l650.54(p), 50.54(q),

50.55(e), 50.59(b), 73.71, and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50; NUREG-0103, -0123, -0212, and -0452; and licensees' technical specifications. In support of its proposed amendments, the petitioner states that the requested revisions would permit licensees to make more efficient use of their personnel resources and allow licensees' employees to concentrate their attention on matters of public health and safety.

Objective. To reduce the regulatory burden on nuclear power plant licensees through amendment of existing reporting requirements to eliminate duplicative and unnecessarily burdensome provisions.

Background. The comment period closed August 23, 1983.

The comments on this petition and the petitioner's request will be considered in the NRC's ongoing evaluation and revision of the reporting and recordkeeping burden required of NRC licensees.

TIMETABLE: The staff proposal in response to this petition is scheduled for completion in May 1986.

CONTACT: R. Stephen Scott Office of Administration 301-492-8585

144 i

l t

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-37 PETITIONER: Lillian McNally PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: October 31, 1983 (48 FR 50083)

SUBJECT:

Standards for the Levels of Deuterium and Tritium in Water Circulated In and Around Nuclear Power Plants

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that new standards be set for all water circulated in and around nuclear power plants. The petitioner specifically proposes that water circulated in and around nuclear power plants not contain levels of deuterium and tritium which exceed the natural environmental concentration of these elements for a period of one year; that one year later the concentration levels be limited to less than one part by weight in 10,000 parts; and that the level of contaminants be reviewed annually thereafter to determine the attainable purity of circulating water.

Objective. To place a limit on deuterium to reduce the formation of tritium from deuterium by neutron absorption.

Background. The comment period closed December 30, 1983.

A response is undergoing staff review.

TIMETABLE: The response is scheduled to be completed in June 1986.

CONTACT: Harold T. Peterson, Jr.

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-427-4353 145

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-39 PETITIONER: Southern California Edison Company PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: May 20, 1985 (50 FR 20799)

SUBJECT:

Emergency Response Plans for Persons Who Are Both Contaminated with Radioactive Material and Physically Injured

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to clarify that onsite and offsite emergency response plans need only include medical arrange-ments for persons who are both contaminated with radioactive material and physically injured in some other manner which requires medical treatment. The petitioner contends that public safety does not necessitate the prearrangement of emergency medical treatment for severely irradiated persons who have not also suffered physical injury requiring immediate treatment in a medical facility. The petitioner also contends that the class of people for whom advance arrangements for medical services are required is not clearly stated in the present wording of 10 CFR Part 50 and proposes revising 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12).

Objective. To establish standards for pre-arranged emergency medical services which are based upon a scientific and medical understanding of what is necessary to protect the public.

Background. The comment period closed July 20, 1985.

TIMETABLE: Staff action on the petition is scheduled to be completed l July 1986.

CONTACT: Michael Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7615 146

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-40 PETITIONER: John F. Doherty PART: 50 CTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 11, 1986 (51 FR 5086)

SUBJECT:

Response to a Reactor Trip for which the Cause Is Undetermined in Eight Hours

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to require that, following a power reactor trip, the licensee, if unable to determine the cause of the reactor trip in eight hours, be required to place the reactor in cold shutdown pending further study of the event. The petitioner contends that the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation commended a utility for adhering to a policy such as his proposed amendment would require in its April 1983 Vol. 1 of NUREG-1000, " Generic Implications of ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant." He also thinks that requiring such a policy would lessen the severity of any of a number of possible accidents that may otherwise occur.

Objective. To require that a reactor be placed in cold shutdcwn following a reactor trip for which the cause cannot be determined in eight hours.

Background. The comment period closes April 14, 1986.

j TIMETABLE: Staff action on the petition will be scheduled after l the comment period closes.

CONTACT: William Lahs Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7874 147

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-51-6 PETITIONER: Catherine Quigg PART: 51 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: April 15, 1980 (45 FR 25557)

SUBJECT:

Environmental Assessment for High Burnup Nuclear Fuel

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to require the preparation of a generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) for high burnup nuclear fuel as used in commercial nuclear reactors, stored in spent fuel pools or cooling racks, or, poten-tially, processed in reprocessing plants or disposed of in permanent sites. The petitioner states that, with the decision not to reprocess nuclear fuel, the Federal government and the utilities want to use more uranium in existing nuclear fuel in reactors across the country. The petitioner expresses concern that cited experiments in high fuel burnup will lead to a national program of high burnup of nuclear fuel in reactors without adequately considering potential long- and short-term environmental effects.

4 Objective. The petitioner proposes (1) that the Commission amend 10 CFR Part 51 to require that a GEIS be prepared and (2) that the Commission require a GEIS for high burnup nuclear fuel. The petitioner believes this regulation is necessary to adequately protect public health and safety.

The petitioner believes an environmental statement is neces-sary to adequately examine the following significant effects that use of high burnup fuel could have on the environment:

(1) greater fission gas releases from nuclear reactors; (2) increased fission gas releases from spent fuel pools; (3) production of inferior grade spent nuclear fuel; (4) potential for greater radiological impact in reactor and l

spent fuel pool' accidents; and (5) increased radioactive releases during reprocessing.

Background. The comment period closed June 16, 1980.

Fourteen comments were received, the majority in opposition l to the petition. The petitioner believes that studies and reports based on low burnup fuel may not be relevant when i applied to high burnup fuel and that the Commission has no adequate basis for its negative declaration that higher burnups would have no significant environmental impact.

i 148 r

TIMETABLE: Staff action on the petition was submitted to the Comission for consideration in February 1986.

CONTACT: M. R. Fleishman Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7616 l

i 4

1 d

1 i

l 149

. PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-60-2 and PRM-60-2A PETITIONER: States of Nevada and Minnesota PART: 60 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: April 30, 1985 (50 FR 18267)

December 19, 1985 (50 FR 51701)

SUBJECT:

Implementation of Certain Environmental Standards Which Have 8een Proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency SUMARY: Description. The petition (PRM-60-2) petitioner with filed the the Commission original on January 21, 1985. The petitioner requested that the Commission adopt a regulation governing the implementation of certain environmental standards l which had been proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency. The NRC published a notice of the  !

! petition for rulemaking in the Federal Resister on April 30, 1985 (50 FR 18267) and requestec comments. The petitioner filed an amended petitfon on September 30,1985(PRM-60-2A). The petitioner i states that this amendment to PRM-60-2 is based on i the intervening action of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).on September 19, 1985 (50 FR 38066), in which the EPA issued final standards for i protection of the general environment from offsite l releases from radioactive material in repositories.

Ob ective. The petitioner hopes to accomplish two ob;ectives in this amendment: (1) to place before the Comission the substance of the assurance requirements in terms of amendments to 10 CFR Part 60, which the EPA's recently published standards failed to make applicable to NRC licensees, i.e.,

i Department of Energy)(DOE) repositories; and (2 to propose to high-level waste the Consnission  !

certain requirements and considerations for the process of adopting the DOE Environmental Impact Statement.

Background. The comment period closed July 1, 1985.

Six sets of coments were received. The EPA announced the issuance of its regulations on August 15, 1985, and published its final standard in the Federal Register on September 19, 1985 (50 FR 38066). The 1

notice of receipt of a . petition for rulemaking that amends the earlier petition was published for consnent on December 19, 1985 (50 FR 51701); the comment period ended February 18, 1986.

150

TIMETABLE: A response to the petition will be prepared following completion of the rulemaking consistent with the EPA standard and National Environmental Policy Act.

CONTACT: Regis Boyle Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-427-4799 i

e 151

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-71-10 PETITIONER: State of Wisconsin PART: 71 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 4, 1985 (50 FR 4866)

SUBJECT:

Transportation of Irradiated Reactor elel (Spent Fuel)

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission establish a regulatory process that would provide an opportunity for public participation in the evaluation and approval of proposed shipments of irradiated reactor fuel (spent fuel). The petitioner points out that the transportation of irradiated reactor fuel is an increasingly significant activity because nuclear reactor facilities are reaching maximum capacity of the'r spent fuel storage pools. The petitioner, a State through which numerous shipments of irradiated reactor fuel have passed and through which future shipments are scheduled, has an interest in protecting its citizens by ensuring that transporters of spent fuel have adequately prepared for potential emergencies. The petitioner alleges that there has been no Federal agency considering the risks associated with the shipping routes. The petitioner points out that the Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, and the NRC could potentially influence transportation decision-making. The petitioner concludes that the NRC has the primary responsibility to protect against the risks of radiation exposure and that the NRC adopt the proposed amendments that will provide the NRC and the public the opportunity to evaluate the propriety )

of spent fuel shipments. 1 Objective. To protect against the risks of radiation exposure associated with the transportation of irradiated reactor fuel and to provide the public the opportunity to evaluate the propriety of spent fuel shipments.

Background. The comment period closed April 5, 1985.

TIMETABLE: Staff action on this petition is scheduled to be completed May 1986.

CONTACT: Donald R. Hopkins Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7878 152 i

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-73-6 PETITIONER: Wisconsin Electric Power Company, et al.

PART: 73 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 16, 1982 (47 FR 6659)

SUBJECT:

Modification of Qualifications for Security Personnel of Nuclear Power Plants and Other Special Nuclear Material Licensees

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request that the Commission eliminate the requirement that armed security personnel at nuclear power plants or other facilities licensed to handle special nuclear material (1) carry an extra pair of eye-glasses and (2) undergo an annual medical examination within j the preceding 30 days of an annual physical fitness test.

The petitioners contend that these requirements are

" excessive and unreasonable" when compared to similar requirements for security personnel in other government agencies or in operations with security requirements comparable to those of nuclear power plants. The petition includes proposed amendatory text which would achieve these modified requirements.

Objective. To eliminate requirements for security personnel that the petitioner contends are " excessive and unreasonable."

Background. The comment period closed April 19, 1982.

Nine comments on the petition were received.

TIMETABLE: Action on this petition is scheduled for January 1987.

CONTACT: Carl Sawyer Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301 427-4269 153

(D) - Petitions with deferred action 4.

i

i l

D

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-20-14 i

PETITIONER: The University of Utah PART: 20 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: January 30, 1984 (49 FR 3667)

SUBJECT:

Disposal of Very Low Concentrations of Short-Lived Radionuclides

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner proposed an amendment of 920.306 and the addition of a new $20.307 to alleviate a number of problems that many licensees are experiencing under current regulations with the disposal of experimental animal waste material and certain radionuclide components. The petitioner states that the changes would substantially reduce nonradiological risks related to the collection, storage, packaging, and shipping of certain biological and chemical wastes without compromising or reducing radiation protection.

Objective. To obtain additional options for the disposal of very low concentrations of short-lived radionuclides.

Backaround. A request for information was published with the notice of receipt of the petition. The comment period

. closed March 30, 1984. Forty-five comment letters were received, including one from the petitioner that revised the initial petition and offered a second version that was based on the petitioner's analysis of the comment letters.

Most of the comment letters favored the petition. Approxi-mately one-fourth of the comment letters contained data that were solicited when the notice of receipt of the petition was published. These data will be used to help evaluate the merit of the petition. The staff analyzed the data, the petition, the revised petition, and other comment letters and has requested guidance on appropriate methodology from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The staff proposal in response to this petition is now being coordi-nated with NMSS in connection with recent legislation affecting NRC responses to petitions of this nature.

NMSS plans to use this petition as an example of how NRC compliance with the legislation will be achieved.

TIMETABLE: The proposed rule is scheduled to be published June 1987.

CONTACT: Harold Peterson Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-427-4353 155

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: ?RM-20-15 i PETITIONER: Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (UNWMG)

PART: 20 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: NONE FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: September 19, 1984 (49 FR 36653)

SUBJECT:

New Methods cf Disposal of Radioactively Contaminated Waste Oil from Nuclear Power Plants

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request that the Commission issue a regulation governing the disposal of radioactively contaminated waste oil from nuclear power plants by estab-lishing radionuclide concentrations in waste oil at which disposal may be carried out without regard to the radioactive material content of the waste. Each year, the petitioners state, quantities of waste oil containing very low levels of radioactive contamination are produced at nuclear power plants. The petitioners maintain that the currently used method of disposal (which is absorption or solidification, transportation to, and burial at a licensed disposal facility) is costly, inconsistent with NRC's policy in favor l

of volume reduction, and represents an inefficient use of resources. In order to provide efficient, environmentally acceptable, and cost beneficial methods, the petitioners propose six disposal methods with specific gross activity limits for itemized radionuclides to be included in a new Appendix E to Part 20.

Objective. To develop a de minimis standard of 1 mrem /yr

! for disposal of waste oil generated in nuclear power plants I

which is consistent with Commission and ACRS support for j the development of regulatory cutoff levels. l l Background. The comment period closed November 19, 1984.

TIMETABLE: Staff action on this petition is unscheduled pending l EPA response to request for development of guidelines on l exempt quantities of radioactively contaminated waste 011.

l CONTACT: Don Harmon Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-427-4566 156 l

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-40-23 PETITIONER: Sierra Club PART: 40 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 25, 1981 (46 FR 14021);

May 2, 1983 (48 FR 19722)

SUBJECT:

Licensing the Possession of Uranium Mill Tailings at Inactive Storage Sites.

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to license the possession of uranium mill tailings of inactive storage sites. The petitioner proposes the following regulatory action to ensure that the public health and safety is adequately protected: (1) repeal the licensing exemption for inactive uranium mill tailings sites subject to the Department of Energy's remedial programs; (2) require a license for the possession of byproduct material on any other property in the vicinity of an inactive mill l tailings site if the byproduct materials are derived from l

the sites; or, in the alternative, (3) conduct a rulemaking to determine whether a licensing exemption of these sites or byproduct materials constitutes an unreasonable risk to public health and safety. On March 23, 1983, the petitioner filed an amendment to the original petition. In the amendment, the petitioner requests that, in the event that NRC denies the earlier requests, NRC take further action to ensure that the management of byproduct material located on or derived from inactive uranium processing sites is conducted in a manner that protects the public health and safety and the environment. The petitioner also requests that the NRC take action to govern the management of byproduct material not subject to licensing under section 81 of the Atomic Energy Act.

Objective. To license the protection of uranium mill tailings at inactive storage sites or take other regulatory action to protect the public health and safety and the environment from the radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with the tailings. The petitioner believes that this action is necessary if NRC is to adequately fulfill its statutory responsibilities under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act.

157

Background The comment period closed April 27, 1981. Three 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 1978 (Pub. L.95-604, 42 U.S.C. 7901, et seq.). Title I of the Act directs that the Department of Energy, in consul-tation with NRC, conduct a remedial action program at certain inactive uranium mill tailings sites. Title V of the Act authorizes NRC to regulate disposal of the tailings at active sites. The staff is preparing a response to the petition.

TIMETABLE: Action on the petition is to be considered in the revision of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 scheduled to be completed in April 1987.

CONTACT: John Stewart Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-427-4609 158 i

PETITION DOCKET NUM3ER: PRM-40-24 PETITIONER: Union Carbide Corporation PART: 40 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: November 30, 1982 (47 FR 53889)

SUBJECT:

Revised Criteria for Operation of Uranium Mills and Disposition of Tailings or Wastes

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner proposes that the Commission amend its regulations setting out criteria for the operation of uraniun, mills and the disposition of tailings or wastes resulting from uranium milling activities. The petitioner suggests specific amendments to the criteria governing the selection of new tailings disposal sites or the adequacy of existing tailings disposal sites, the seepage of toxic matt-tals into the groundwater, the earth cover to be placed over tailings or wastes to prevent the surface exhalation of radon, and the charge imposed on each mill operator to cover the cost of long-term surveillance.

The petitioner supports its suggested amendments with information it says was not available to the Commission at the time the regulations were issued.

Objective. To significantly reduce the compliance costs incurred by the petitioner in the operation of its uranium milling facilities while continuing to adequately protect public health, safety, and the environment.

Background. The comment period that originally closed January 31, 1983, was extended until May 2, 1983. The petitioner is a New York-based corporation engaged in uranium exploration, milling, and mining. The regulations the petitioner seeks to amend were issued as part of NRC's regulations implementing the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (Pub. L.95-604, 42 U.S.C.

7901, et seq.). These regulations were published in the Federal Register on October 3, 1980 (45 FR 65531).

TIMETABLE: Action on the petition is to be included in the revision of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 scheduled to be completed in April 1987.

CONTACT: John Stewart Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-427-4609 159

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-20 PETITIONER: Free Environment, Inc., et al.

PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: 100 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: May 19, 1977 (42 FR 25785)

SUBJECT:

Reactor Safety Measures SUMMA.RY: 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 to require that (1) all nuclear reactors be located below ground level; (2) all nuclear reactors be housed in sealed buildings within which permanent heavy vacuums are maintained; (3) a full-time Federal employee, with full authority to order the plant to be shut down in case of any operational abnormality, always be present in all nuclear generating stations; and (4) the Central Iowa Nuclear Project and all other reactors be sited at least 40 miles from major population centers.

Objective. To ensure that additional safety measures are employed in the construction and siting of nuclear power plants. The petitioner seeks to have recommendations and procedures practiced or encouraged by various organizations and some current NRC guidelines adopted as mandatory requirements in the Commission's regulations.

Background. The comment period closed July 18, 1977.

Three comments were received. The first three parts of the petition (see Description section above) were incorporated with PRM-50-19 for staff action purposes.

A notice of denial for the third part of the petition was published in the Federal Register on February 2, 1978 (43 FR 4466). A notice of denial for the first two parts

, of the petition was published April 19, 1978 (43 FR 16556).

l NRC staff work on the fourth part of the petition will be l carried out in connection with the ongoing Part 100 t

rulemaking on demographic criteria. Petitioners were notified by letter on January 26, 1982, that the proposed l rule on siting criteria will be delayed until summer 1983,

! to await safety goal information and source term reevaluation.

160

Safety goal work is near completion, but, since the accident source term reevaluation proved more complex-than anticipated, additional, work is planned.

TIMETABLE: A schedule for resuming development of demographic criteria has not been prepared.

CONTACT: William R. Ott Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-427-4631 l

l I

161 I

l

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-51-1 PETITIONER: New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution PART: 51 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: January 16, 1976 (41 FR 2448)

SUBJECT:

Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Comission initiate a rulemaking to amend its summary of environmental considerations in the uranium fuel cycle presented in Table S-3 of Part 51. The petitioner declares that (1) the current Table S-3 seriously underestimates the impact on human health and safety by disregarding the long-term effects of certain radionuclides, particularly thorium-230 which decays into radon gas; (2) the health effects of krypton-85 and tritium releases from fuel reprocessing plants are underestimated; (3) releases of carbon-14 from the fuel cycle should be included; (4) the term " man-rems" does not provide a meaningful representation of health effects, at least in terms of radionuclides involved in this petition, and that human deaths from man-rem exposures provide a more comprehensible consequence of fuel cycle activities; and (5) the magnitude of the potential death toll from mill tailings alone alters previous judgments and requires a reassessment of previous conclusions to authorize construction and operation of nuclear reactors and the post-ponement of all pending applications for construction or 4

operating authority until final resolution of the issue by the Comission.

Objective. The petitioner proposes action to amend Table S-3 in ways that they claim will more accurately reflect the impact of the long-term effects of certain long-lived radionuclides on human health and safety. The petitioner also proposes to suspend all activities related to nuclear power plant construction and operation-until the Comission reassesses the health and safety effects of mine tailings.

Background. The Comission acted on all items of the petition on April 14, 1978 (46 FR 15613) except for a future rulemaking proceeding to amend the Table S-3 value for radon. The Federal Register notice of April 14, 1978, removed the radon value from Table S-3 and made it subject 162

I f

to litigation in individual licensing proceedings.

~

1 Litigation on the radon environmental impacts in cases pending before the Commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board was heard in a combined hearing in February  ;

1980. The Appeal Board's initial decision (ALAB-640 May '

13,1981) upheld the staff's estimates of radon releases from the nuclear fuel cycle, and the final decision (ALAB-701, November 19,1982) affirmed the staff's conclusion that radon releases would not cause significant health effects. This decision was appealed to the Commissioners for review, and the Commissioners deferred their review until the new EPA standards for radon have been analyzed and the NRC's milling regulations revised as necessary to conform to them.

Rulemaking to add the new value for radon-222 in Table S-3 will be affected by the new EPA standards that were promul-gated October 7, 1983. NRC must revise its uranium mill tailings regulations to conform to the new EPA standards.

The rulemaking to add a new estimate for radon-222 to Table S-3 can be undertaken after the revision of the NRC's uranium mill tailings regulations. On October 7, 1984, EPA promulgated new radon standards for inactive uranium mill sites, and, in October 1985, NRC published revised uranium milling regulations conforming to the new EPA standards.

However, the matter is not yet completely settled, because EPA received, in August 1985, a court order requiring them to establish radon standards for active uranium mills.

Considering this further delay in making final estimates of total radon releases from uranium milling and the fact that there are no open licensing cases involving issues which would be covered by the narrative explanation of Table S-3 or the new values for radon-222 and technetium-99, l the staff is preparing a Commission Paper recommending that this NRC rulemaking be deferred. It can be reconsidered when there are indications that Table S-3 will be needed in evaluating new nuclear power plant license applications.

TIMETABLE: Staff has received ED0 approval and has submitted to the Commission a paper seeking approval to discontinue the rulemaking. Action to complete NRC responsibilities on the petition will follow the Comission decision on the rulemaking.

CONTACT: William E. Thompson Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-427-4510 163

l PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-100-2 PETITIONER: Public Interest Research Group, et al.

PART: 100 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: July 1, 1976 (41 FR 27141)

SUBJECT:

Population Density Criteria Near Nuclear Power Plants

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request that the Commission amend its rc:91ations to prohibit the construction of nuclear reactors where the population in the surrounding area exceeds or will exceed specified numerical limits.

The petitioners' proposed criteria would limit permissible population density to 400 people per square mile within a 40-mile perimeter. The petitioners state that they regard these proposed criteria as interim standards to be used until the Commission is able to generate its own numerical standards on population density.

Objective. To restrict utilities from building nuclear reactors too close to metropolitan areas.

Background. The comment period closed August 30, 1976.

Twelve comments were received. An NRC staff paper (SECY-78-624) was submitted to the Commission on December 4, 1978. In a memorandum to the Executive Director for Operations dated February 15, 1979, the Commission deferred action on the population density siting criteria issue pending submission of the Siting Policy Task Force report. The petitioners were notified of this deferral by r letter dated March 9, 1979. The petitioners were notified i by letter (in July 1980) that the petition would be considered in the context of the rulemaking on siting criteria. Petitioners were notified by letter on January 26, 1982, that the proposed rule on siting criteria would be delayed until summer 1983 to await safety goal implementation and source term reevaluation. Safety goal work is near completion, but, since the accident source tenn reevaluation proved more complex than anticipated, additional work is planned.

l 164

TIMETABLE: A schedule for resuming the development of demographic criteria has not been prepared.

CONTACT: William R. Ott i Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research '

301-427-4631 f

165

IIRC PORGA 3M U S. BeUCLEA2 LE 1UL1 TORY CoasangBeOas t

• EioaY NUMeEx[Assensaer rioC. eaw For me,,r enys u Sc NUREG-0930

%"348 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET Vol. 5, No. 1 SEE INSTT.UCTIONS ON THE REVER$t 2 TITLE LNJ SUSTITLE 3 LEAVE SLANK NRC Regulatory Agenda Quarterly Report 's January-March 1986 g

M

'/'"""""," EAR l

UT,,ORi5, Ma h 1986

[ $ DATE REPORT ISSUED MON T ,. vEAR g

/ July 1986

7. PE AFORMING ORGANIZ ATION NA AND MAILING ADDRESS traebeele Cesarf pOJECT/ TASK / WORE UNIT NUMBER Division of Ru s and Records [

Office of Admin tration ' * "N oa ca A~' NuMeEa U. S. Nuclear Reg atory Commission Washington, D. C. 55 10 $PONSOMNG ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILiN ORE 55 (sacfwdele Cosef Ita TYPE OF REPORT Same as 7 above.

D PERIOD COVERED finetes.ne ssessJ January-March 1986 12 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 13 AOST.4ACT (200 =orss erisses The NRC Regulatory Agenda is a coppilatio f a.1 ules on which the NRC has proposed or is considering action and all etition or rulemaking which have been received by the Commission and are nding disp ition by the Commission.

The Regulatory Agenda is updated and is d each quart The Agendas for April and October are published in thei entirety in the deral Register while a notice of availability is publi hed in the Federaivgister for the January and July Agendas.

l I

h to DOCUMENT ANALY$is - e EEvwORDS/DESCRsPTORS j 15 Aval SILeT Y STATE T compilation of rules petitions for rulemaking Unlimited 16 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION i ITee pepeo

. DE,.Ti. ERs,OPEN ENoto nRMs Unclassified a re.s e.,>

17 NUMSER OF PAGES Id PRtCE

UNITED STATES SPECML FOURTH CLASS RATE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION posTag,e geS eam WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 ,,ms,H,o g,

,-RULES 1 Section 1 - Rules PENAL FR RI TE E.4300 Us N h078877 1 1ANIB7 Action Completed Rules ADM-DIV 0F TIDC Y & PUB W-50 MGT BR-PDR NUREG W ASHI NGT ON DC 20555 Proposed Rules Advance Notice - Proposed Rulemaking Unpublished RulesSection II - Petitions for Rulemaking Petitions - Final or Denied Petitions - Incorporated into Proposed Rules Petitions - Pending Petitions - Deferred Action