ML20207K208
| ML20207K208 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/31/1988 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0936, NUREG-0936-V07-N02, NUREG-936, NUREG-936-V7-N2, NUDOCS 8809280278 | |
| Download: ML20207K208 (125) | |
Text
_
NUREG-Ob36 Vol. 7, No. 2 NRC Regulatory Agenda Quarterly Report April - June 1988 f
I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l
j Commission Office of Administration and Resources Management p*"'a<,,
v j
'j ' \\..l{
's \\
%, ' '.. /
l.
l l.
8809200278 08001 00$6 [
PDR l
f t
NOTICE Aval; ability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources:
- 1. The NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20555
- 2. The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Post Office Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013 7082
- 3. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications, it is not intended to be exhaustive.
Referenced documents available for inspecticn and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Docu-ment Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda: NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement bulletins, circulars, IMormation notices, inspection and investigation notices; Licensee Event Reports; vendor repo ts and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and i
licensee documents and correspreeuence.
The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the GPO Sales Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC sponsored conference proceedings, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission issuances.
Documents available from the National Technical Information Service include NUREG series reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic i
Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
l Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, l
such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Feders/ Register notices, federal and t
state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.
l Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations,and non NRC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited.
Single copies of N RC draf t reports are available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request to the Division of Information Support Services, Distribution Section, U.S. Nuclear Regt.fatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
t i
Copies of 'ndustry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are mJir tained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, and are available e
there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be I
purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the
[
American National Standards institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.
1 j
l J
I
NUREG 0936 Vol. 7, No. 2
_-.__w
'~*~"*--'-m----
NRC Regulatory Agenda Quarterly Report April - June 1988
~~
_~
l' ~ l Z l T ll__T T ;__. - -~~ -- - - -.-- _______ - _ - _ __ _ _ _ __-
Manuscript Completed: August 1988 Date Published: August 1988 Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration and Resources Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W:shington, DC 20555
,, - ~,,,
N......f" I
i i
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I - RULES (A) Rulce on which final action has been taken since March 31, 1988 Page Addresses for Personal Delivery of Communications (Parts 1,
- 110, 171).....................................................
I*
Rotention Periods for Records (Parts 4, 11, 21, 25, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 40, 50, 60, 61, 70, 71)....
2 Access Authorization Fec Schedule for Licensee Personnel (Parts 11, 25)................................................
3*
Residual Radioactive Contamination Limits for Decommissioning (Part 20).....................................................
4 General Requirement s for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities (Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, 72)..................................
5 Diagnostic Misadministration Report Form (Part 35)..............
6 I
Station Blackout (Part 50)......................................
7 Dackfit Requirement for Senior Operators at Nuclear Power Plants (Part 50)..............................................
8 Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (Part 50)..........
9 Revision of Tolophone Numbers for Environmental Inquiries (Part 51).....................................................
10*
(B) Proposed Rules Procedures Involving the Equal Access to Justice Act:
Implomontation (Parts 1, 2).....................................
II Informal Hoaring Procedures for Materials Licenses Proceedings (Part 2)........................................................
12 j
Issuance or Amendment of Power Reactor License or Permit Following Initial Decision (Part 2)...........................
I3 Rules of Practico for Domestic Licensing Proceedings--
Procedural Changes in Hearing Process (Part 2)................
I4 iii
r_
Pace i
Modifications to the NRC Hearing Process (Limited Interrogatories and Factual Basis for Contentions) (Part 2)...
15 NEPA Review Procedures for Geologic Repositories for High-Level Waste (Parts 2, 51, 60).................................
16 Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Wastes (Parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 51, 70, 72, 73, 75, 150)...................................................
17 Standards for Protection Against Radiation (Part 20).............
19 Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive Materials Licenaces (Parts 30, 40, 70).........................
21 Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Equipment (Part 34)......................................................
22 control of Aerosols and Gases (Part 35)..........................
24 Basic Quality Assurance in Radiation Therapy (Part 35)...........
25 Emergency Planning and Preparedness Requirements for Nuclear Power Plant Fuel Loading and Initial Low-Power Operations (Part 50)......................................................
26*
Licensee Announcement of Inspectors (Part 50)....................
28 Alternative Methods for Leakage Rate Testing (Part 50)...........
29 Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) for Light Water Nuclear Power Reactors (Part 50)...............
30 Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors (Part 50)......................................,
32 t
Tables S-3 and S-4, Addition of Radon-222 and Technetium-99 Radiation Values, and Addition of Appendix B, "Table S-3 Explanatory Analysis" (Part 51)................................
34 Elimination of Inconistencies Between NRC Regulations and EPA Standards (Part 60).......................................,
36 I
Disposal of Radioactive Wastes (Part 61).........................
37 l
Criteria and Procedures for Emergency Access to Non-Federal i
and Regional Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities (Part 62).....
38 l
i 1
iV i
4 l
_,..,,.n.
Page Transportation Regulations:
Compatibility With the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (Part 71)............
39 Safeguards Requirements for Fuel Facilities Possessing Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material (Part 73).....
40 Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (Part 140)......
4I Facility Form Nuclear Liability Insurance Policy; Miscellaneous Nmendments ( Part 14 0 )............................
42 Revision of Fee Schedules (Parts 170, 171).......................
43 (C) Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking s
Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern; Generic Rulemaking l
(Parts 2, 20).................................................
45 Medical Use of Byproduct Material:
Training and Experience Criteria (Part 35)............................................
46 Comprehensive Quality Assurance in Medical Use and a Standard of Care (Part 35).............................................
47 Degree Requirement for Senior Operators at Nuclear Power Plants l
(Parts 50, 55)................................................
48 Regulation of Uranium Enrichment Facilities (Part 76)...........
49 (D) Unpublished Rules Restrictions Against Ownership of Certain Security Interests by Members of Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Gifts, Entertainment, and Favorn (Part 0).....................
51 1
Revised Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings (Parts 0, 1, 2, 9, 50)........................................
52 i
Relocation of NRC's Public Document Room; Other Minor Nonmenclature Changes (Parts 1, 2, 7, 9, 15, 19, 20, 21, 30, 35, 40, 50, 51, 53, 55, 60, 61, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, j
75, 81, 100, 110, 140, 150, 170, and 171).....................
53 Availability of Official Records (Part 2)......................
54 t
l Negotiated Rulemaking on the Submission and Management of Records and Documents Related to the Licensing of a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste (Parts 2, 60)..............................
55 i
I I
l v
t f
Page f
d Minor Amendments to Physical Protection Requirements (Parts 2, 70, 72, 73, 75)....................................
56*
Revision of Definition of Meeting (Part 9).....................
57 Deletion of Part 11 Requirement for Renewal of "R"
Clearances (Part 11)...............
58 Implementation of the Use of SF-86, "Questionnaire for sensitive Positions" (Parts 11, 25)..........................
59+
Debt Collection Procedures (Part 15)...........................
60*
Notification of Incidents (Part 20)............................
6i*
{.
Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration from Nuclear Power J
Plants (Part 20).............................................
62 Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance (Parts 21, 50)........
63 Fitness for Duty Program (Part 26).............................
65*
Licensees and Radiation Safety Requirments for Large Irradiators (Part 36)........................................
66 Criterie for Licensing the Custody and Long-Term Care of Uranium Mill Tailings Sites (Part 40)........................
67 Equivalent Control Capacity for Standby Liquid Control Systems (SLCS) (Part 50).....................................
68 Licensee Action During National Security Emergency (Part 50)...
69 Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (Part 50)..................
70 Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule (Part 50).......................
73 i
Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 (Part 50).....................................................
73 Extension of Time for the Implementation of the Decontamination Priority and Relationship Provisions of Property Insurance Requirements (Part 50).....................
75 Personnel Access Authorization Program (Parts 50, 73)...........
s,
l i
Page Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licensos for Nuclear Power Roactors (Part 52)........
77 Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC Approved Casks at Civilian Nuclear Power Reactor Sites (Parts 72, 73, 74, 170)..........................................................
78 Night Firing Qualifications for Security Guards at Nuclear Power Plants (Part 73)........................................
79 Roasserting NRC's Solo Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States (Part 150)...........
80 t
i r
i t
I l
vii 6
r
. _......, +, -,,, - -., -. -.... -.,.,., - - -.. _ _
7 - -- _ - -. - _ - - - - - - - - - -
i SECTION II - PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING (A) Petitions incorporated into final rules or petitions denied since March 31, 1988 Page Union Carbide Corporation (PRM-40-24)........................
81 Public Interest Research Group, et al.
(PRM-50-22)...........
82 State of Illinois and the Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America, Inc., et al.
(PRM-50-25, PRM-50-25A)...................................
84 (B) Petitions for which a notice of denial has been prepared and is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register next quarter Public Interest Research Group, et al.
(PRM-100-2)...........
85 l
(C) Petitions incorporated into proposed rules NONE (D) Petitions pending staff review Gene-Trak Systems (PRM-31-4).................................
87 Sierra Club (PRM-40-23)......................................
88 Citizens' Task Force (PRM-50-31).............................
90 L
Kenneth G. Sexton (PRM-50-45)................................
91 State of Maine (PRM-50-46)...................................
92 Quality Technology Company (PRM-50-47).......................
93 University of Missouri (PRM-50-48)...........................
94 (E) Petitions with deferred action Free Environment, Inc., et al.
(PRM-50-20).................
95 l
t L
viii l
[
Proface The Regulatory Agenda is a quarterly compilation of all rules on which the NRC has recently completed action or has proposed, or is considering action and of all petitions for rulemaking that the NRC has roccived that are pending disposition.
Organization of the Agenda The agenda consists of two sections that have been updated L
through June 30, 1988.
Section I, "Rules," includes (A) rules on which tinal action has been taken since March 31, 1988, the closing dato of the last NRC Regulatory Agendas (B) rules published previously as proposed rules on which the Commission has not taken final actions (C) rules published as advance noticos of prcyosed rulomaking for which neither a proposed nor final rule has been issuod; and (D) unpublished rules on which
)
the NRC expects to take action.
Section II, "Petitions for Rulemaking," includes (A) petitions denied or incorporated into final rules since March 31, 1988; (B) petitions for which a notice of denial has been prepared and is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register next a
]
quarters (C) petitions incorporated into proposed rules; (D) petitions pending staff review, and (E) petitions with deferred i
action.
j In Section I of the agenda, the rules are ordered from the lowest to the highest part within Titic 10, Chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 10).
If more than one rule appears under the same part, the rules are arranged within that i
l part by date of most recent publication.
If a rule amends multiple parts, the rule is listed under the lowest n'iocted part.
In Section II of the agenda, the petitions are ardered from the lowest to the highest part of Title 10 and are i
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 that part of Title 10.
1 The dates listed under the heading "Timetable" for scheduled action by the Commission or the Executive Director for j
operations (EDO) on particular rules or petitions are considered tentative and are not binding on the Commission or l
its staff.
They are included for planning purposes only.
This Regulatory Agenda is published to provide the public early t
I f
ix t
i l
l notico and opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process.
Howevor, the NRC may considor or act on any rulemaking prococding even if it is not included in this Regulatory Agonda.
Rulemakings Approved by the Executive Director for Operations (EDO)
The Executive Director for Operations initiated a procedure for the review of the regulations being prepared by staff offices i
that report to him to ensure that staff resources were being allocated to most effectively achieve NRC's regulatory prioritics.
This procedure requires EDO approval before staff resources may be expended on the development of any New rulemaking.
Furthermore, all existing rules mu3t IJCoivo EDO approval prior to the commitment of additional resources.
Rules that have received EDO apptoval to date are identified by the symbol (+).
As additional rules roccive EDO 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 doloted from subsequent oditions.
Rules whose termination was directed subsequent to publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking will be removed from the agenda after publication of a notice of withdrawal.
Rules and Petitions for Rulemaking that appear on the agenda for the first time are identified by an asterisk (*).
Public Participation in Rulemaking comments on any rule in the agenda may be sont to the Secretary i
of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch.
Comments may also be hand delivered to One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, betwoon 7:30 a.m.
I and 4:15 p.m.
Comments received on rules for which the comment period has closed will be considered if it is practical to do i
so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to
(
i comments received on or before the closure dates specified in i
the agenda.
l l
I I
I 2
X 1
I
The agenda and any comments roccived on any rule listed in the agenda are available for public inspection, and copying at a cost of ten cents per pago, at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW.,
1 Washington, DC, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.
Additional Rulemaking Information For further information concerning NRC rulomaking procedurcs or the status of any rule listed in this agenda, contact Betty Golden, Regulations Assistant, Regulatory Publications I
Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration and Resources Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Tolophone (301) 492-4268 (persons outsido the Washington, DC metropolitan area may call toll-free:
800-368-5642).
For further information on the substantivo content of any rule listed in the agenda, contact the individual listed under the heading "Agency contact" for that rule.
i 1
I i
t t'
I i
i
\\
Xi i
I
uAa,mm.--,m--
-- - - - -Auna m----
Ls---
A-,,
-An.=-
&a-m-mu-*
k
-'AA-k.
a.EeeA-Mmam a'-
a#a,J4.
--A& Mss-~,a, me--
--enI-.
m-m-.-
---on=
A
-Jea Ae e.-A-.44-Aa
-A-4a<
l I
l I
l i
i 1
i l
r 1,
I l
\\
i l
1 l
l l
l I
4 i
h l
i 1
t 2
f l
l I
I i
a i
I 1
I i
l j
1 1
i d
l uf
'I i
l i
f i
I I
l l
1 i
1 I
l I
I l
i I
3 m
-i-E (A) Rules en which final action has been taken since P. arch 31, 1966 l
1 l
l l
l
- 2 mms %gaMmemLs u a ar m--o g -J wM-u-'AssL42_-A"A2=~m M4ea>ms4A 4, es4
~M^ewMm,,mm sM.
A a s -4m m n_Mmas MA&
b _ A& g_,abeA s-l 1
l l
I i
e i
?
s I
i i
I
(
l t
l I
1 i
l
l TITLE:
i
- Addresses for Personal Delivery of Comunications i
CFR. CITATION:
10 CFR 1; 10 CFR 110; 10 CFR 171 l
ABSTRACT:
The final rule will amend the NRC's reculations to indicate an l
aeditional address for the personal delivery of comunications.
This action is being taken because of the relocation of the NRC's l
Comission-level ottices to the agency's new headquarters office building in Rockville, Earyland. The amendments will inform NRC licensees and members of the public of the new addresses.
i TIMETABLE:
i Final Action Published 05/19/88 53 FR 17915 i
Final Action Effective 05/19/88 I
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
i 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 J
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS ANO OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Donnie H. Grimsley i
l Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Administration and Resources Management l
Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7211 F
t u
i 1
I 1
1 i
\\
i 1
i i
l i
I i
i i
TITLE:
Retention Periods for Records CFR CITATION.
10 CFR 4; 10 CFR 11; 10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 25; 10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 31; 10 CFR 32; 10 CFR 34; 10 CFR 35; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 60; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 71...
l ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Connission is amending its regulations to establish a dettnite retention period for each record that an NRC application or licensee for a materials or facility license is required to maintain. This action is necessary to comply with the
]
Office of Management and Budget requirement that a specific retention period be identified for each record. The final i
rule also establishes a uniforn standard acceptable to the NRC for the condition of a record throughcut each specified retention period, i
i This action is expected to reduce the overall recordkeeping burden for NRC applicants and licensees by use of uniform and specific
]
retention periods for each recordkeeping requirement.
TlHETABLE:
Final Action Published 05/2)/88 53 FR 19240 Final Action Effective 07/26/60 l
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
l 42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No j
AGENCY CONTACT:
j Brenda Shelton I
Nuclear Regulatory Connission l
Office of Administration and Resources Management Washington, DC 20555 301 492 8132 i
4 l
i i
l l
1 l
TITLE:
- Access Authorization Fee Schedule for Licensee Personnel CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 11; 10 CFR 25 ABSTRACT:
The final rule amends the Commission's regulation to revise the fees chargeo for background investigations of licensee personnel who require access to National Security Information anc Restricted Data and access to control over special nuclear naterial. The revision is needed to comply with current regulations which state that NRC will publish fee adjustrents concurrent with rotification of any changes ir the rate charged the NRC by the Office of Personnel Management for conducting the investigations.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 06/13/88 53 FR 21979 Final Action Effective C6/13/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2165; 42 USC 2201; 31 USC 9071 i
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Duane G. Kidd Huclear Regulatory Cormiission l
Divtston of Security Office of Administration and Resources Management Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4124 j
f i
i a
TITLE:Residual Radioactive Contamination Limits for Decomissioning i
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would have established residual radioactive contamination limits (including induced and other volumetric l
i radioactivity)as well as removable and fixed surface i
contamination which must be r.et before structures and lands can be released for unrestricted use. Structures and lands with l
4 2
residual radiocctive contamination below these limits would I
be eligible for release without regulatory restrictions from a radioactivity standpoint.
l j
The issue in this proposed rule will be incorporated into a policy f
statement. The policy statement is scheduled to be released October i
)
1988.
1 I
TlHETABLE:
Withdrawn 04/06/88 j
i LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841
)
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Undetermined j
AGENCY CONTACT:
1 Dr. Stan Neuder 4
l Nuclear Regulatory Consission i
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 L
301 492-5737 F
i 1
i t
l t
i 1
r i
a 4
i l
1 i
f 1
4 d
i
1 t
I 5
I i
i I
TITI.E:
I' General Requirerents for Decomissioning Nuclear Facilities i
CFR CITATION:
a 1
10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72 l
1 I
ABSTRACT'-
j The Nuclear Regulatory Comission is amending its regulations to set l
i forth technical and financial criteria for decomissioning licensed i
nuclear facilities.
The arended regulat'ons address j
decomissioning planning needs, timing, funding methods, and environmental review requirements. The intent of the amendments is l
to assure that decomissioning of all licensed f acilities will be accomplished in a safe and timely manner and that adequate licensee i
funds will be available for this purpose.
The final rule also contains a response to a petition for rulemaking (PRM-50-22),
1 i
concerning decomissioning financial assurance initially filed by j
the Public Interest Research 'droup (PIRG), et al., on July 5,1977.
j TillETAELE Fina! Action Published 06/27/88 53 FR 24018 l
Final Action Effective 07/27/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY-t 42 USC 2201 f
t EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
Yes ACENCY CONTACT:
[
Keith G. Steyer/ Frank Cardile r
f Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office cf Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 10555 f
301 452-3824/3817 I
t I
l l
t l
b 1
l
.~
. -. _, - - _. - _.. _ ~. ~ _.
TITLE:
Diagnostic Hisadministration Report Form CFR CITATION:
10 CFP 35 ABSTRACT:
The final rule amends the regulations governing the medical use of byproduct raterial to specify the form that is to be used by NRC medical licensees to report diagnostic misadministrations.
The rule is intended to inform licensees that the form contemplated in the revision to these regulations (see the Federal Register of October 16, 1986; 51 FR 36932) has been developed and as now available for use.
TIHE~'BLE:
'al Action Published 06/09/88(53FR21627)
..aal Action Effective 06/09/88 Lt0AL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SHALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Norman L. McElroy huclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 (301) 492-3417 i
i 9
6
TITLE:
Station Blackout CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ACSTRACT:
The NRC is amending its regulations to require that light water cooled nuclear power plants be capable of withstanding a total loss of alternating current (AC) electrical power, called station blackout, for a specified duration and maintainit g reactor core cooling during that period. This requirement is based on informa-tion developed under the Commission's study of Unresolved Safety Issue A-44, "Station Blackout." The amendment is intended to provide further assurance that a loss of both offsite power and onsite emergency AC power systems will r.ot adverse'q affect the public health and safety.
T!!iETABLE:
Final Action Published 06/21/88 53 FR 23203 Final Action Effective 07/21/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BU31 NESS AND OTliER ENTITIES:
N/A AGENCY CONTACT:
Alan Rubin /A. W. Serkiz Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8303/7487 1
7 w-
TITLE:
Backfit Requirement for Senior Operators at Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has revised its regulations concerning the backfitting of nuclear power plants. This rulemaking action is necessary to bring the existing backfitting rule into unaabiguous conformance with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in tne Union of Concerned Scientist, et al. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission (Nos. 85-1757 and 86-1219 (August 4, 1987). The rulemaking is intended to clarify when economic factors may be considered in making a decision as to whether a backfit requirement is imposed on a nuclear power plant.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 06/06/88 53 FR 20603 Final Action Effective 7/06/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Steven C. Crockett Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1600
)
l s
TITLE:
Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants I
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The final rule will incorporate by reference the Winter 1984 Addenda, j
Summer 1985 Addenda, Winter 1985 Addenda, and 1986 Edition of Section III, Division 1, of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code), and the Winter 1983 Addenda, Sumer 1984 Addenda, Winter 1984 Addenda, Summer 1985 Aodenda, Winter 1985 Addenda, and 1:s86 Edition of Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME Code. A limitation is placed on the use of paragraph IWB-3640 as contained in the Winter 1983 Addenda and Winter 1984 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1.
This limitation requires that for certain types of welds, IWB-3640 be used as modifie.1 by the Winter 1985 addenda. This amendment recognizes certain improvements made to Section XI in the crea of class 2 pipe weld examinations by limiting necd to impitment an existing hRC modification for Class 2 piping examinations. The sections of the ASME '; ode being incorporated provide rules for tha construction of light-water-cooled nuclear power plant components and specify requirements for inservice inspection of those ecmponents. This final rule will permit the use of improved methods for construction and inservice inspection of nuclear power plants.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 05/05/88 53 FR 16051 Final Action Effective 05/05/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Gilbert C. Millman Nuclear Regulatory Comission
' ifice of Nuclear Regulatory Research 9ashington, DC 20555 301 492-3872 l
l 9
TITLE:
- Revision of Telephone Numbers for Environmental Inquiries CFR CITATION:
i 10 CFR 51 ABSTRACT:
The final rule will amend the NRC's regulations to indicate the revision cf five telephone numbers that will enable prospective applicants or petitioners to consult with members of the NRC's staff.
These amendments are required because of the assignment of new telephone numbers in conjunction with the recent consolidation of cpproximately one-half of the NRC's headquarters. staff to its new location in Rockville, Maryland.
These amendments are being ide to inform NRC licensees and members of the public of t..s new telephone numbers.
TIMETABLES Final Action Published 4/25/88 53 FR 13399 Final Action Effective 4/25/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC-2201; 42 USC 5841
't i
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No i
i l
AGENCY CONTACT:
Donnie H. Grimsley 1
Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Office of Administration and Resources Management I
Washington, DC 20555 i
301 492-7211 i
t f
t l
I h
10 j
t 6
-. ~,. - - _ - ~
i (B) Proposed Rules I
I i
4
)
i i
r L
1 1
1
1 l
l l
l I
t t
I l
i I-(
t i
6 f
l v
l t
\\
P l
f
{
l.
I I
i
TITLE:Procedures Involving the Equal Access to Justice Act:
Implementation CFR CITATION:
roposed rule would implement the Equal Access to Justice The p(EAJA) by providing for the payment of fees and expenses to Act certain eligible individuals and businesses that prevail in agency adjudications when tne agency's position is determined not to have been substantially justified. This proposed regulation is modeled after rules issued by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) and have been modified to conform to NRC's established rules of practice.
The proposed rule would further the EAJA's intent to develop government-wide, "uniform" agency regulations and would describe NRC procedures and requirements for the filing and disposition of EAJA applications.
A draft final rule was sent to the Comission in June 1982, but Comission action was suspended pending a decision by. the Comptroller General on the availability of funds to pay awards I
to intervenor parties. This issue was also the subject of litigation in Business and Professional People for the Public Interest v. NRC, 793 F.2d 1366 (D.C. Cir. 1986). This l
litigation is being evaluated to determine what if any changes may be necessary in the proposed rule.
Additionally, in August 1985, the President signed into law an enactment renewing the EAJA after its expiration under a statutory sunset requirement. This legislation, Pub. L. No. 99-80, revises the EAJA, and these revisions are being evaluated to determine whether further conforming changes may be necessary in the proposed rule.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 10/28/81 46 FR 53189 Proposed Action Coment Period End 11/28/81 46 FR 53189 Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
5 USC 504 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Paul Bollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1634 i1
TITLE:
Informal Hearing Procedures for Materials Licenses Proceedings CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:
This proposed rule, being prepared at Commission direction, would provide comprehensive treatment of hearing procedures to be implemented by the Commission for materials licensing proceedings.
There are no reasonable alternatives to rulemaking for implementing these informal hearing procedures. The procedures are expected to reduce the economic burjen imposed on a participant in a proceeding.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 05/29/87 52 FR 20089 Proposed Action Comment Period End 08/28/87 52 FR 27821 Final Action 09/00/88 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 301 492-1634 i
i 12
ti i
TITLE:
l Issuance or Amendment of Power Reactor License or Permit Following l
Initial Decision 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. The proposed rule wculd (1) remove the existing provision governing the effectiveness of initial decisions regarding powerreactorconstructionpermitsand(2)revisetheCommission'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, for which action has now been completed.
The proposed rule supersedes two prior proposed rules entitled "Possible Amendments to 'Immediate Effectiveness' Rules," published May 22,1980 (45 FR 43279), and "Commission Review Procedures for Power Reactor Construction Permits; Immediate Effectiveness Rule," published October 25, 1982 (47 FR 47260).
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 02/04/87 SP FR 3442 Proposed Action Comment Period End 05/06/87 52 FR 11475 Final Action 09/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTliER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Paul Bo11werk Nuclear Regulatory Concission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1634 4
a i
13 I
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 considering amendments to its rules of practice which address the following aspects of the hearing process: admission of contentions, discovery against NRC staff, use of cross examination plans, timing of motions for summary disposition and limitations on matters and issues that nay 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, together with a number of other proposals, as suggestions for procedural changes in the licensing of nuclear power plants (49 FR 14698; April 12, 1984). The Commission has decided not to proceed with the April 1984 proposals, except to the extent that they were included in this proposed rule.
Therefore, the April 1984 proposals leave been deleted from the regulatory agenda.
The NRC is also considering related amendments on the process of intervention that were developed by former Commissioner Asselstine.
The staff is analyzing public comments received on the proposals and expects to forward a recommendation for the Commission's consideration.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 07/03/86 51 FR 24365 Proposed Action Comment Period Extended to 10/17/86 51 FR 31340 Final Action 09/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OT'iER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Karen D. Cyr Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1637 14
TITLE:
Modifications to the NRC Hearing Process (Limited l
Interrogatories and Factual Basis for Contentions) l j
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule woulo expedite conduct of HRC adjudicatcry proceedings by requiring intervenors in forrral 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 aroceeding.
The )roposed rule would expedite the hearing process
>y, among other tiings, 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 af ford 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 tha process.
The content of this rule is being considered as part of the regulatory reform rulemaking package.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 06/08/81 46 FR 30349 Final Action 09/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2239 EFFECTS ON SWILL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Karen D. Cyr Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1637 15
TITLE:
NEPA Review Procedures for Geologic Repositories for High-Level Waste '
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2; 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 contains no provisions for the environmental review of a license application for a HLW repository.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established requirements for environmental reviews which are at variance with the environmental reviews which the NRC performs in licensing other types of nuclear facilities. This issue nost be addressed in order to avoid delay in the U.S. HLW Program. The proposed rule would benefit the public, industry, and NRC by clarifying licensing procedures, thus avoiding case determinations and possible litigation during HLV geologic repository licensing. Minor revisions to Part 60 will be necessary to conform to the environmental requirements of the NWPA.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 05/05/88 53 FR 16131 Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 08/03/88 Final Action Published 05/15/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SHALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
James R. Wolf Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1641 16
4 i
TITLE:
Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Wastes -
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 19; 10 CFR 20; 10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 75; 10 CFR 150 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would revise existing regulations to establish specific licensing requirements for the storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a monitored retrievable storageinstallation(MRS). This revision is intended to ensure that the Commission has in place the appropriate regulations to fulfill the requirements contained in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 concerning the licensing of facilities which could be part of the NRS program.
Paragraph (d) of Section 141 of the NWPA provider that any monitored retrievable storage installation pursuant to Section 141 shall be i
subject to licensing by the Commission.
The Commission could awa.. further development of the MRS option before proposing its MRS rules. However, this approach could result in unnecessary delay in reviewing a license application if Congress authorizes construction of an NRS.
There is no appropriate alternative to rulemaking, the vehicle used by NRC to establish its licensing procedures.
The basic requirements for storage of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation currently codified in 10 CFR Part 72 are not being changed, thus no incremental impact on NRC, industry, or the health and safety of the public is anticipated.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 05/27/86 51 FR 19106 Proposed Action Connent Period End 08/25/86 Final Action to E00 11/30/87 Final Action to Commission 12/15/87 Final Action Published 07/29/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2021; 42 USC 2071; 42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2077; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2099; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2234; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2237; 42 USC 2282 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No F
17 i
-. - -, -. - - - - - - - - - - -, =, - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -.,--..
-.. -,, ~., -
TITLE:
Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Wastes AGENCY CONTACT:
Keith Steyer/ Charles Nilsen Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3824/3834 i
4 l
9 i
l 18
TITLE:
Standards for Protection Against Radiation CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:
Radiation protection philosophy and technology have changed markedly since the present Part 20 was promulgated nearly 30 years ago.
Since Part 20 contains the NRC standards for E
protectier against radiation that are used by all licensees and r
aff ects exposu es of workers and rnembers of the public, it should i
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; estabitsh a clear health protection
[1 basis for the limits; reflect current information on health risk, dosimetry, and radiation protection practices and experience; provide NRC with a health protection base from which it may consider other regulatory actions taken to protect public health; be consistent with recommendations of world authorities (ICRP);
and apply to all licensees in a consistent manner.
Alternatives to the complete revision considered were no action; delay for further guidance, and partial revision of the standards.
These were rejected as ignoring scientific advanC0000ts; being unresponsive to international and national guidance; and correcting only some of the recognized problems g
with the present Part 20.
Benefits would include updating the regulations to reflect contemporary scientific knowledge and radiation protection philosophy; implementing regulations which reflect the ICRP risk-based rationale; reducing lifetine doses to individuals i
receiving the highest exposures; implementing provisions for suncation of doses from internal and external exposures; providing clearly identified dose limits for the public; providing an 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 for all NRC and Agreement State licensees in the initial year and about $8 million in each subsequent year.
This cost does not include any savings which might also be realized by tie revision.
!9
^
n
TITLE:Standards for Protection Against Radiation TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 03/20/80 45 FR 18023 ANPRM Comment Period End 06/18/80 45 FR 18023 Proposed Action Published 12/20/85 50 FR 51992 Proposed Action Connent Period End 05/12/86 51 FR 1092 Proposed Action Comment Period Extended to 10/31/86 Final Action for Division Review 02/15/88 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 06/30/88 Final Action Package to E00 01/30/88 Final Action to Commission 08/15/88 Final Action Published 09/15/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 bSC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2111; 4? 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:
Harold T. Peterson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3738 20 j
6
....--,.--,--,,a-.-
TITLE:
Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive Materials Licensees l
CFR CITATION:
l 10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70 l
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 milligrems (a chemical toxicity liazard).
Currently the proposed requirements are, for the most part, required by order. However, the Comission decided that a regulation was needed for the long term. The cost of the rule to licensees was estimated to be between $26,000 and $73,000 per year per licensee.
The cost to NRC was estimated to be $4,000 per year per licensee.
The NRC will expend about 2 staff-years of effort to promulgate the rule.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 06/03/81 46 FR 29712 ANPRM Coment Period End 08/03/81 46 FR 29712 Proposed Action Published 04/20/87 52 FR 12921 Proposed Action Coment Period End 07/20/87 52 FR 12921 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 10/16/87 Final Action tt C00 03/02/88 Final Action to Comission 07/20/88 Final Action Published 08/30/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SliALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Michael Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Heguktory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3918 21 1
TITLE:
Safety Requirements for Industrial Radicgraphic Equipment CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 34 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend the present regulations to establish performance standards for industrial radiography exposure devices. Overexposuresofradiographers(andoccasionally the general public) are more than double that of other radiation workers and have been a concern to the NRC for some time.
Approximately 25-35 percent of the radiography overexposures are associated with equipment malfunction. The issue of safety requirements for these devices is a primary concern since the devices use relatively high intensity, high energy gamma-ray emitting sources with the potential or serious overexposures. Although a consensus standard for radiographic exposure devices was puolished in 1981 (American National Standard N432),
it is not clear that all manufacturers are adopting the standard.
The alternatives considered were to take no acticn at this time; amend the regulations to require performance standards for radiographic devices plus a requirement for radiographers to wear alarm dosimeters and simultaneously issue a regulatory guide endorsing the consensus standard, supplemented by such other performance standards deemed necessary; and incorporate the consensus standard by reference in the regulations supplemented by such other performance standards as deemed necessary, plus a requirement for radiographers to wear alarm dosimeters.
The proposed rule would require licensees to modify radiographic devices to meet the performance standards through design changes and quality control procedures.
Costs vf incorporating the proposed changes are estimated to be a one-tim cost of $1,625 per licensee to purchase alarm dosimeters and
$850 annually for replacement of devices and alorm dosimeters, annual calibration of dosimeters and annual maintenance costs.
Determination of the benefits to be derived from the proposed i
rule are difficult to determine on a monetary basis but the potential hazards that might be averted include radiation sickness, injury, and even death.
NRC resources required for processing this rule to final publication are estimated to be 0.4 person-years.
TlHETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 03/15/88 53 FR 8460 Proposed Actica Comment Period Expires 05/16/88 53 FR 8460 Proposed Action Public Commnt Extended 08/16/88 Final Action to ECO 02/15/89 Final Action to Commission 03/15/89 Final Action Published 04/17/89 22 1
1 I
P TITLE:
Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Equipment LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Donald O. Nellis Nuclear Regulatory Comission I
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l
Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3628 1
i 23
TITLE:
Control of Aerosols and Gases CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule is in response to PRM-35-6 which requests that the Commission remove the requirements in Part 35 that radioactive aerosols be administered in rooms that are at negative pressure relative to surrounding rooms. The petitioner states that the irposition of the negative room pressure requirement could have an adverse impact j
on the delivery of health care to certain patients with pulmonary i
disease and that this requirement is unnecessary to protect workers and public health and safety. The staff agrees and has developed a proposed rule change to remove the negative room pressure requirement for aerosols.
j TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 12/16/87 52 FR 47726 Proposed Action Coinment Period End 01/15/88 52 FR 47726 7
Final Action to E00 06/30/88 Final Action Published. 07/31/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Alan Roecklein
[
Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3740 1
I i
i l
?
l' l
l I
t 24 t
TITLE:
Basic Quality Assurance in Radiation Therapy CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT:.
l The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations concerning the medical use of byproduct material.
t l
The proposed amendments would require its medical licensees to implement certain quality assurance steps that would reduce the chance of therapy misadministrations. The proposed action is necessary to provide for improved patient safety and serve as a basis for enforcement action in case of a therapy misadministration. The proposed amendment, which is intended to reduce the potential for and severity of therapy misadministra-tions, would primarily affect hospitals, clinics, and individual physicians.
TlHETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 10/02/87 52 FR 36942 Proposed Action Comment Period End 12/01/87 Options Paper to Office for Concurrence 05/13/88 Options Paper on QA Rulemaking to E00 05/26/88 Revised Options Paper on QA Ruleraaking to E00 05/31/88 i
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 i
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Anthony Tse 4
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3797 I
l i
i 4
1 t
i i
r i
r 25 i
i
TITLE:
- Emergency Planning and Preparedness Requirements for Nuclear Power Plant Fuel Loading and Initial Low-Power Operations CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Cosmission proposes to amend its regulations to establish more clearly what emergency planning and preparedness requirements are needed for fuel loading and low power operation of nuclear power plants.
Current rules provide for a finding prior to fuel loading and low power on the licensee's plans and state of
. preparedness for dealing with accidents that could affect persons onsite.
Current rules also provide that no finding regarding the planning or preparedness of offsite agencies for dealing with accidents that could affect persons offsite is required at this stage. The Comission is not proposing to change these aspects of i
the current rules. However, practice under the current rule has been to consider also, as aart of review of licensees' plans, certain 1
offsite elements of tiose plan: the seem unnecessary for low power operation in view of the low degree of risk posed to offsite i
persons by fuel loading and low power operation (up to 5 percent of ratedpower).
It is the purpose of this public rulemaking to consider whether this practice should be discontinued or modified. Specifically, the Comission is considering amending Section50.47(d)toincludeasprerequisitesforlowpower
[
1 operation, seven standards with offsite aspects that are believed to be appropriate for fuel loading and low power operation. The capability for prompt notification of the surrounding populace (as distinct from the capacity to keep off site emergency planning agencies informed promptly of plant accidents) is not included in the rule as a requirement for fuel loading and low power o)erations.
Nothing in this proposed rule is intended to change t1e emergency planning standards which must be satisfied before operations are at full power.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to ED0 05/01/88 Proposed Action to Comtssion 05/03/88 SECY-88-109 Proposed Action Published 05/09/88 53 FR 16435
}
Proposed Action Coment Period End 06/08/88
)
Proposed Action Coment Extended to 06/23/88 53 FR 19930 i
Final Action to EDO 07/25/88 Final Action to Conraission 07/27/88 5
Final Action Published 08/01/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 26 i
TITLE:
- Emergency Planning and Preparetess Requirements for Nuclear Power Plant Fuel Loading and Initial Low-Power Operations EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT Michael Jansochian/ Martin G. Malsch Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Office of the General Counsel 301 492-3918/1740 I
l l
l 27
TITLE:
Licensee Announcement of Inspectors CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is anending its regulations to ensure that the presence of NRC inspectors on power reactor sites is not announced to licensee and contractor personnel without the expressed request to do so by the inspector. This change will allow the NRC inspector, who is badged at the facility, to observe ongoing activities as they are being performed without licensee or contractor personnel having advance notice of the inspection.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 03/18/88 53 FR 8924 Proposed Action Comment Period End 04/18/88 5? FR 8924 Public Comments Incorporated into Final Rule 6/04/88 Final Action to EDO 6/00/88 Final Action Published 7/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
George Barber Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nurlear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1296 28
~
TITLE:Alternative Methods for Leakage Rate Testing CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission proposes a limited amendment to its regulations to clarify a cuestion of interpretation in regard to leakage testing of containments of light-water comed nuclear power plants.
This proposed amendment would explicitly permit the continued use of a statistical data analysis technique that the NRL has considered to be an acceptable method of calculating containment leakage rates.
Rulema king is the only acceptable alternative for resolvirg this issue because the regulations specify the methods the NRC fiids acceptable for calculating leakage rates.
Because the propoted rule would simply make another method of calculating leakage rates available to the industry, there is no economic impact likely to result from this action.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 02/29/88 53 FR 5985 Proposed Action Connent Period End 03/30/88 Final Action to EDO 09/15/88 Final Action to Commission 10/15/88 Final Action Published 11/15/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SHALL BUSINESS AND OTliER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
E. Gunter Arndt Nuclear Regulatory Comission Of fice of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3945 29
TITLE:
Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) for 1.ight Water Nuclear Power Reactors CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTkACT:
The proposed rule would amend regulations concerning acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems (ECCS) by allowing the use of realistic methods to demonstrate that an ECCS would protect the nuclear reactor core during a loss-of-coolant accident. This action is proposed because research has shown that calculations performed under current requirements greatly underestimate the ability of the ECCS to protect the core. This restricts the operation of some nuclear reactors unnecessarily and increases the costs of generating electricity. The proposed rule would allow use of the best information currently available to demonstrate that the ECCS would protect the rev. tor core during a loss-of-coolant accident.
Use of the realistic evaluation model my result in up to a 5 percent power upgrade for some plants. The present value of energy replacement cost savings resulting from a potential upgrade has been estimated to range between $5 and $127 million depending on the location and age of a specific plant.
The proposed rule would apply to all applicants for and holders of construction permits for light water reacters.
If they choose, holders of operator licenses could utilize the proposed rule.
Because the proposed rule represents a significant change in a regulatory requirement, the staff prepared and issued on May 15, 1987, a sumary of ECCS research performed over the last 10 years which identifies the technical basis for the proposed rule. A regulatory guide was also prepared and issued on April 2, 1987.
This guide provides a definition of what constitutes an acceptable best estimate model and acceptable methods of performing the uncertainty evaluation. The estimated cost to the NRC of this rulemakins is 2-3 staf f-years and $200,000 of contractor support.
The only option to rulemaking considered by the staff was the continued use of the current licensing approach described in SECY-83-412. At best, this is viewed as an interim solution because two separate calculations are required to meet the requirements of the current regulation and staff conditions for use of the licensing approach risks case-by-case litigation.
30
TITLE:
Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) for Light Water Nuclear Power Reactors TIMETABLEr ANPRM 12/06/78 43 FR 57157 ANPRM Comment Period Begin 12/06/78 43 FR 57157 ANPRM Comment Period End 02/05/79
)
Proposed Action Published 03/03/87 52 FR 6334 Froposed Action Comment Period End 07/01/87 52 FR 6334 Final Action for Division Review 03/04/88 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 04/19/88 Final Action to EDO 06/01/88 Final Action to Commission 07/01/88 Final Action Published 08/24/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2132; 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2239; 42 USC 2282; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No l
AGENCY CONTACT:
Harry Tovmassian Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research WashingL'a. DC 20555 (301)4f>23566 31
TITLE:
Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors CF9 CITATION:
10 CFR 50; Appendix J ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would update and revise the 1973 criteria fW-preoperational and periodic pressure testing for leakage of primary containment boundaries of water-cooled power reactors. Problems have developed in ap,911 cation and interpretation of the existing i
ule. Thye result from changes in testing technology, test criteria, and a relevant national standard that needs to be recognizec.
The revision is urgently needed to resolve continuing conflicts between licensees and NRC inspectors over interpretations, current regulatory practice which is no longer being ref' acted accurately by the existing rule, and endorsement in the existing regulation of e.1 obsolete national standard that ta. replaced in 1981.
i The benefits anticipated inclucM elimination of inconsistencie:. and obsolete requirements, and t'ne additier of greater usefulness and a higher enr.fidence in the leak-tight integrity of containment system boundaries under post-loss of coolant accident conditions. The majority of the effort needed by hRC to issue the rule has alreaoy been expended.
A detailed analysis of costs, benefits, and occupational exposures is available in the Public Docurent Roce, and indicates possible savings to industry of $14 million to $300 million and an increase in occupational exposure of less than 1 percent per year per plant due to increased testing.
11METABLE' Proposed Action Published 10/29/86 51 FR 39538 Proposed Action Cospent Period Extended to 04/24/87 52 FR 2416 Final Action for Division Review 08/15/88 Final Action to Officos for Concurrerce 09/15/88 Final Action to EDO 12/15/88 Final Action to Cosminston 01/15/89 Final Action Pub 11sted 02/15/89 32
a TITLE:
Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors I
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CUkTAL,T:
Gunter Arndt t
Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory eleseatch Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3945 t
I t
i i
4 1
t i
- f f
i I
i I
i i
i i
t 33
(
i I
.. ~..
TITLE:Tables S-3 and S-4, Addition of Radon-222 and Technetium-99 Radiation Values, and Addition of Appendix B, "Table S-3 Explanatory Analysis" CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 51 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule provides a narrative explanution of the numerical values established in Table S-3, "Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data," that appears in the Comission's environr. ental protection regula90ps. The proposed rule describes the basis for the values contained in Table S-3, the significance of the uranium fuel cycle data in the table, and the conditions governing the use of the table. The proposed rule amends Section 51.52 to modify the enrichment value of U-235 and the maximum level of average fuel irradiation. The narrative explanation also addresses important fuel cycle impacts and the cumulative impacts l
of the nuclear fuel cycle for the whole nuclear power inaustry so l
that it may be possible to consider these impacts genetically rather than repeatedly in individual l' censing proceedings, thus reducing litigation tire and costs for both NRC and applicants, i
The proposed rule regarding revision of Section 51.51 an6 the addition of Appendix B was published for public review and comment on March 4, 1981 (46 FR 15154). The final rulemaking was deferred pending the outcome of a suit (Natural Resources Defense Council, j
et al. v. NRC, No. 74-1486) in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The U.S. Court of Appealf (D.C. CircMt) decision of April 27, 1982, invalidated the entire Table 5-3 rule. The Suprere Court reversed this decision on June 6, 1983.
The arcposed rule to provide a narrative explanation for Table S-3 las been revised to re' lect new developments and the passage of time wnile the rulemaking was deferred.
Final action un the Table S-3 rule was held in abeyan,e until new values for raden-222 and technetium-99 could be added to the table and covered in the narrative explanation. The rule is being reissued as a proposed rule because the scope ha:, been extended to includ:
radiation values for radon-222 and technetium-99 and the narrative explanation ha< been extensively revised from that published on 11 arch 4,1981 s46 FR 15154).
The staff's estimate is that the corpletion of a final Table S-3 rule covering the new values for radon-222 and technetium-99, and the revised narrative explanation will be corpleted in FY 1989.
A Commission paper presenting the final rulemaking plan and schedule was submitted on August 18,1986(SECY86-242). On September 8,1986, SECY 86-242 was approved by the Conaission.
34
k Ti1LE:
Tables S-3 and S-4, Addition of Radon-222 and Technetium-99 Radiation Values, and Addition of Appendix 8. "Table S-3 Explanatory Analysis" TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 03/04/81 46 FR 15154 Proposed Action Comment Period End 05/04/81 Proposed Action for Division Review 05/27/88 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 08/12/88 Proposed Actiun to E00 11/11/88 Pro'osed Action to Commission 12/16/68 Pro' posed Action Published 02/10/89 Final Action to Consission 01/26/90 Final Action Published 2/26/90 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2011; 42 USC 2201; d2 USC 4321; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AN9 OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Stanley Turel Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3739 s
35
i TITLE:
Elimination of Inconsistencies Between NRC Regulations and EPA Standards CFR CITATION:
In CFR 60 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 directs NRC to promulgate criteria for the licensing of HLW geologic repositories.
Section 121 (c) of this act states that these criteria must be consistent with standards to be developed by EPA for the disposal i
l of HLW in deep geologic repositories. The proposed rule is needed 1
in order to eliminate several inconsistencies with the EPA standards, thus fulfilling the statutory requirement, Decause the NWPA directs NRC to eliminate inconsistencies between Part 60 and the EPA standard, the alternatives to the proposed l
action are limited by statute.
i The public, industr3, and hRC will benefit from eliminating inconsistencies in Federal HLW regulations. NRC resources needed would be several staff years but will not include contract resources.
Because the Federal Court invalidated the EFA standards, action on this rule, which is in response to the EPA standards is undetermined.
1 T1HETABLE:
Proposed Action Publisheo 06/19/86 51 FR 22268 Proposed Action Corment Period End 08/18/86 final Action to Offices for Concurrence 07/15/87 l
Final Action to EDO 07/20/87 Final Action Published ilndetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BU5! NESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCV CONTACT:
Frank Costanzi/ Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Consnission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3810/3857 1
2 36
TITLE:
Disposal of Radioactive Wastes CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 61 ABSTRACT:
The Cornission instructed the staff to analy(ze the need to revise the definition of high-levei radioactive waste HLW) in Part 60 to conform with the definition in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA).
An ANPkH was published on February 27,1987(52FR5992),which recoirrended a revision based either wholly or partially on concentrations of radionuclides in the waste. After assessing the public consnents on the ANPRM, and also taking into account recent information, the staff is now reconsnending against any revision of the definition of l
HLW.
Instead, amendments to Part 61 are being reconnended that would require geologic repository) disposal of all above Class C low-levelradioactivewaste(LLW unless an alternative has been approved by the Consission. This would accomplish the objective of establishing suitable disposal requirements for radioactive waste with a minimal impact on cost burdens, i
Alternatives are: (1)revisethedefinitionofHLWsothatadditional above Class C LLW is reclassified as HLW; or (2) make no change in j
the system of waste classification or required waste disposal options.
The public and industry would benefit frem this clarification of waste i
disposal options for above Class C LLW.
NRC staff tiine for preparing this rulemaking is estimated at two-staff years.
[
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM Action Published 02/27/07 52 FR 5992 ANPRM Corvrent Period End 04/29/87 ANPRM Consnent Period Extended to 06/29/87 52 FR 16403 Proposed Action Published 05/18/88 53 FR 17709 Proposed Action Censnent Period End 07/18/88 Final Action Published 04/30/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Frank Costanzi/ Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Consissicn i
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 t
301 492-3C.1/3857 l
t 37
TITLE:Criteria and Procedures for Emergency Access to Non-Federal and Regional Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities CFR CITATION:
ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would establish procedures and criteria for fulfilling liRC's responsibilities associated with acting on requests by low-level radioactive wa;te generators, or State officials on behalf of those generators, for emergency access to operating, non Federal or regional, low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities under Section 6 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendr,ents Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA).
Section 6 of the LLRWPAA authorizes the NRC to grant emergency access to any non Federal low-level waste disposal facility, if necessary, to eliminate the imediate and serious threat to the public health and safety or the connon defense and security, provided the threat cannot be mitigated by any alternative.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 12/15/87 52 FR 47578 Proposed Action Coment Period End 02/12/88 SP FR 47578 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 08/15/88 Final Action to EDO 09/15/88 Final Action to Comission 10/15/88 Final Action Published 11/15/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2021 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUS!!iESS AMD OTHER ENTITIES:
Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Janet Lambert Office of liuclear Regulatory Research Nuclear Regulatory Con.iission Washington, DC 2Cd55 301 a92-3857 38
TITLE:Transportation Regulations: Compatibility With the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 71 ABS 1RACT:
The proposed rule would, in conjunction with a corresponding rule change by the U.S. Department of Transportation, make the United i
States Federal regulations for the safe transportation of
{
radioactive material consistent with those of the International Atomic I
Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA regulations can be found in IAEA Safety Series No. 6, "Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material," 1985 Edition. Consistency in transportation regulations throughout the world facilitates the free movement of radioactive materials between countries for medical, research, industrial, and nuclear fuel cycle purposes. Consistency of transportation regulations throughout the world also contributes to safety by concentrating the efforts of the world's experts l
on a single set of safety standards and guidance (those of the IAEA) from which individual countries can develop their domestic regulations.
Perhaps as important, the accident experience of every country that bases its domestic regulations on those of the IAEA can l
be applied by every other country with consistent regulations to l
improve its safety program. The action will be handled as a routine updating of NRC transportation regulations. There is no reasonable alternative to rulemaking action.
These changes should result in a minimal increase in costs to affected licensees.
Proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 71, based on current IAEA regulations, will be issued for public cossent. The task will be scheduled over a 2-year interval ending January 1989 and will consume 2-3 staff-years of effort depending on the number and difficulty of conflicts to be resolved.
TlHETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 06/08/88 53 FR 21550 Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 10/06/88 Final Action Published 06/30/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Donald R. Hopkins Nuclear Regulatory Commission Of fice of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3784 39
TITLE:
Safeguards Requirements for Fuel Facilities Possessing Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:
In a staff requirements memorandum dated June 8,1987, the Comission directed the staff to publish a proposed rule within 120 days which would implement imroved safeguards requirements based on the findings of a review team witch cornpared DOE and NRC safeguards programs (SECY-87-28; CNSI). Primary focus is in the following areas: (1) forguards,(3)performanceevaluations,(2)nightfiringqualifications security system 100 percent entrance searches, (4) armed guards at material access area control points, (5) two protected area fences, and (6) revision of the design basis threat.
i T!HETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 12/31/87 52 FR 49418 Proposed Action Comment Period End 03/30/88 52 FR 49418 i
Office Concurrence on Final Action Corrpleted 07/00/88 Final Action to EDO 08/15/88 Final Action to Comissinn 09/15/88 Final Action Published 10/30/88 i
I LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2167; 41 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5844 l
t EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 1
l AGENCY CONTACT:
[
Dr. Sandra D. Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Comission Uffice of Nuclear Regulatory Research i
Washington, DC 20555 i
301 492-3773 i
1 t
h t
Y E
I i
[
[
l 40 I
L 1
l 1
.I
TITLE:
1 Criteric for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence CFR CITAT10l0 10 CFR 140 ABSTRACT:
The final rule will revise the EN0 criteria to eliminate the problems that were encountered in the Three Mile Island ENO determination.
It is desirable to get revised criteria in place in the event they are needed.
There are no alternatives to this r"lemaking, as the current ENO criteria are already embodied in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 140.
The only way to modify these criteria, as this rule seeks to do, is through rulemaking.
There is no safety impact on public health or safety.
The ENO r.rtteria provide legal waivers of defenses.
Industry (insurers and utilities) claims that a reduction in the ENO criteria could cause increases in insurance premiums. The final rule would also be responsive to PRM-140-1.
It is estimated that approxistely 1.0 staff year of NRC time will be required to process the final rule. No contract funding is anticipated, i
TIMETABLE:
I Proposed Action Publishetl 04/09/85 50 FR 13978 Proposed Action Comment feriod End 09/06/85 Final Action For Division Review 02/17/87 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 11/25/87 i
i Final Action Package to E00 11/30/88 i
Final Action to Comission 12/30/88 final Action Published 01/30/89 l
i LEGAL AUTHURITY' 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2210; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842
[
r EFFECTS ON SHAll. BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: ho l
AGENCY CONTACT:
Harold Peterton Nuclear Regulatory Comission l
Of fice of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3738
[
l i
41 i
TITLE:Facility Form Nuclear Liability Insurance Policy; Miscellaneous Amendments CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 140 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend its regulations to make several minor changes in the Facility form nuclear liability insurance policy furnished as evidence of financial protection. The two nuclear insurance pools have subnitted endorsements to the Facility Form policy that r,ake available a single insurance policy to cover onsite worker claims. This r.ew Master Worker Policy reflects different rating and underwriting treatmer.t than is utilized in the Facility Form policy. The supplementary insurance provided by the new policy enhances protection to the public since payments under its provisions for routine claims by onsite nuclear workers will not reduce the financial protection for the public under the primary and secondary nuclear liability insurance policies provided as evidence of financial protection under the Price-Anderson Act.
TIMETABLE:
NPRM Published 04/27/88 53 FR 15049 NPRM Comnient Period End 05/27/88 Final Action Undetert.ined j
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
j Ira Dinitz t
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20555 l
301 492-1289 i
J l
42 I
f
TITLE:
Revision of Fee Schedules CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 170; 10 CFR 171 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would revise the fees charged for licensing services provided by the NRC and charged to persons who operate nuclear ps er reactors. The proposed amendments would (1) remove fee ceilings, increase the amount charged for a license application, and revise the flat fees set out in Part 170; (2) revise the hourly rate for NRC professional time spent providing various regulatory services; (3) increase the ceilir.g on annual charges; (4) add a deadline for filing exemptions to 10 CFR 171.11; and (5) include monies from the Department of Energy High Level Waste Fund. Because the proposed regulation is necessary to implement the sost recent fee legislation enacted by Congress, there is no suitable alternative to ru emaking for these actions. All applicants and licensees that are currently subject to fees collections under the current regulations would be affected by the proposed rule.
TlHETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 06/27/88 53 FR 24077 Coment Period Ends July 27, 1988 Final Action Published 10/01/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
31 USC 9701; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
H. Lee Hiller Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Administration and Resources Management Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7351 1
43 1
(C) - Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking
{
m i
I l
TITLE:
Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern; Generic Rulernaking CFR CITATION:
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) sought connents on a proposal to amend NRC regulations to address disposal of radioactive wastes that contain sufficiently low quantities of radionuclides that their disposal does not need to be regulated as radioactive.
The NRC has already published a policy staternent providing guidance for filing petitions for rulemaking to exempt individual waste streams (August 29, 1986; 51 FR 30839).
It is believed that generic rulemaking could provide a more efficient and effective means of dealing with disposal of wastes below regulatory concern.
Generic rulemaking would su)plement the solicy statement which was a response to Section 10 of t1e Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendinents Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240). The public was asked to connent on 14 questions.
The AhPRM requesteo public conrent on several alternative approaches the NRC could take. The evaluation of public connent together with the results from a proposed research contract will help to deterraine whether and how NRC should proceed on the natter.
Til1ETABLE:
ANPRM 12/02/86 51 FR 43367 ANPRM Connent Period End 03/02/87 51 FR 43367 Final Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
Pub. L.99-240 EFFECTS Oh SPALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Undetermined AGENCY CONTACT:
Stanley Neuder Nuclear Regulatory Conanission Office of huclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3737 65
TITLE:
Medical Use of Byproduct Material:
Training and Experience Criteria CFR CITATION:
o 10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT:
The Commission is considering whether its training and experience criterin for individuals involved in medical use of byproduct material need to be revised. Rulemaking may be needed to reduce the chance of misadministrations. The Commission may proceed with rulemaking, assist in the developcent of national voluntary training standards, or issue a policy statement recommending increased i
licensee attention to training.
If the Ccomission proceeds with I
ruler.aking, the NRC could publish criteria in its regulations or recognize medical specialty certificates. The NRC is not able to project costs or benefits at this time, and has requested cost / benefit comments in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking publi;;ied May 25, 1988.
The NRC staff will analyze the comments received before recommending whether regulatory action is necessary.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM Published 05/25/88 ANPRM Carment Period End 08/24/88 Proposed Action Published Undetarmined Final Action Undeternined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Nornan L. McElroy Nuclear Regulatory Cormission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3417 4
46
TITLE:
Comprehensive Quality Assurance in Medical Use and a Standard of Care CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Connission is considering whether to amend its regulations to require a corprehensive quality assurance program for medical licensees using byproduct materials. The aurpose of this rulemaking action is to address each source of error t1at can lead to a misadministration. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking was published to request public cossnent on the extent to which in addition to the basic q'slity assurance steps (being addressed by an?ther rulemaking)act's, entitled "Basic Quality Assurance in Radiation Therapy" a more comprehensive quality assurance requirement is needed, and invites advice and reconsnendations on about 20 questions that will have to be addressed in the rulemaking process.
l TIMETABLE:
i ANPRM Action Published 10/02/87 52 FR 36949 l
ANPRM Cossnent Period End 12/31/87 52 FR 36949 l
Options Paper to Officas ior Concurrence 05/13/88 Options Paper on QA Ruleraking to EDO 05/26/88 Revised Options Paper on Rulemaking to ED0 05/31/88 Proposed Action Published Undetermined Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTil0RITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON Sl8.ALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Anthony Tse Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, OC 2055%
301 492-3797 47
TITLE:
Degree Requirement for Senior Operators at Nuclear Power Plants i
CFR CITATION:
[
A8STRACT:
I The Connission is considering an arendment to its regulations to require that applicants for a senior operator Itcense of a nuclear power plant hold a baccalaureate degree in engineering i
or physical science from an accredited institution four years after the effective date of this rule. Other haccalaureate degrees from an accredited institution may be accepted on a case-by-case 4
basis. This contemplated rulemaking action is due to a Conniuion decision to enhance the levels of engineering and accident nianagement expertise on shift.
i The Consission will also issue a policy statenant concurrently with this rule related to utility implenientation of an accredited degree l
j program for reactor operators.
i TlHETABLE:
AtiPFM 05/31/86 51 FR 19561 l
ANPRM Connent Period Extended to 09/29/86 SECY 87-101 to Consission 04/16/87 Consission Approved Preparation of Proposed Rule 06/24/87 Proposed Action for Division Review 02/12/86 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 04/08/88 Proposed Action to EDO 07/29/88 i
Proposed Action to Connission 08/31/88 Proposed Action Published 09/30/88 Final Action for Division Review 02/28/89 1
Office Concurrence on Final Action Ccmpleted 04/28/89 final Action to EDO 08/31/89 Final Action Published 10/31/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201 l
EFFECTS OH SMALL BUSINESS: No ll i
AGENCY CONTACT:
Morton Fleishman Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Rtgulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 l
301 492-3794 a
4 48 1
i l
TITLE:
Regulation of Uranium Enrichment Facilities CFR CITATION:
^
ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission is considering an amendment to i
its regulations to create a new part that would pertain to uranium enrichment facilities.
The construction and operation of these facilities are currently licensed under the regulations for other production and utilization facilities (n.g., nuclea power i
4 plants) in 10 CFR Part 50.
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking seekt, coments on wMther a separate set of regulations i
for uranium lictnsing is desiraole.
I TIMETABLE:
}
ANPRM Published 04/22/88 53 FR 13286 i
ANPRM Comment period expires 07/21/88 j
Proposed Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 i
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No i
i AGENCY CONTACT.
Arthur T. Clark Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20505 i
j 301 492-4205 l
j i
l l
l l
r i
49 l
)
i 7-
~ - - -, - -, -
,,.,-_,..---__n-____-_.
(D) - Unpublished Rules I
l i
i l
t a
p
- -~
w
-,,_w,,_w,sw--,
n.s-w m,
w_.mam m e m um amum.aA-m
+M_a,3__e
,,,M-B-_-mLAmA mA
.-kmm.
A a_m.,
4 j
4 I
I e
I i
i l.
I l
l
\\
i 4
--..- --w
-- w ---
l l
TITLE:
Restrictions Against Ownership of Certain Security Interests by Hembers of Advisory Connittee on Nuclear Waste; Gifts.
Entertainment, and Favors CFR CITATION:
10 CFR Part 0 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations governing the ownership by NRC employees of stocks, bonds, and other security interests in companies that fall within any one of five reactor-related or fuel cycle-licensed categories.
This amendment will acd to the group of affected employees those special Government employees who serve as members of the Advisory Committee i
on Nuclear Waste.
The Commission is also amending its regulations on acceptance of gifts, entertainment, and favors to permit acceptance of travel expenses from an otherwise prohibited source when proferred in connection with a job interview and to permit acceptance of food and refreshments at widely-attended events sponsored by certain groups whose membership is corposed of prohibited sources.
TIMETASLE:
Final Action Published 09/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No j
AGENCY CONTACT:
f I
Susan Fonner Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel l
Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1632 t
[
5I l
t t
l TITLE:
Revised Rules of Practice for Donestic Licensing Proceedings CFP. CITATION:
10 CFR 0; 10 CFR 1; 10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 9; 10 CFR 50 ABS 1kACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Connission has deferred further consideration of this proposal which would have revised the Commission's procedural rules governing the conduct of all adjudicatory proceedings, with the exception of export licensing proceedings.
The proposed rule would comprehensively restate current practice, retitle the hearing office, and revise and reorganize the statement of the Commission's procedural rules to reflect current practice.
The changes in this proposed rule would enable the Commission to render decisions in a more timely fashion and reduce the i
burden and expense to the parties participating in the proceedings.
TlHETABLE:
NPkM Undetermined 1
LEGAL AUTHORITY 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841; 5 USC 552 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTl1ER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
B. Paul Cutter, Jr.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7787 52 1
TITLE: Relocation of NRC's Public Document Room; Other Minor Nomenclature Changes CFR CITATION:
10 CFR Parts 1, 2, 7, 9, 15, 19, 20, 21, 30, 35, 40, 50, 51, 53, 55, 60, 61, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 81, 100, 110, 140, 150, 170, and 171 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission is amending its regulations to indicate that its Public Document Room has moved to a new location in the District of Columbia. The hours remain unchanged: 7:45 a.m.
to 4:15 p.m. weekdays.
These amendments are being made to inform
'4RC licensees and members of the public of this relocation. This I
rule also makes minor changes in NRC organization nomenclature to I
reflect new internal organizational tit es.
l TlHETABLE:
Final Action Published 09/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY.'.
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Donnie H. Grimsley Huclear Regulatory Connission Office of Aoministration and Resources Management Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7211
~
53
TITLE:Availability of Official Records CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:
(he proposed arendment would ccaform the NRC's regulations pertaining to the availability of official records to existing case law and agency practice.
The amendment would reaffirm that the terms of 10 CFR 2.790 (c) provide submitters of information a qualified right to have their information returned upon request.
This amendment informs the public of three exceptions to the the right to withdraw pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(c) of the NRC's regulations, i.e., information submitted in a rulemaking proceeding that subsequently forms the basis for the final rule, information which has been made available to an advisory committee or was received at an advisory committee meeting, and inforration that is subject to a pending Freedom of Information Act request.
TlHETABLE:
Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 1
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Edward C. Shomaker 1
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1560 r
I I
l F
k I
s t
54 i.
,-vmr.
a- - - e
--.-----n--
l TITLE:
Negotiated Rulemaking on the Submission and Management of Records and Documents Related to the Licensing of a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste CFR CITATION:
J The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) arovides three years for the NRC to reach a decision on construction aut1orization for a high-level waste repository.
In order for the NRC to be able to make its decision within the al btted time, ready access to all pertinent records must be assured to all parties in the licensing proceeding.
The DOE has committed to develop n Glectrcnic information management system to be used for the licensing proceeding.
The NRC staff intends to use the process of i
r.egotiated rulemaking to develop a proposed rule that would revise the Comission's discovery procedure and motion practice in 10 CFR Part 2 for the high-level waste licensing proceeding. This rule would require the 1
DOE license application and all supporting records to be provided in a standardized electronic format. All parties to the licensing proceeding l
would be required to submit all relevant data to this system.
In turn, 1,
all parties would have access to the data base.
l Resource estimates currently ur. der development.
TIMETABLE:
Notice of Intent Published 12/18/86 51 FR 45338 j
Notice of Intent /Coment Period Expires 02/18/86 Notice of Formation of Negotiating Comittee 08/05/87 52 FR 29024 Proposed Action Published 9/01/88 r
Final Action to Comission 11/15/88 i
Final Action Published 12/31/88 i
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
NWPA, AEA l
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
To be determined i
AGENCY CONTACT:
Francis X. Cameron i
Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel l
Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1623 l
i h
b ss i
TITLE:
- Minor Amendments to Physical Protection Requirements CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 75 ABSTRACT:
TheSafeguardsInterofficeReviewGroup(SIRG)oftheNRChasbeen conducting a systematic review of the agency's safeguards regulations and guidance documents. This review has identified areas in the regulations that are out of date, susceptible to differing interpretations, or in need of clarification.
In addition, the staff has identified other areas in the regulations where minor charges are warranted, in response to these efforts, specific amendments to the regulations are being proposed.
The proposed changes would:
(1)limittheuseofthe100remsperhour at 3 feet dose exemption to a reduction of no more than one physical protection category and not allow a drop below the lowest category, (2) add definitions for connon terms not currently defined by frequent use, (3) delete action dates that no longer apply, (4) correct outdated terms and cross references (5) clarify wording that is susceptible to differing interpretations, (6) correct typographical errors, and (7) male other minor changes.
The alternative to rulemaking woulo bs to allow the status quo to continue.
Except for the change in the imract of a high radiation field on physical protection requirements, these minor amendments affect the public, industry and the NRC only in so far as they make the regulations easier to understsnd, implement, and enforce.
Limiting the use of the 100 rem per hour at 3 feet dos, exemption to a reduction of no more than one physical protection category, and not allowing a drop belaw the lowest category, could affect two non-power reactor licensees.
It is estimated that 0.4 staff-years of NRC effort over 2 years will be required for the rulemaking.
This is a low priority ruitmaking.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to EDO 03/00/89 Proposed Action Published 05/C0/89 Final Action Published 04/04/90 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Stan Dolins Nuclear Regulatory Connission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3745 56
TITLE:
Revision of Definition of Heeting CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 9 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would return the definition of "meeting" to its pre-1985 wording.
The proposal is based on a study of comments submitted on an interim final rule published on May 21, 1985 (50 FR 20889) and the 1987 recormandations and report of the American 1
BarAssociation(ABA).
Since the pre-1985 wording of the definition of meeting is fully adequate to permit the types of non-Sunshine Act discussions that the NRC believes would be useful, the proposal calls for the NRC to reinstitute its pre-1985 definition of meeting, with the intention of conducting its non-Sunshine Act discussions in accordance with the guidelines recommended by the ABA.
l l
TlHETABLE:
Next Action Undetermined i
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
1 Peter G. Crane Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
1 Office of the General Counsel L
i Washington, DC 20555 l
301 492-1634 L
4 l
i i
l I
i i
57 m
l TITLE:
Deletion of Part 11 Requirement for Renewal of "R" Clearances CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 11 ABSTRACT:
The current regulations require licensees to renew "R" clearances every 5 years. This level of clearance corresponds to the "L" clearances used by NRC and DOE which do not require renewal, Because of this equivalence, the renewal requirement for the "R" level licensee clearance is deemed unnecessary.
This rulemaking would delete that requirement from Part 11. The timetable for this rule has been placed on hold pending the publication of Executive Order 10450, "Security Requirements for Government l
Employees".
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
]
42USC2201(1);42USC5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSlhESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No l
AGENCY CONTACT:
Sandra D. Fratta11 Nuclear Regulatory Comission 4.
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3773 i
l, i
1 i
f 58 j
j i
TITLE:+1mplementation of the Use of SF-86, "Questionnaire for Sensitive Positions"
]
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 11; 10 CFR 25 ABSTRACT:
The final rule would change the forms required to request an NRC personnel security clearance and/or material access authorizatinn, for NRC licensees and others, when an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) background investigation is necessary.
l The final arendments are necessary because as of September 16, i
1988, OPM will acsept only the Standard Form (SF) 86, "Questionnaire fo'. Sensitive Positions" as the basis far their l
background invesiigetions.
The exception to the use of SF-86 held by NRC (for use of the NRC Form-1, "Personnel Security Questionnaire") is being discontinued.
Therefore, there is no reasonable alternative to rulemaking.
This rule will have a negligible effect on the general public.
NRC resources required for processing this rule through final publication are estimated to be 120 staff hours.
TIMETABLE:
I i
Final Action for Division Review 06/20/88 r
l Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 06/27/88 Final Action to EDO 07/00/88 l
Final Action Published 08/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2165; 42 USC,2201; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5841; E.O. 10865; 1
E.0. 12356 i
l
]
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AhD OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
i Cynthia G. Harbaugh l
{
Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Administration and Resources Managerent Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4128 i
59 i
l I
r d
TITLE:
- Debt Collection Procedures CFR CITATION:
ABSTRACT:
I The proposed rule would amend the regulatioas concerning the procedures that the NRC uses to rollect the debts which are owed to it. The proposed amendnents are necessary to conform NRC 4
regulations to the amended procedures contained in the Federal Claims Collection Standards issued by the General Accounting Office and the U.S. Department of Justice.
The proposed action is intended to allow the NRC to further improve its collection of debts due to the United States.
Because the proposed regulation is necessary to implement the Debt Collectica Act of 1982, there is no d
suitable alternative to rulemaking for this action.
l i
TIMFTABLE' t
l Proposed Action Published 7/15/88 j
Final Action Published 10/30/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
)
31 USC 3711; 31 USC 3717; 31 USC 3718; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No 1
AGENCY CONTACT:
(
Graham D. Johnson Nuclear Regulatory Comission
)
Office of Administration and Resources Management Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7535 1
I
}
l
)
i i
i' 60 I
i l
l TITLE
- Notification of Incidents j
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would arnend regulations concerning the notification of incidents involving byproduct, scurce, or special nuclear traterial possessed by a licensee.
The proposed rule would clarify licensee reporting requirements for events involving byproduct, source, or special nuclear material that result in the i
loss of operation or damage to property.
The proposed rule would also define the-term "imediate" in the context of time. The proposed action is necessary because the NRC is not being notified of all incidents that occur involving byproduct, source, or special nuclear material possessed by the licensee. The proposed rule is intended to clarify that the notification requirements, apply to all licensees subject to the standards for protection against radiation.
Because the proposed arnendments are needed to clarify an existing regulation, no alternative to rulemaking is acceptable.
The proposed amencrrents are not expected to have any economic impact on NRC or its licensees.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Joseph J. Mate
)
Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of huclear Regulatory Research j
Washington, DC 20555 301 492 3795 l
l r
61
l TITLE:
Disposal of Waste 011 by Incineration from Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule, which is being initiated in partial response to a petition filed by Edison Electric Institute and Utility Nuclear Waste l
Management Group (PRM 20-15, dated July 31 1984),wouldamendNRC j
regulationstoallcwonsiteincinerationofwasteoilatnuclearpower plants subject to specified conditions.
Currently, the only approved disposal method for low-level, radioactively contaminated waste oil from nuclear power plants involves absorption or solidification, transportation to, and burial at a licensed disposal site.
There is a clear need to allow, for very low activity level wastes, the use of alternative disposal rnethods which are more cost effective from a l
radiological health and safety standpoint and which conserve the i
limited disposal capacity of low-level waste burial sites.
Increased savinos to both the public and the industry could thereby be achieved without imposing additional risk to the public health and safety. There would be an estimated industry-wide economic savings of approximately $3 million to $12 million per year if such a rule were promulgated.
Alternatives to this rulemaking action are to maintain the status quo or to wait until the Environmental Protection Agency develops standards on acceptable levels of radioactivity which may be released to the environment on an unrestricted basis, it is estimated that approximately 1-2 person years of NRC staff time will be required to process this rule.
T!HETABLE:
l Proposed Action to E00 06/21/88 i
Proposed Action Published 07/26/88 l
Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 12/21/88 j
Final Action to E00 01/05/89 Final Action to Comission 01/19/89 Final Action Published 02/16/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2167; 42 USC 2073 EFFECTS ON SHALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
j Catherine R. Mattsen l
Nuclear Regulatory Comission 1
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 1
301 492-3638 j
62 I
l
-. ~, - - - - - -,,. -,
,n-c. - - - -..
,. -.. ~ - - - -. - - - _, - -,
TITLE:
Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Honcompliance CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 50 ABS 1RACT:
Thisproposedrulewouldamend10CFRPart21and$50.55(e),bothof which require the reporting of safety defects by licensees.
In addition, Part 21 requires reporting by non-licensees. This proposed amendment was prompted by the Till Action Plan Task !!, J.4, dndNRCstaffexperiencewithPart21and$50.55(e) reporting.
The main objectives of the ruler,aking effort are: (1) elimination of duplicrte evaluation and reporting of safety defects; (2) consistent threshold for safety defect reporting in both Part 21 and $50.55(e);
(3) establishment of consistent and uniform content of reporting under both Part 21 and $50.55(e); atd (4) establishment of time limits within which a defect must be evaluated and reported.
Approximately 500 reports are submitted to the Cocenission annually under Part 21. Approximately 1500 reports are submitted to the Commission annually under 550.55(e).
These reports identify both plant specific and generic safety concerns for further NRC regulatory action.
Under current rules, these reports have formed the basis for NRC issuance of numerous NkC information notices and bulletins.
The proposed rulemaking will recuce the potential for duplicate reporting and evaluation of safety defects which new exist. The rulemaking will establish a more coherent regulatory framework that is expected to reduce industry reporting and evaluation burden significantly without reducing safety effectiveness.
Alternatives to this rulemaking approach which were considered varied from establishment of a single rule for all reporting of safety defects and operating reactor events to maintaining the status quo for defect reporting. All alternatives were rejected since they would not substantially improve the current safety defect reporting situation.
Currentcostsofreportingunder10CFR21and150.55(e) are estimated at $10.43 million annually for industry and $1.08 million for NRC evaluations.
It is anticipated that the industry reporting burden should be reduced by $1.6 million; while NRC burden should remain the same. Additional industry burden, though minimal, is anticipated in the area of reissuing procedures for reporting and record keeping.
The Comission disapproved this proposed rule on 10/20/86 and provided direction to the staff to revise the proposed rulemaking.
The subsequent rulemaking effort has proceeded based on this direction.
63
TITLE:
Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncen;pliance TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action for Division Review Completed 05/00/85 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 06/05/85 l
Proposed Action to E00 11/18/85 Proposed Action to Cor:riission 12/16/86 Comission Action Disapproving Froposed Action 10/20/86 Revised Proposed Action Division for Review 04/00/87 Office Concurrence on Revised Proposed Action 07/24/87 CRGR Review 11/12/87 CRGR Concurrence Complete 02/12/88 Revised Proposed Action to EDO 02/16/88 Revised Preposed Action to Comission 03/09/88 Revised Proposed Action Published 07/00/88 Final Action Published 02/00/89
)
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2282; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
William R. Jones Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data i
Washington, DC 20555 1
301 492-4442 l
1 1
64
TITLE:
- Fitness for Duty Program CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 26 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would create a new part to the Commission's regulations to require licensees authorized to operate nuclear power reactors to implen.ent a fitness for duty program that will proviM reasonable assurance that activities associated with nuclete tower plant operations are carried out in an environment that
..'ree from the effects of alcohol and drug abuse. The proposed rule provioes for basic fitness for duty program elements suc1 as the development of written policy and procedures, provisions for the training of supervisors and employees, standards for drug testing requirements for employee assistance programs, i
management actions, and appeal precedures.
l The proposed rule represents the culmination of several years of effort in developing a fitness for duty program. On August 5, 1982, the Comission published a proposed rule (47 FR 33980).
Based on comments received and staff analysis, final rulemaking was deferred and a policy statement was published on August 4, 1986 (51 FR 27921). On December 1,1987, the Comission was briefed on the experiences gained to date under the policy statement and on the i
status of implementation. The Comission then requested the staff to prepare a new proposed rule.
1 The estimated incremental cost to industry is between 5160.7 i
l j
million and $243.3 million for the life of the current plants.
NRC costs to review and oversee implementation and operation of the programs will involve 6 staff persons for a cost between $4 niillion
[
j and $6 million for a 25-year period.
l c
4 l
T!HETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 8/00/88 i
l Final Action Published 10/00/89 i
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
i 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 t
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AhD OTHER ENTITIES: No j
l AGENCY CONTACT:
8 Loren L. Bush l
J laclear Regulatory Comission
[
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 4
Washington, DC 20555 301 492-0944 L
j 65 l
l f
L
TITLE:
Licensees and Radiation Safety Requirements for Large Irradiators CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 36 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is developing regulations to specify radiation safety requirements and license requirements fer the use of licensed radioactive materials in large irradiators.
Irradiator:: use ganna radiation to irradiate products to change their characteristics in some way. The requirements would apply to large panoramic irradiators (those in which the radioactive sources and the n4terial being irradiated are in a room that is accessible to personnel while the source is shielded) and certain large self-contained irradiators in which the source always remains under water.
The rule would not cover small self-contained irradiators, instrument calibrators, medical uses of sealed scurces (such as teletherapy), or non-destructive testing (such as industrial radiography).
The alternative to a regulation is continuing to license irradiators on a case-by-case basis using license conditions. The formalization would make the NRC's requireirents better understood and possibly speed the licensing of irradiators. Development of the rule will reqtlire 2 staf f-years.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to EDO 04/05/89 Proposed Action to Consnission 05/05/89 Proposed Action Pubitshed 06/05/89 Final Action Puolished 05/05/90 LEGAL AUTHURITY:
42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS Oh 9 ALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
les AGENCY CONTACT:
Stephen A. McGuire kucient Regulatory Counission Offics of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3757 66
--~
i TITLE:Criteria for Licensing the Custody and Long-Term Care of Uranium Mill Tailings Sites CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 40 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would provide a procedure to license a custodian for the post-closure, Icog-term control of uranium mill tailings sites required by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Actof1978(UMTRCA).
This amendment would establish a general license for custody and long-term care of uranium mill tailings by the Department of Energy, other designated Federal agencies, or States when applicable. The general license would ta formulated so that it would become effective for a particular site when (1) HRC concurs in the DOE determination that the site has been properly constructed and (2) a surveillance and maintenance plan that meets the requirements of the general license has been received by NRC. No impact to the the public or indi;3try is expected as a result of this proposed action.
i TIMETABLE:
i l
Proposed Action for Division Review 11/03/37 i'
Office Concurrence on Proposea Actiua Corpleted 02/10/88 i
l Proposed Action to ED0 03/10/88 Proposed Action Publ uhed Undetermined
[
Final Action Published Undetermined 3
l l
1 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
]
42 USC 5841; 4? USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: do i
i AGENCY CONTACT:
l; Mark Haisfield l
Nuclear Regulatory Commission I
q Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
.I Washington, DC 20555 i
i 301 492-3877 l
l 1
l f
l t
1 k
i t
t I
I 1
TITLE:
Equivalent Control Capacity for Standby Liquid Control Systems (SLCS)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would clarify the Comission's regulations pertaining to boiling veter reactors (BWR).
The current regulations require that all boiling water reactors must have a standby liquid control system (SLCS) with a minimum flow capacity and Loron content equivalent in controi capacity to 86 gallons per minute (gpm) of 13 weight percent of sodium pentaborate solution.
In January 1985, a generic letter was issusd to all appropriate licensees that provided larification of the phrase "equivalent in control capacity" cont 11ned in section 50.62 (c)(4).
This letter provided the basis for the flow and weight percent of sodium pentaborate decahydrate requirements and described how equivalency could be achieved for smaller plants. The 'tRC staff considers the i
contents of the generic letter to ;. technically correct and desires that this position be established in the regulations.
This proposed rule would clarify a Connission regulation; thus, no other procedure is appropriate.
The technical proposals in the rule were analyzed for safety as part of the original rulemaking procedure.
although they were not specifically mentioned.
This rule will not i
adversely af fect the health and safety of the public.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action for Division Review 11/30/87 Froposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 07/29/88 Proposed Action to E00 08/31/88 Proposed Action Publishei 09/30/88 i
Tinal Action Published 12/30/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2136; Section 106 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
William R. Pearson Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3764 i
i 1
68
TITLE:
Licensee Action During National Security En.ergency CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would allow a licensee during a national security emergency to ceviate from a license condition or a technical specification. The Comission previously has granted authority to nuclear pow 1r reactor licensees to take reasonable action that departs from a license condition or a technical specification in an emergency when the action is immediately necessary to protect the public health and safety and no action consistent with license conditions and technical specifications that can provide adequate or equivalent protection is imediately apparent.
This proposed rule will provide j
the same flexibility to licensees, but for the purpose of attaining
)
national security objectives during a declared national emergency due to nuclear war or natural disaster.
l The proposed rule change does not significantly impact state ano local governments, health, safety, and the environment; or costs to licensees.
TIMETABLE:
l Proposed Action Published 08/00/88 Final Action Published 02/00/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 5641; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AhD OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Joan Aron Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Assessment and Evaluati)n of Operational Data Washington, DC 20555 301 492-9001 69
TITLE:
Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATIOh:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would provide functional requirements for the maintenance of nuclear power plants and allow industry initiatives to develop the details of raintenance programs to reet such requirements.
The proposed rule would apply to all components, systems and structure:
of nuclear power plants and would be applicable to existing and future plants. The proposed rule would also require each licensee to develop, implement and maintain a maintenance program, and to forr. ally comit to follow the program.
The scope of caintenance activities addressed in the rule will be within the frarework of the Comission's Policy Statenent on Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants which was issued on March 23,1988(53FR9430),
it is estimated that about 3 staff-years of effort and $603,000 for contract services will be required to process the final rule.
TlHETABLE:
Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 09/19/88 Proposed Action to E00 09/26/88 i
Proposed Action to Comission 10/03/88 I
Proposed Action Published 11/07/88 Final Action for Division Review 07/01/89 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 08/01/69 Final Action to E00 11/01/89 Final Action to Comission 12/01/89 Final Action to Federal Register 12/30/69 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSlhESS AhD OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Mont Dey Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3730 70
TITLE:
Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) Rule, Published July 23, 1985, established a screening criterion, a limit on the d6qrce of radiation erbrittlerent of PWR reactor vessel beltline materials bcyond which operation car:not continue without additional j
plant-specific analysis.
The rule prescribes how to calculate the degree of embrittlement as a function of the copper and nickel contents of the controlling material and the neutron fluence. The proposed arandment revises the calculative procedure to be consistent with that given in Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.99.
The guide provides an updated correlation of erbrittlement data, I
which received CRGR approval for publication in final form on l
Decerber 9, 1987.
The need to ar,end the PTS rule to be consistent with the guide became apparent when it was found that some medium copper, high-nickel materials enbrittlement is worse now than predicted using the PTS rule. A nurber of PWR's will reach the screening criterion sooner than previout,1y thought, and three plants will need to make plant-specific analyses in the next 10 years. Therefore, a high prior d, is being given to this effort.
An unaccentable alternative to this amendment from the safety standooint is to leave the present PTS rule in place.
The staff's plant-by-plant analyses found four plants whose reference temperatures are 52 to 68'F higher than previously thought, based en the present rule. This is beyond the uncertainties that were felt to exist when the present rule was published. Another unacceptable alternative that has been evaluated is to change the calculative procedure for the reference temperature and also change the screening critarion. Failure probabilities for the most critical accident scenarios in three plants, when recalculated using the new erbrittlement estimates, were somewhat lower, but were quite dependent on the plant configuration and the scenario chosen.
Furthermore, the screening criterion was based on a variety of consicerations besides the probabilistic analysis.
Reopening the question of where to set the screening criterion was not considered productive because of plant-to-plant differencer.
It is better to have a conservative "trip wire" that triggers plant-specific analyses.
Imediate costs to industry will be those required for each utility to update the January 23, 1966, submittal required by the PTS rule, using fluence estirates that take account of flux reduction efforts in the interim and using the new procedure for calculating RT/ PTS.
In addition, three to f1ve plants will need to make the expenditure of an estir.ated 2.5 millico dollars for the plant-specific analysis in the 1990's instead of 10 to 15 years later.
71
TITLE:
Pressurized Thcrral Shock Rule T!HETABLE:
Proposed Action to EDO 12/01/88 Proposed Action Published 02/01/89 Final Action Published 03/01/90 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS OF SMALL SUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Pryor N. Rancall Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492 3842 l
l 72
TITLE:
Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission proposes to clarify its regulations on the use of the terms "important to safety" and "safety related" by adding definitions of these two terns and of "facility licensing documents" to 10 CFR Part 50 and by discussing how these definitions will be applied in NRC licensing reviews.
Significant issues concerninq the meaning cf these terms as they are used in this part have arisen in Comission licensing proceedings.
This proposed rule would define these terms and clarify the nature and extent of their effect on quality assurance requirements, thereby resolving these issues.
Ruler.aking was chosen as the r.ethod of resolving this issue as a result of the Comission's directive to resolve the issue by rulemakinq contained in the Shoreham licensing decision (CLI-84-9,19NRC1323, June 5,1984).
A position paper requesting aproval of the staff proposed definitions l
and additional guidance from tie Comission was signed by the E00 l
on May 29, 1986.
In addition to rulemaking, the position paper discusses the alternative of the Comission issuing a policy staternent concerning the definitions and their usage.
Since the propored rule is only clarifying existing requirerents, there is no impact on tne public or the industry as a result of this ruleraking.
It 15 anticipated that the hRC will expend 3.2 to 4.4 staff years in develop,, the final rule over a two-year period.
The ranpower and tire frr7 will depend on Cocmission guidance received on the extent to which 10 C :, usage of the terms is to be contistent, i.e.,
10 CFR Part 50 only or all of 10 CFR.
The tiretable is on hold based on a decision by the Cocaission.
TIMETABLE:
Froposed Action to Cominion 05/29/86 Comission Decision on SECY 86-164 Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
4? USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; a2 DSC 5846 73
TITLE:
Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Jerry N. Wilson Nuclear Regulatory Corsission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3729 l
l l
74
TITLE:Extension of Time for the Implementation of the Decontamination Priority and Relationship Provisions of Property Insurance Requirerrents CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclaar Regulatory Comission proposes to amend the irnplementation schecule for the decontamination priority and trusteeship provisions of its property insurance regulations continued in 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(1) to change the effective date from October 4, 1988 to April 1, 1990.
This delay in implementation is necessary because the insurers that offer property insurance for power reactors have informed the Comission that they will be unable l
to include the decontamination prio.'ity and trusteeship provisions in their policies within the time currently provided by 10 CFi.
50.54(w).
Concurrently, the extension of the effective date of the rule will allow the NRC to consider recently submitted petitions for rulerraking that propose changes to irnprove the efficacy of the NRC's l
decontamination priority and trust provisions.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to EDO 09/00/88 Proposed Action Published 09/C0/88 Final Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Robert S. Wood huclear Regulatory Comission Office of Huclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20555 75
TITLE:
Personnel Access Authorization Program j
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:
The Commission has concluded that it is appropriate for each licensee who operates a nuclear power plant to establish an access authorization program to ensure that individuals who require unescorted access to protected areas or vital areas of their facilities are trustworthy, reliable, emotionally stable, and do not pose a threat to coesnit radiological sabotage. Accordingly, the NRC published a proposed rule on August 1, 1984, which would require an access authorization program at nuclear power plants (49 FR30726).
An alternative proposal by)the Nuclear Utility Management and ResourceCosmittee(NUMARC was submitted as a publ< c connent on this proposed rule. The alternative proposed a voluntary industry cemitment to implement an access autiorization program at nuclear power plants based upon inductry guidelines. Major provisions of l
this program include background investigation, psychological evaluation, and behaviortal observation.
On June 18, 1986, the Comission approved developing a policy stat aant endorsing industry guidelines as an alternative to the proposed ruleinaking. Comitments to adhere to these guidelines would be formalized through amendments to the physical security plans ar.d be subject to inspection and enforcement by hRC.
TIMETABLE:
Office Concurrence on Proposed Policy Statement Corpleted 10/30/87 Proposed Policy Statement / Guidelines to E00 12/07/87 Proposed Policy Statement / Guidelines to Commission 12/15/87 Proposed Policy Statement Publ1shed 03/09/88 53 FR 7534 Proposed Policy Statement Corrent Period End 05/09/E8 Final Policy Statement to E00 10/31/88 Final Policy Statement Published 12/31/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGEhCY CONTACT:
Sandra Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3773 76
TITLE:
Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Reactors CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 52 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission is considering adding a new part to its regulations to irtproYe the reactor 11 censing process.
The proposed rule woulo provide for the issuance of early site permits, standard design certifications, and combined construction permits and conditional operating licenses for nuclear power reactors.
These giocedural reforms are intended to improve the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of nuclear power plant licensing without detracting from protection of the public health ano safety or the public's ability to participate in the licensing process. They are desiCred to implerrent as much of the Comissions's prepo;ed "Nuclear Power Plant Standardization and Licensing Act of 1987" as is permissible under its existing statutory authority. The proposed legislation is based on an earlier proposal that was developed by the Comission's Regulatory Reform Task Force.
If licensing reform legislation is ultimately enacted, the rules can be rnodified to implement that legislation fully.
l This prnposed rule is currently before the Comission.
T!HETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 07/00/88 Final Action to Comission 10/00/88 Final Action Published 12/00/88 Final Action to Comission 6/20/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2239; 42 USC 2282; 42 USC 4842; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSlHESS AhD OTHER ENTITIES. No AGENCY CONTACT:
Steve Crockett Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Ccunsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-6100 77
TITLE:
Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC Approved Casks at Civilian Nuclear Power Reactor Sites CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 74; 10 CFR 170 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule is in response to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (hhPA) section 218 (a) which states in part, that the Secretary of DOE shall establish a demonstration progran, in cooperation with the private sector for dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more tectrologies that the Comission may, by rule, approve for use at sites of civilian nuclear power reactors.
The NWPA also requires that the hRC establish procedures for the section 218(a) y technology approved by the Comission underfor use at the s licensing of an j
reactor.
The staff anticipates a significant increase in the demand for use of dry spent fuel storage casks starting in the early 1990s, thus processing of this proposed rule would be timely. hRC resource requirerents are anticipated to be about two staff years.
TlhETABLE:
l Proposed Action for Division Revi m 03/02/88 Proposed Action to Offices for Co currence 06/30/88 Proposed Action to EDO 08/31/88 Prcposed Action Published 10/09/t*
J Final Action Published 07/21/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10153; 42 USC 10198 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No I
AGEhCY CONTACT:
Williata R. Pearson i
huclear Regulatory Comission Of fice of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555
)
301 492-3764 i
i 78
)
4
TITLE:
l Night Firing Qualifications for Security Guards at Nuclear Power l
Plants CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule wculd ensure that security force effectiveness at nuclear power plants is not dependent on the tirre of aay.
Security quards currently are required to perforan night firing for i
familiartzation only. There is no requirerent for standards to
{
seasure their effectiveness.
The proposed rule would change that by I
requiring that security guards at nuclear power plants qualify for night firing. The only alternative to ruit.uking is to retain the current status.
Part 73, Appendix B. Part IV, will be ainended to require reactor security guards to qualify annually in an NRC-approved night firing course with their assigned weapons.
The proposed aciendrent will standardize training and qualification in night firing and prepare power reactor guard forces to rare effectively respond in tie event of an incident occurring in limited lighting conditions. The cost to industry should be relatively rocest since licensees already
)
I operate caylight firing training and qualificaticn facilities and I
programs. The costs to NRC will also be minimal because it will only require minor licensing, inspection and other regulatory actions. There is no occupational exposure.
1 It is estiinated that 0.4 staff-years cf ef fort over ? years by the l
hrC will be required for the rulemaking.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to EDO 03/20/89 Proposed Action to Corsnission 04/20/89 Proposed Action Published 06/19/89 Final Action Published 05/18/90 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
4*/ USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSihESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: ho AGENCY CONTACT:
Dr. Sandra D. Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3773 79
TITLE:
.ow-level Reasserting NRC's Sole Authority for Approving Waste Disposal tii agreement States CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 150 ABSTRACT:
This rulerraking would establish NRC's sole authority for approving onsite disposal of low-level waste at all NRC-licensed reactors and at Part 70 f uel cycle f acilities. There is a need to amend section 150,15 to authorize one agency (the NRC) to regulate all cnsite disposal of low-level waste in order to provide a more comprehensive regulatory review of all onsite waste ranagernent activities and to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort.
Uniform review by the NRC will provide fer greater assurance that the radioactive material will not present a halth hazard at a later cate af ter the site is decoaxnissioned.
T!HETASLE:
Proposed Action to E00 06/10/88 Proposed Action Published 07/29/88 Final Action Published 06/30/89 LEGAL AUTh0RITY:
ll 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2021; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
John Stewart Nuclear Fegulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 192-361b SO
i l
(A) - Petitions incorporated into final rules or petitions denied since March 31. 1988 r
f a
l 4
P J
d t
f 6
4 i
1 i
I l
i l
l I
t
A
v PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM 40-24 PETITIONER:
Union Carbide Corporation PART: 40 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION:
November 30, 1982 (47 FR 53889)
SUBJECT:
Revised Criteria for Operation of Uranium Mills and Disposition of Tailings or Wastes
SUMMARY
Description. The petitioner proposes that the Comission amend its regulations setting out criteria for the operation of uranium mills and the disposition of tailings or wastes resulting from uranium milling activities.
The petitiuner suggests specific amendments to the criteria governing the selection of new tailings disposal sites or i
the adequacy of existing tailings disposal sites, the seepage of toxic materials into the groundwater, the earth cover to be placed over tailings or wastes to prevent the surface exhalation of radon, and the charge imposed on each mill operator to cover the cost of long-term surveillance.
L The petitioner supports its suggested amendments with information it says was not available to the Comission 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 coment 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 J
the petitioner seeks to amend were issus;d 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,etseq.). These regulations were published in the Federal Register on October 3,1980(45FR65531).
TIMETABLE: A notice of denial for this petition for rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on April 21, 1988 (53FR13128).
CONTACT: Mark Haisfield Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Muclear Regulatory Comission 301-492-3877 81
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-50-22 PETITIONER:
Public Interest Research Grcup, et al.
PART:
50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: August 8,1977(42FR40063)
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 that i
operate reactors, rather thr.n future generations, bear the cost of decomissioning.
The petitioners also request that the Comission amend its regulations to require that l
operators of nuclear power plants already in operation be required to establish plans and imediately 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 l
j decomissioning costs when necessary.
Background.
The original coment period closed October 7, 1977, but was extended to January 3,1978. Sixty-two coments i
were received, a majority of which oppose the petition. A l
notice denying the petition in part was published in the i
i Federal Register on June 22,1979(44FR36523). The partial denial covered that part of the petition seeking an imediate rulemaking requiring the posting of surety bonds. Other issues and funding alternatives raised in the petition have i,
been incorporated into the ongoing rulemaking on decomis-(
sioning criteria for nuclear facilities. This rule issued on i
June 27, 1988, addressed remaining issues of the petition.
i a
l To the extent that the proposed amendments would allow i
i consideration of the petitioners' suggested financing methods, 6
l including surety bonds if they are available, the petition is granted, i
L l
l 82 i
s
TIMETABLE: This petition was completed in the final rule entitled "Gei.
31 Requirements for Deconnissioning Nuclear Facl'uties," which was published on June 27, 1988 (53 FR 24018).
CONTACT: Catherine Mattsen Nuclear Regulatory Connission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7661 l
l l
l 83
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-50-25, PRM-50-25A PETITIONER: State of Illinois and the Porter County Chapter of the Iraak Walton League of America, Inc., et al.
PART:
50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION:
February 4,1980'45FR7653)
SUBJECT:
Extension of Construction Completion Date l
l
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioners filed essentially identical l
petitions which request that the Comission amend its l
regulations in Part 50, 5 50.55, to require that a "good cause" proceeding concerning a requested amendrent 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 l
the tirne the application is considered. The petitioners further request that the Comission 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 tha statutory purposes of Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as aranded, which permits the extension of the completion date for construction of a nuclear power plant only for good cause shown.
Background. On February 28, 1985, the State of Illinois sent a letter to the Secretary of the Comission withdrawing its petition for rulemaking (PRM-50-25). Attorneysfor(PRM-50-25A) were contacted and they agreed to withdraw their petition.
Because the attorneys for PRM-50-25A have failed after several requests by the NRC to formally withdraw their petition and to avoid further delay, the NRC is preparing a notice of denial for this petition.
TIMETABLE: Complete. A Federal Register notice denying this petition was published on April 14, 1988 (53 FR 12425).
CONTACT:
Ronald M. Smith Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301-492-1640 84
(B) - Petitions for which a notice of denial has been prepared and is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register next quarter 1
l l
l i
1
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 SUMilARY: Description.
The petitioners request that the Comission l
amcod its regulations to prohibit the construction of nuclear reactors where the population in the surrounding area exceeds or will exceed specified numerical limits.
The petitioners' proposed criteria would limit permissible population density to 400 people per square mile within a 40-mile perimeter.
The petitioners state that they regard these proposed criteria as interim standards to be used until the Comission is able to generate its own numerical standards on population density.
Objective. To restrict utilities from building nuclear reactors too close to metropolitan areas.
Background.
The coment period closed August 30, 1976.
Twelve coments were received.
An NRC staff paper (SECY-78-624) was submitted to the Comission on December 4, 1978.
In a memorandum to the Executive Director for Operations dated February 15, 1979, the Comission 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 letter dated March 9, 1979. The petitioners were notified by letter (in July 1980) that the petition would be considered in the context of the rulemaking on siting criteria.
Petitioners were notified by letter on January 26, 1982, that the proposed rule on siting criteria would be delayed until sumer 1983 to await safety goal implementation and source term reevaluation.
Recent events, including the reactor accident at Chernobyl in the USSR, continued uncertainty over certain aspects of the accident source term work, and the lack of projected Construction Permit Applications have led the Comission's Executive Director for Operations to conclude that this rulemaking should be terminated.
However, if the Comission 85
decides that further rulemaking on demographic criteria should be undertaken, the unresolved portions of the petition would be considered in the context of that rulema king.
TIMETABLE: The staff has prepared a Federal Register package which contains a notice of denial for this petition for rulemaking.
The notice is expected to be published August 1988.
CONTACT: John Stewart Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-492-2618 l
l 86
(C)
- Petitions incorporated into proposed rules NONE 1
4 I
.-.e-a.-_mm--wh..m
_a
,.+a A
__m.
.. a a
_mu._.s
.m i
i l
1 1
\\
l L
b i
I l
1 h
i b
I L
6 I
I I
L i
e I
i l,
t a
a
. F
~__ --- _ _ _ _ _ _
I (0)-Petitionspendingstaffreview 4
im - -
.a_
E.4 h._
.+,, -
.r.
.a he.
,E2-i i
I
)
l b
l 4
l b
l l
I i
i I
I i
l l
i l
b l
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-31-4 PETITIONER: Gc,e-Trak Systems PART: 31 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION:
February 2,1988(53FR2853)
SUBJECT:
Use of Phosphorus-32 in Salmonella and Listcria Assays
SUMMARY
The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to establish that 100 microcuries of phosphorus-32 used in Salmonella and Listerit assays by a food laboratory is an exempt quantity under a general license according to 10 CFR 31.11.
The petitioner requests this action because the presence of phospherus-32 in amounts exceeding currently exempt quantities woulo require those desiring to use DNA probe assays to apply l
for and obtain a specific license from the NRC that would authorize this use.
The petitioner asserts that authorizing the use of the assays under a general license would assist food manufacturers and food laboratories by eliminating the licensing procedure.
The paperwork burden on both the NRC and the industry would be reduced.
l TIMETABLE:
Resolution is scheduled for November 1988.
CONTACT:
Harold Scott Nuclear degulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-492-3632 i
I 87
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-40-23 PETITIONER:
Sierra Club PART: 40 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION:
February 25,1981(46FR14021);
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 Connission 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 rill tailings sites subject to the Department of Energy's re:+ dial programs; (2) require a license for the possession of byproduct material on any other property in the vicinity of an inactive mill tailings site if the byproduct materials are derived from the sites; or, in the alternative, (3) conduct a rulemaking to determine whether a licensing exemption of these sites or byproduct materials constitutes an unreasonable risk to public health and safety. On March 23, 1983, the petitioner tiled 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 i
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 ha?'rds associated with the tailings.
The petitioner be'.ieves that this action is necessary if NRC is to adequately fulfill its statutory responsibilities under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act.
b 88 l
[
i n
,,,.. ~, -. - -..,, _ - - - _ - - - -
Background. The comment period closed April 27, 1981. Three connents 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.). Tit 19 I of the Act directs that the Department of Energy, in consul-tation with NRC, conduct a remedial action program at inactive uranium mill tailings sites.
Title 11 of the Act authorizes NRC to regulate disposal of the tailings at active sites.
TIMETABLE: Resolution of this petition is on hold pending amendments to Part 40 dealing with the custody and long-tenn care of reclaimed mill tailings sites. Completion of this rulemaking is scheduled for 1989.
Resolution of l
the petition will be completed following this action.
CONTACT: Mark Haisfield i
Nuclear Regulatory Cormission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-492-3877 1
2
}
I i
89
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-5041 PETITIONER:
Citizens' Task Force PART:
50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
70 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: March 24,1982(47FP.12639)
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
Description. The petitioner requesta that the Comission amend its regulations to require that (1) the present ten-mile erergency planning zone radius be extended to twenty miles and include any towns bordering on or partially within this zone; (2) all comunities 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 s nicipalities; and (3) utilities be required to finance the emergency planning efforts of municipalities located near nuclear reactors.
i Objective.
To establish an effective notification and evacuation system in communities located near nuclear reactors.
Background. The coment period closed May 24, 1982.
TIMETABLE:
Staff action on the response to the petitioner is scheduled for November 1988 (to be coordinated with the senre accident research program and publication of l
NUREG-1150); however, this is dependent upon the
}
Comission's policy decision in the emergency planning area.
CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-492-3918 3
l 1
1
]
90 t
j I
m A
PETITION DOCKET hUMBER: PRM-50-45 PETITIONER:
Xenneth G. Sexton PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION:
October 6,1986(51FR35518)
SUBJECT:
Extending the Emergency Planning Zone
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioner requests that the Connission amend its regulations to require that current methodologies and analytical techniques be used to reevaluate the established Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) for nuclear power plants.
The petitioner is concerned that emergency planning for areas within l
and beyond *te 10-mile distance provided in the Connission's regulations is inadequate because the l
current 10-mile EPZ was determined with what the petitioner considers outdated methodologies and data.
The petitioner points out that advanced techniques and new information obtained through research in the last 10 years have produced irproved calculations for determining the size of an EPZ.
Objective. The petitioner believes that there is overwhelming justification to request that the size of the EPZ be reevaluated on a site-specific basis, after allowing for review of the aqtermination report by any interested parties.
Background.
The connent period for this petition, originally to expire on December 5, 1986 has been extended to April 15, 1987.
l TIMETABLE:
Staff action on the petition is scheduled to be completed hovember 1988.
CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Connission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research i
301-492-3918 i
91 i
~
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-46 PETITIONER: State of Maine PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Decerrber 30,1986(51FR47025)
SUBJECT:
Emergency Planning
SUMMARY
- Description.
The petitioner requests that the Comission amend its emergency planning regulations to (1) expand the emergency planning zone for the plume exposure pathway and for the ingestion pathway; (2) require that emergency planning be done before any construction of a nuclear facility is permitted and that the Governor of each affected State approve the emergency plans as a precondition to construction; and (3) require that offsite emergency preparedness findings be made before any fuel loading and/or low power operations are permitted.
l Objective.
To expand the erergency planning zone around nuclear power plants to ensure the protection of the public.
Background. The coment period expired March 2,1987.
l TIMETABLE:
Staff action on the petition is scheduled to be completed I
in Noverrber 1988, but depends on the Comission policy decision in the emergency planning area CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-492-3918 f
92
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-50-47 PETITIONER: Quality Technology Company PART:
50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: January 12,1987(52FR1200)
I
SUBJECT:
Establishing an Enrployee Concerns Prograin and hesolution of l
Employee-Identified Concerns at Nuclear Facilities l
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioner requests that the Consiission add to its regulations requirements that all utilities envolved I
in a nuclear program establish and maintain an employee concerns program and report to the hRC's Office of Investigation all l
employee-identified concerns related to "wrongdoing activities."
Based en the petitioner's experience with employee concerns
,nrograms, the petitioner contends that more than half of amployee-Identified concerns are substantiated and that adding these requirements to the NRC's regulations may ensure resolution of the issues related to these concerns.
Objective. To require that all utilities involved in a nuclear program (1)establishandmaintainanemployeeconcernsprogram and (2) report to the NRC's Office of Investigation all employee-identified concerns related to "wrongdoing activities."
Backgrourd. The petitioner conducted or participated in employee i
concerns programs at several utilities and thinks that such a progran is an offective vehicle for obtaining accurate and insightful information about nuclear safety-related issues frein employees involved in the construction or operation of a nuclear facility. The comment period closed March 13, 1987.
The staff is currently reviewing the response to this petition.
TIMETABLE: The projected resolution of this petition is targeted for July 1988.
CONTACT: Joe Hate Nuclear Regulatory Conynission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-492-3795 c
i 93
)
- - = _ ~. -.
ll FETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-48 PETITIONER: University of Missouri PART:
50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
None FEDERAL REGISTER C:TATION: March 1,1988(53FR6159)
SUBJECT:
Reoefine "Testing "4eility" Eased on the Function of the Facility Insteaa of its inwe stvel
SUMMARY
- The petitioner requests tr.at the Commission adept a regulation that would add a definition for the term "research reactor" and redefine 3
the term ".*itting facility" baled on 19e function of the facility I
instead of :ts power 1s.1),
inc petitisnar requests this action because the current definition of "testing facility" results in excessive and unnecessary routine regulatory requirements being applied to research reactors which is contrary to the intent of Congrest in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
TIMETABLE: The resolution of the petitions is schedule for July 1989.
CONTACT: Mark Au Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-492-3749 94
(E) - Petitions with deferred action I
5 se J
m a
a sm_-
.r.-
a m
._A___-..
e w
Jh.
ma..___
a u~4a-h_
+ _ __-__,._ __.__.
_.-.s.
L*
)
i i
1 l
I c
1 J
J e
1 i
i l
l 4
I i
i I
l l
i k
i w
w--.e-a--
m w.
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
SUMMARY
- Descri) tion.
The petition requested that the Comission amend ' art 50 before proceeding with the processing of license applications for the Central lowa fluclear Project to require that (1) all nuclear reactors be located below ground levelt (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 i
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 recomendations and procedures practiced or encouraged by various organizations and some current NRC guidelines adopted as mandatory requirements in the Co7nission's regulations.
Background.
The coment period closed July 18, 1977.
Three coments 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, 19'8 (43 FR 4466). A notice of denial for the first two parts of the petition was published April 19,1978(43FR16556).
TIMETABLE:
The staff is preparing a Federel Register package which will contain a denial for the remaining issue in this petition.
The notice is expected to be published by October 1988.
CONTACT: John Stewart Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-492-3618 95
geon an u a =veu r.ni.uu.voa, comm..
i airon,,,vv.u tw e, eave oes.
m =. < +
@"3$'-
BIBUOIRAPHIC DATA SHE5T NUREG-0936. Vol. 7. No. 2 u
...,.uct.o i n, i.ivi.ii
,,a u....,a a a u...
6.
NRC Regulatory Agenda Quarterly Report April - June 1988 Auaust 1988
. o.,....o.,ii. wig wo%, se
- i..
August 1988 J
,,., o.., o o. a...:. i.o
... o.. 6,
.o o. i u,,.,, c,
.,, o, c,,i....o..., -..
Division c" Freedom of Information and Publications Services
..,~o....=,-..
Office of Administration and Resources Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washinoton, DC 20555
...,o.o.... o.........o..... o.. 6. o. oo. u,.,, c.,,,
...o....o.,
Quarterly Same as 7, above.
. * *. > oo c o' ' a ' o "~ ~ ~
April - June 1988 Ti.s,a..... =o,..
.....m.c, an. M The NRC Regulatory '.pida is a compilation of all rules on which the NRC has proposed or is cons, n ing action and all petitions for rulemaking which have been received by the Comission end are pending disposition by the l
Comission.
The Regulatory Agenda is updated and issued each quarter.
.. pocos,.. 6........ 2.
cuc...,o..
*;.',;M;;' '
compilation of rules petitions for rulemaking Unlimited cv..,, c 6.u.. c.v e a.. n U_gclassified
.....,..... e.....eio,...
a... -,
Unciassified
,, -ein..;n
....a
1 UNITED STATES
)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$[AEUr#NE '
E I
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 "C
PERMT No. 0-47 l-RULES Section 1 - Rules y g ; g % % y,,, o f
Action Completed Rules
$R IcA IONS SVCS O
f Ci$hSNGTON Proposed Rules Advance Notice - Proposed Rulemaking Unpublished Rules Section 11 - Petitions for Rulemaking Petitions - Final or Denied Petitions - Scheduled for Publication in the Federal Register Petitions - Incorporated into Proposed Rules Petitions - Pending Petitions - Deferred Action