ML20214W155

NRC Regulatory Agenda.Quarterly Report,October-December 1986

ML20214W155
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/31/1987
From:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
To:
References
NUREG-0936, NUREG-0936-V05-N04, NUREG-936, NUREG-936-V5-N4, NUDOCS 8706150112
Download: ML20214W155 (160)

Text

,

.. . e -.

NUREG-0936 Vol. 5, No. 4 NRC Regulatory Agenda Quarterly Report October - December 1986 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration and Resources Management p= "%,,

N ,'

O g 61 g g 870531 0936 R PDR ,

)

• F- ,

)

NOTICE Availability 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 inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Docu-ment Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation notices; Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and licensee documents and correspondence.

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 o/

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 Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federal and state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.

Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non NRC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited.

Single copies of NRC draf t reports are available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request to the Division of information Support Services, Distribution Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, and are available there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the American National Standards institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.

o

NUREG-0936 Vol. 5, No. 4 NRC Regulatory Agenda Quarterly Report October - December 1986 Minuscript Completed: January 1987 Data Published: May 1987 Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration and Resources Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W:shington, DC 20666

,s* "*%

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I - RULES (A) Rules on which final action has been taken since September 30, 1986 Nomenclature Changes to Implement Consolidation of OGC and ELD (Parts 0,1,9,10,14,51,110)................................ 1 Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings: Role of NRC Staff in Adjudicatory Licensing Hearings .(Part 2)............... 2 Regulatory Reform of the Rules of Practice and Rules for Licensing of  :

Production and Utilization Facilities (Parts 2, 50)............. 3  :

Security Requirements for Category II Material at Fixed Sites +

(Parts 2,70,73)............................................... 4 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex - Title IX of the Education .

Amendments of 1972, as Amended (Part 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,. . . 5  ;

Adjustment to Security Access Authorization Fee Schedule Publication (Parts 11, 25).................................................. 6 Changes in Telephone Numaers for Uranium Recovery Field Office (Parts 20, 21, 73).............................................. 7 Access Authorization for Licensee Personnel (Parts 25, 95)........... 8 Regional Nuclear Materials Licensing for the U.S. Air Force (Parts 30,40,70).............................................. 9 .

Financial Responsibility Standards for Long Term Care for Low Level Waste Disposal Sites (Parts 30,40,61,70,72)................. 10 Requirements for Possession of Industrial Gauges (Part 31)........... 11 Medical Use of Byproduct Ma terial (Part 35) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Minor Corrective Amendment (Part 50) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 .

CommunicationsProceduresAmendments(Parts 50,51).................. 14 .

Safeguards Requirements for Nonpower Reactor Licensees Possessing '

Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material (Parts 50, 70, 73).............................................. 15 RuleShipment to Amendofthe Low Transportation Specific Activity Provisions Pertaining (to thePart71)......

(LSA) Material 17 iii

Page Imports of Uranium from South Africa (Part 110)......................... 18 (B) - Proposed Rules Revision to Ex Parte and Separation of Functions Rules Applicable to Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings (Parts 0, 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Procedures Involving the Equal Access to Justice Act: Implementation (Parts 1, 2)....................................................... 20 Adjudications -- Special Procedures for Resolving Conflicts Concerning the Disclosure or Nondisclosure of Information (Part2)........................................................... 22 Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings -- Procedural Changes in Hearing Process (Part 2)................................ 23 Commission Review Procedures for Power Reactor Construction Permits; Imediate Effectiveness Rule (Part 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Modifications to the NRC Hearing Process (Limited Interrogatories and Factual Basis for Contentions) (Part 2)............................ 26 Possible Amendments to "Immediate Effectiveness" Rules (Parts 2, 50).... 27 Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste (Parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 51, 70, 72, 73, 75,150)........................................................... 28 Nondiscrimination on Basis of Age in Federally Assisted Comission P ro g ra ms ( Pa r t 4 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Improved Personnel Dosimeter Processing (Part 20)....................... 31 Standards for Protection Against Radiation (Part 20).................... 33 General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities (Parts 30,40,50,51,70,72)............................................ 35 Bankruptcy Filing; Notification Requirements (Parts 30, 40, 50, 61, 70,72)............................................................ 37 Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Well Logging Operations (Part39)............................................... 38 Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Ground Noter Protection and Other Issues (Part 40)............................................. .

39 1

Mandatory Property Insurance for Decontamination of Nuclear .

Facilities (Part50)................................................ 40 I iv

t i Page Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors (Part 50)................................................ 42 Sta t ion Bl a c kou t ( Pa rt 50) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Broad Scope Modification of General Design Criterion 4 Requirements For Protection Against Dynamic Effects of Postulated Pipe Ruptures (Part 50)................................................ 46 Timing Requirements for Full Participation Emergency Preparedness Exercises for Power Reactors Prior to Receipt of an Operating License (Part 50)................................................. 47 Operators' Licenses (Parts 50, 55)..................................... 48 Personnel Access Authorization Program (Part of Insider Package)

(Parts 50, 73).................................................... 50 Explanation to Table S-3 Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data (Part 51)......................................................... 52 Elimination of Inconsistencies Between Part 60 and EPA HLW Standard (Part 60)................................................ 54 Changes to Safeguards Reporting Requirements (Parts 70,72,73,74).... 55 Requirements for Criminal History Checks (Part 73)..................... 57 Modification of Protection Requirements for Spent Fuel Shipments (Part73)......................................................... 58 Material Control and Accounting Requirements for Facilities Licensed to Possess and Use Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material (Part 74)........................................ 60 Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (Part 140)............ 62 (C) - Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking ram oactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern; Generic Rulemaking (Parts 2, 20)..................................................... 63 Ficancial Responsibility of Non-Reactor Licensees for Cleanup After Accidental and Unexpected Releases (Parts 30,40,61,70,72)..... 64 Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive Materials Licensees (Parts 30,'40,'70)...................................... 66 Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) for Light Water Nuclear Power Reactors (Part 50)...................... 67 Degree Requirement for Serior Operators at Nuclear Power Plants (Parts 50, 55).................................................... 69 v

r .

/ ,

f* r

-r (D) - Unpublished Rules '/

"+

/ Palle Revised Rules of Practice for' Domestic Licensing Proceedings r (Parts 0, 1, 2, 9, 50).......'.....r...~.....................".'..

. 71

, l

_ Statement of Organization and General Information (Part 1)........... , 72 .-fj -

.t , ,

s Funczfons of Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (Part 2)..f,... +73' ' ,

Effectiveness of an Initial Decision Authorizing Issuance or -

Amendment of a Power Reactor License or Permit (Part 2)......... 74' Availability of Official Records (Part 2)............................ 75 ,

, i:

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 (Part 2)........... 76 I Retention Periods for Records (Parts 4, 11, 21, 25, 30, 31, 32, 34, j 35,40,50,60,61,70,71).......................................... 77-Residual Radioactive Contamination Limits for Decommissioning (Part 20).......................................................

79 i

Proposed Revisions to the. Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance (Parts 21,f50)..................... 80 , ' a

<a , ,, <

Registration of Sources .ar.d Devices (Parts 30.32,40;70)........... 8f,; , ], / y i Informal Hearing Proceduies for Materials Licenses Proceedings ~,1 -f

~"

(Parts 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 50, 61, 70, 71, 72).............. 83 s, ;j,;

• Safety Requirements for Industrial ' Radiographic Exposure Devices /

( Pa r t 3 4 ) .<' .7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Training and Experience Criteria ,for the Medical Use of Byproduct Material ~(Part 35).............................................. 86 Radiation Therapy: Quality Ass (Part 35)...........,..... prance and Pera.1 ties for Negligence

!- ....................................... 87 a .

pc Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (Part 50).. .. ....... .. . . 88  ?'

d. ,-

l Safety Related and Important to 'Safity in 10 CFR Part 50 (Part 50)...

89 '

dr Radon 222 Estimate for Table S-3 (Parts 50, 51) . . . .c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Part-51; Conforming Amendments (Parts 51, 60)......................r.' -

92 e

. l

'~

, Definition of High-Level Radioactive Waste-(HLW) in 10 CFR Part'60 1 l (Part60)...................................................n.. ,39

- Criteria and Procedures for Evaluating Requests for Emergency Access -

to Low-Level Waste Disposal Sites (Part 62)...........;....../.... 9 94' l;

, y, "f

~

-vi / j1

[

. /- ,

~

/>

,a

f _ ~6 Nh, , , _ _ mc. [ . _ . . _

_ [ _ . _ _ _

_d,

• P. age Reporting of Special Nuclear Material Physical Inventory Sumary Res ul t s ( Pa rt 7 0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Transportation Regulations: Compatibility With tha International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (Part 71)........................... 96 k

i l

vii I

SECTION II - PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING (A) - Petitions incorporated into final rules or

. petitions denied since September 30, 1986 Radiation Standards for Uses of Byproduct Material (PRM-30-55)...... 97 Reporting Requirements in NRC Regulations and Documents (PRM-50-36).................................................... 99 Standards for the Levels of Deuterium and Tritium in Water

Circulated In and Around Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-50-37)...... 100 Emergency Response Plans for Persons Who Are Both Contaminated with

j. Radioactive Material and Physically In,iured (PRM-50-39)....... 101 Transportation of Irradiated Reactor Fuel (Spent Fuel)

(PRM-71-10).................................................... 102 (B) - Petitions incorporated into proposed rules Exemption of " Low Specific Activity Material" from the Requirements of Part 71 (PRM-71-1, PRM-71-2, and PRM-71-4)..... 103 Elimination of " Pat Down" Physical Searches of Individuals at Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-73-2)................................ 105 Elimination of Required Log-Out of Personnel from Vital Areas of Nuclear Power Reactors (PRM-73-7)........................... 107 Elimination of Required Search of Hand-Carried Packages of Personnel at Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-73-8)................... 108 (C) - Petitions pending staff review l

Regulations Governing Unimportant Ouantities of Source Material (PRM-40-25).................................................... 109 Plant Security Information (PRM-50-21).............................. 110 Extension of Construction Completion Date (PRM-50-25 and PRM-50-25A).................................................... iii Emergency Preparedness (PRM-50-31)................................. 112 ix

Page Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel (PRM-50-41) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Fire Protection Standards for Graphite Reactors (PRM-50-44)......... 114 Extending the Emergency Planning Zone (PRM-50-45)................... 115 Emergency Planning (PRM-50-46)...................................... 116 Implementation of Certain Environmental Standards Which Have Been Proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (PRM-60-2 and PRM-60-2A)................................................. 117 Modification of Qualifications for Security Personnel of Nuclear Power Plants and Other Special Nuclear Material Licensees (PRM-73-6)..................................................... 119 (D) - Petitions with deferred action Disposal of Very Low Concentrations of Short-Lived Radionuclides (PRM-20-14).................................................... 121 New Methods of Disposal of Waste Oil Contaminated by Low-Level Radioactive Material from Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-20-15)..... 122 Licensing the Possession of Uranium Mill Tailings at Inactive Storage Sites (PRM-40-23)...................................... 123 Pevised Criteria for Operation of Uranium Mills and Disposition of Ta il ings o r Wa s tes ( PRM-40-24) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Reactor Safety Measures (PRM-50-20)................................. 126 Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle (PRM-51-1).......... 128 Population Density Criteria Near Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-100-2).................................................... 130 X

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

t k

Preface i The Regulatory Agenda is a quarterly compilation of all rules on which the NRC

] has proposed, or is considering action as well as those on which it has recently 4 completed action, and all petitions for rulemaking which have been received and

, are pending disposition by the Commission.

Organization of the Agenda The agenda consists of two sections. Both sections have been updated through December 31, 1986.Section I, " Rules" includes: (A)Rulesonwhichfinal action has been taken since October 1, 1986, the closing date of the last j NRC Regulatory Agenda, (B) Rules published previousl ,

which the Comissi.on has not taken final action, Rules(C)y as proposed published as advancerules on ,

notices of proposed rulemaking for which neither a proposed nor_ final rule has been issued; and-(D) Unpublished rules.on which the NRC expects to take action.

Section II, " Petitions for Rulemaking" includes: (A) Petitions denied or incor-  !

porated into final rules since October 1,1986 (B) Petitions incorporated into proposed rules, (C) Petitions pending staff review, and (D) Petitions with deferred action.

I s In Section I of the agenda, the rules are ordered from lowest to highest part within Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). If more than one rule appears under the same part, the rules are arranged within the part by date of i most recent publication. If a rule amends multiple parts, the rule is listed under the lowest affected part. In Section II of the-agenda, the petitions l

are ordered from lowest to highest part of 10 CFR and are identified with a-petitionforrulemaking(PRM) number. If more than one petition appears under the same CFR part, the petitions are arranged by PRM numbers in consecutive order within the part of 10 CFR. 4 The dates listed under the heading " Timetable" for scheduled action-by the 1 Comission or the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) on particular rules or

petitions are considered tentative and are not binding on' the Connission or its staff. They are included for planning purposes only.l This Regulatory Agenda j is published to provide increased notice and public participation in the rule-i making proceedings included on the agenda. The NRC may, however, consider or act on any rulemaking proceeding even if it is not included in this Regulatory Agenda.

Rulemakings Approved by the Executive Director for Operations-(EDO)

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

xi

- - . - . . - -m-- . . , ,. - r.,. - - - . -,.--..._.-m . ~ . . , . . . . - - - . - - - = - -

Rules that have received EDO approval to date are identified as indicated below. As additional rules receive E00 approval, they will be identified in subsequent editions of this agenda. Those unpublished rules whose further development has been terminated will be noted in this edition of the agenda and deleted from subsequent editions. Rules whose termination was directed-subsequent to publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking will be removed from the agenda after publication of a notice of withdrawal.

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

Public Participation in Rulemaking Comments on any rule in the agenda may be sent to the Secretary of the Comission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. Coments may also be hand delivered to Room 1131, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC between 8:15 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. Comments received on rules for which the coment period has closed will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to coments received on or before the closure dates specified in the agenda.

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

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

xii

l (A) Rules on which final action has been taken since September 30, 1986 l

l L ___ _

-4a

-.-a-+. -a m w a_,-, . , _ _ __

l i

i l

l J

l l

l I

I l

l i

TITLE:

Nomenclature Changes to Implement Consolidation of OGC and ELD CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 0; 10 CFR 1; 10 CFR 9; 10 CFR 10; 10 CFR 14; 10 CFR 51; -

10 CFR 110 ,

ABSTRACT:

The final rule amends the Commission's regulations to reflect the changes resulting from the Commission decision to consolidate the Office of the Executive Legal Director into the Office of the General Counsel. The amendments are necessary to inform the public of these administrative changes to NRC regulations.

TIMETABLE:

Final Action 10/08/86 51 FR 35997 Final Action Effective 10/08/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

Barry Pineles Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7688 1

i l

i

TITLE:

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

10 CFR 2 ABSTPACT:

The role of the NRC staff in initial proceedings was among the issues discussed in an enclosure to a ilanuary 2,1985, memorandum to the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development from Chairman Palladino.

The Commission has decided that the NRC's role in adjudicatory licensing proceedings should not be changed. The Commission published a notice of withdrawal of proposed rulemaking on October 16, 1986.

TIMETABLE: ,

Notice of Withdrawal 10/16/86 51 FR 36811 '

i LEGAL AUTHORITY:

i 42 USC 2201; 42 USC ?231 j EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: N0 i

AGENCY CONTACT:

Linda Gilbert Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel

Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7678 4

TITLE:

+ Regulatory Reform of the Rules of Practice and Rules for Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

This proposed rule would have amended thirty-three sections of two parts affecting the hearing process associated with the issuance of all NRC licenses. Streamlining the hearing process would have ultimately provided cost savings to all participants in the process.

In the screening process, the most significant changes would have included (1)establishingascreeningAtomicSafetyandLicensing Board (ASLB) to act as a clearinghouse for all requests for hearings,

. petitions for leave to intervene, and proposed contentions, (2) requiring a participant in a hearing to show that he or she has an interest to protect in the proceeding, and (3) requiring evidence of a factual dispute for a contention to be admitted.

TIMETABLE:

Withdrawn 12/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Linda Gilbert Nuclear Regulatory Commission

, Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7678 4

J

TITLE:

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

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

The Office of the Executive Director for Operations terminated this rulemaking on November 26, 1986. The EDO stated that initiation of a new rulemaking will be considered when research is completed and agreement is reached on what the rule should accomplish Development of this rule has been suspended to allow time to receive and analyze the results of the potential for sabotage at non-power reactors that would be affected by the rulemaking.

The proposed rule would have amended the physical protection requirements for special nuclear material of moderate strategic significance (Category II) at fixed sited.

TIMETABLE:

Withdrawn 11/26/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 4? USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Carl Withee Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4768 l

TITLE:

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex - Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as Amended

CFR CITATION

! 10 CFR 4 l

ABSTRACT:

The Executive Director for Operations terminated this rule on December 31, 1986. The Department of Justice (D0J) disagrees with certain provisions of the rule contained in the Department of Education prototype. The D0J could not predict the extent of the review stage, therefore the cognizant office recommended that this rule be temporarily removed until clearance is obtained from the D0J.

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

TIMETABLE:

Withdrawn 12/31/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

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

! TITLE: ~

j Adjustment to Security Access Authorization Fee Schedule Publication i CFR CITATION:

'.0 CFR 11; 10 CFR 25 ABSTRACT:

The final rule revises current regulatory requirements regarding the frequency of forwel publication of changes to the Access Authorization Fees charged by NRC. A more accurate and efficient regulatory requirement is to revise the access authorization fee schedule concurrent with the Office of Personnel Management's (0PM) notification to NRC of its background investigation rate changes since NRC's fees are wholly dependent on the rate charged by OPM. This rulemaking will keep the public and industry promptly informed of current fees while at the same time decrease, to the fullest extent possible, unnecessary future NRC rulemaking requirements. There is no additional burden or cost to the public i

or industry resulting from this rulemaking. The savings to NRC per year are estimate be be $13,200.

TIMETABLE:

Final Action Published 10/02/86 51 FR 35206 4

Final Action Effective 10/02/86 51 FR 35206 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

i 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2165; 42 USC 5841; 31 USC 9071 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

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

TITLE:

Changes in Telephone Numbers for Uranium Recovery Field Office CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 20; 10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 73 l

ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to indicate changes in the commercial and FTS telephone numbers for the NRC's Region IV Uranium Recovery Field Office located in Denver, Colorado. The amendments are necessary to inform the public of these administrative changes to NRC regulations.

TIMETABLE:

Final Action Published 10/06/86 51 FR 35499 Final Action Effective 10/06/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

John Philips Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7086 f

TITLE:

. Access Authorization for Licensee Personnel CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 25; 10 CFR 95 t

ABSTRACT:

The final rule requires each person who holds an NRC access authorization under the above Parts and all future applicants for access authorization i to complete a new standardized form developed by the National Security Council. This form, entitiled " Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement" (SF 189-A), is necessary to execute a' condition ~ prior to the United States Government authorizing an individual access to classified information, TIMETABLE:

Final Action Published 12/31/86 51 FR 47204

Final Action Effective 12/31/86 51 FR 47204

! LEGAL AUTHORITY:

l .4? USC 2165; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Richard A. Dopp .

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration Washington, DC 20555

! 301 492-4124 I

1 l

4 1

o - __. __ _ . . ._

i TITLE:

Regional Nuclear Materials Licensing for the U.S. Air Force CFR CITATION 10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70 ABSTRACT:

The final rule amends provisions concerning the domestic licensing of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials. The final rule is intended to provide information about the further implementation of NRC's decentralized licensing program. This amendment implements another phase of the process by transferring the newly consolidated U.S. Air Force license to Region IV. The final rule does not have any cost impact on NRC, the licensee or the public TIMETABLE:

Final Action Published 10/08/86 51 FR 35999 Final Action Effective 10/08/86 51 FR 35999 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841

]

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

i Vandy L. Miller Nuclear Regulatory Commission

, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4002 e

i i

h

m TITLE:

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

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

The Executive Director for Operations terminated this rulemaking on November 26, 1986. Initiation of a new rulemaking will be considered when research is completed and agreement is reached on what the rule should accomplish.

The proposed rule would have provided standards to ensure that each licensee responsible for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste possessed and adequate bond, surety, or other financial arrangement to insure completion of all requirements established by the Commission for decontamination, decommissioning, and site closure.

TIMETABLE:

Withdrawn 11/26/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

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

[

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

h TITLE:

Requirements for Possession of Industrial Gauges .4 CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 31 ABSTRACT:

The Executive Director for Operations terminated this rule on November i 4 26, 1986. The Staff decided to await completion of a study of other generally licensed _ devices (other than gauges) before proceeding with proposed rule changes. The study is expected to indicate a need for -

improved accountability for other devices in addition to gauges.

Initiation of a new rulemaking will be considered when research is completed.

The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) would have sought comments on_ NRC's intent to modify its requirements governing the possession of industrial gauges. Some industrial gauges have been improperly maintained. . improperly transferred, or inadvertently discarded.

TIMETABLE:

Withdrawn 11/26/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2114; 42 USC 2201

j. EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:

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

i i

l i

i l

11-

- ---- ,n- -- ,., - , , - - --- _ . . ., ,-- ,-

TITLE:

+ Medical Use of Byproduct Material CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT:

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

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

Because most of the requirements contained in this regulation are currently imposed by regulation or license condition, there will be no significant cost savings or additional burden; the industry and NRC will benefit by having a clear, concise, complete regulation.

This final rule includes a previously proposed rule requiring that the activity of each radiopharmaceutical dosage be measured before it is administered. (See 46 FR 43840; September 1,1981 RIN 3150-AA12 Patient Dosage Measurement). It also includes the resolution of a petition regarding teletheraphy dosimetry system calibrations (PRM 35-2).

TIMETABLE:

Final Action Published 10/16/86 51 FR 36932 Final Action Effective 04/01/87 51 FR 36932 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

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

TITLE:

Minor Corrective Amendment CFR CITATION:

10 C FR 50 l ABSTRACT:

l The final rule adds information that was inadvertently omitted in 650.54(p)(1) and (2) when an amendment in a final rule published in November 1986 superseded an amendment to the same section that was published in a final rule in August. This action was necessary to correct the omission and to inform affected licensees of the need for a report to the NRC regarding changes to certain types of plans.

TIMETABLE:

Final Action Published 12/31/87 51 FR 47206 Final Action Effective 12/31/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

Michael T. Lesar Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7758 4

4 TITLE:

+ Communications Procedures Amendments

.CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 51 ABSTRACT:

This final rule amends the . regulations which establish the procedures for submitting correspondence, reports, applications, or other written communications pertaining to the domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities, i

The final rule is expected to resolve confusion regarding submittal i procedures and improve the communication process with the affected applicants and licensees.

i The final rule-(1) simplifies the procedures for making Part 50 submittals to the NRC; (2) facilitates the timely dissemination of Part 50 submittals to NRC staff; (3) reduces postage and copying costs i for applicants and licensees by requiring fewer copies of submittals; (4) establishes a central NRC receipt point for Part 50 submittals; (5) includes the NRC Resident Inspectors in the formal communications;

, and (6) supersedes all outdated submittals directions contained in other sources of submittal guidance, such as Regulatory Guide 10.1 (Revision 4) and NRR Generic Letter 82-14. Although these documents addressed the problem, they did not entirely resolve the confusion.

Moreover, subsequent changes in the organizational structure of NRC were not reflected in the guidance documents.

! TIMETABLE:

! Final Action Published 11/06/86 51 FR 40303 '

i Final Action Effective 01/05/87 51 FR 40303 1

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

1 Mike Collins Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1

Office of Information Resources Management Washington, DC 20555 .

301 492-4955 i

i I

l l

i

TITLE:

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

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

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

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

The staff is using a performance-oriented regulatory approach which would give affected licensees flexibility in designing cost-effective measures for implementing the requirements of the final rule by allowing licensees to take advantage of existing requirements at an estimated cost increase of $1,100 to $5,100 for improvements and $300 to $7,900 for annual operating costs per facility. Public comments on the new NPRM have been received and analyzed. Further action on this rule has been deferred based on a February 23, 1984 memorandum from the Office of the Secretary.

TIMETABLE:

Withdrawn 08/?5/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2071; 42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 47 USC 2152; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2239; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No l

l TITLE:

i

+ Safeguards Requirements for Nonpower Reactor Licensees.

Possessing Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material AGENCY CONTACT:

Carl.J. Withee Nuclear Regulatory Comission .

Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4768 a

i i

i

i TITLE:

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

10 CFR 71 ABSTRACT:

The Executive Director for Operations terminated this rule on October 17, 1986. The prerequisite research information needed by the staff to develop the rule is beir.g delayed because of the slippage by the Department of Transportation (DOT) managed contract to study the impacts of LSA material accidents.

The proposed rule would have modified the LSA regulations to cover additional types of low specific activity materials (e.g., materials for decommissioning-operations) and established limits on potential

hazards from external radiation resulting from accidental release of i

LSA materials in transit.

.i TIMETABLE:

Withdrawn 11/26/86 -

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

Donald R. Hopkins Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7690 i

i 1

3

TITLE:

Imports of Uranium from South Africa CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 110 ABSTRACT:

The final rule amends agency regulations by deleting the general import license with respect to the import of uranium of South Africa origin, thereby precluding the import of this material unless a specific license is requested and obtained. This action is necessary to implement the provision of the Comprehensive Anti-Aparthied Act of 1986, enacted October 2, 1986 which prohibits the import into the United States uranium ore and uranium oxide produced or manufactured in South Africa.

TIMETABLE:

Final Action Published 12/31/86 52 FR 47207 Final Action Effective 12/31/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Elaine 0. Hemby Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of International Programs Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7630 1

I i

t k

J 1

t 1

(8) Proposed Rules I

1 a

i

+

t J

.,,,---~~-,-, nan, - , - -. . - - - , , - - ,_,,.L,---,-n - , ,,,, -~e- ,----r-m.w.,, ,- -

,,n,, - -

- - e - a ,a.- s m.,a-- -a-e. 1- a a sa -- -- a.m--- m_ -- , , . _. , , an.- --a l

il I

l i

b i

i 1

1 I

j 1

l l

1 f

4 1

I

?

! I n

J l t i

I e

-l 1

.I I

f 1

s I

--- - - . .-- ..:.,---,-,.,,- ------- , e. - - .- . ,, . , ,,.-- -,.. .--,-.---- - -,--- . .. , . - - - -. - , , - - - - ,.--

i' l %)  !

~ e j ',

P -

, TITLE: -

Revision to Ex Parte and Separation of Functions Rules Applicable ./ 3

' +

to Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings , ,

l, , /,

-  ? #

, c.

,CFR CITATIQN: ,

2 '4 i s: - 10 CFR 0 -10 CFR 2 '

, / '

ABSTRACT:

-f The proposed rule would, amend the Comission's regulatiefts

. . dealing with ex parte. communications and raparation of .

,' adjudicatory and nonadjudicatory functions in formal adjudicatory ~ ._

~ proceedin'gs to update the agency's rules of practice and to Vi

' incorporate. requirements; imposed by the Government in the ,

s

Sunshine Act." Change's are proposed in both the form and the 4. }:k

' substance of the existing rules to clarify their meaning and to .

, aid agency adjudicatory officials to maintain effectivej

. communication with NRC staff personnel and persons outside the

_ agency while' at the same time ensuring that proceedings will be

', conducted fairly and impartially. This proposed rule .

supersedes a prior proposed rule entitled, "Ex Parte Comunications and Separation of Adjudicatory and Non '

! . Adjudicatory Functions," (3190-AA00) published March 7,1979(44 '

i FR12428).

TIMETABLE: r NPRM 03/26/86 51 FR 10393 y NPRM Comment Period End 06/26/86 ~51 FR 19067 Final Action 02/00/87 LEGAL' AUTHORITY:

'SUSC554(d);5USC557(d)

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

Paul Bollwerk -

! Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel Washir.gton, DC 20555 202 634-3224 .

r #

7 y L-

. g. <

f

</ .

/ '

e ,

l. - a -< Fai ,

,, f - , /

f 1: .'/ l '

,  ; 4.

- , , , -- --s-e.;+ , .

i 1

TITLE:

4

+ Procedures Involving the Equal Access' to Justice Act:

Implementation CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 1; 10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule provides new provisions intended to implement the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The provisions would provide for the payment of fees and expenses to certain eligible

, individuals and businesses that' prevail in adjudications with the agency when the agency's position is determined not to have been substantially justified. The basis for these proposed regulations is a set of model rules issued by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) that have been modified to conform to NRC's established rules of practice. The proposed rule would further the EAJA's intent by insuring the development of government-wide " uniform" agency regulations and by providing NRC procedures and requirements for the filing and disposition of i .EAJA applications. A final draft rule was sent to the Commission in June 1982, but Commission action has been suspended pending a

decision by the Comptroller General on the availability of funds a

to pay awards to intervenor parties. The decision from the

. Comptroller General has been rendered and was the subject of litigation in Business and Professional People for the Public Interest in NRC, 793 F.2d 1366 (D.C. Cir. 1986). The results of the litigation are being evaluated to determine what if any changes maybe 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 contains revisions to the EAJA that also are being evaluated to determine whether further conforming changes may be necessary in the proposed rule.

TIMETABLE:

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

1 5 USC 504 1

4 I

)

i

I i

TITLE:

+ Procedures Involving the Equal Access to Justice Act:

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

Paul Bollwerk.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission '

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

I

.s l

4 I

4 l

[

l l

~

TITLE:

Adjudications -- Special Procedures for Resolving Conflicts

. Concerning the Disclosure or Nondisclosure of Information CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Regulatory Connission is considering amending its rules of practice to provide special procedures for resolving conflicts concerning the disclosure or nondisclosure of i

information relating to an NRC investigation or inspection or provided by a confidential source and deemed relevant and material to an adjudication. Prepared at the express direction of the Commission, the proposed amendments apply to all NRC offices i that have infonnation relevant and material to an adjudication.

The proposed amendments provide for ex parte in camera presentations and follow guidance contained in the Connission's recent statement of policy on investigations, inspections, and adjudicatory proceedings. As a procedural rule, the proposed amendments are not likely to have a significant cost impact upon the industry.

I TIMETABLE:

NPRM 05/22/85 50 FR 21036 l NPRM Comment Period End 08/23/85 50 FR 30446 Final Action for Division Review 10/01/86 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 01/15/87 Final Action to EDO 03/01/87 t Final Action Published 05/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY

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

Jane R. Mapes 1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

! Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 '

301 492-8695 1

l l

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 may be included in proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law or in an appellate brief submitted by a person who does not have the burden of proof or who has only a limited interest in the proceeding. These proposals were initially developed by the Regulatory Reform Task Force and published for public coment as suggestions for procedural changes in nuclear power plant licensing process (49 FR 14698; April 12,1984). Therefore, the April 1984 proposals have been deleted from the regulatory agenda.

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

The staff is analyzing pubic comments received on the proposals and expects to forward a recommendation for the Commission's consideration in April, 1987.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 07/03/86 51 FR 24365 NPRM Comment Period Extended to 10/17/86 51 FR 31340 Final Rule 06/00/87 i LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

Linda Gilbert Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the. General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7678 I

TITLE:

Commission Review Procedures for Power Reactor Construction Permits; Immediate Effectiveness Rule 1

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would amend the immediate effectiveness rule with regard to rules of practice for granting a power reactor 1 construction permit to conform to those for granting an operating

! license. It (1) would retain the requirement that the Commission conduct a limited review of an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's decision to grant a construction permit pending completionofadministrativeappealsand(2)woulddeletethe

requirement that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board

, conduct a similar review. The proposed rule would not affect the

, separate Appeal Board and Commission appellate reviews of the merits of Licensing Board decisions. It would reduce somewhat the time required for administrative review of construction permit decisions while retaining direct Commission oversight prior to permit issuance.

The consnent period closed hovember 24, 1982. Nine comments were received. Half of the comments favored the proposed rule while half opposed it. This proposed rule does not preclude further i

action on five alternatives for amending the "Immediate i

effectiveness" rule presented in an earlier notice on

May 22, 1980 (45 FR 34279).

l l The public comment period on the " Regulatory Reform Proposal Concerning the Rules of Practice and Rules for Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities" (49 FR 14698) closed June 11, 1984. As a result of staff evaluation of these comments and i

further staff review of the "immediate effectiveness" issues, a rule is being proposed that will supersede this proposed rule and i another entitled, "Possible Amendments to 'Immediate Effectiveness' Rules."

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 10/25/82 47 FR 47260 NPRM Comment Period End 11/24/82 47 FR 47260 Next Action Undetermined i

l i

i l

'i

TITLE:

Consiission Review Procedures for Power Reactor Construction Permits; Inunediate Effectiveness Rule LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

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

l l

l l

l

e . - .. . __ - . . - --_

s TITLE:

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

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT: ~ .

The proposed rule would expedite conduct of NRC adjuoicatory proceedings by requiring intervenors in formal NRC hearings to set forth the facts on which contentions are based and the sources or documents used to establish those facts and limit the i~

number of interrogatories- that a party may file in an NRC nrc:eeding. The proposed rule would expedite the hearing process ,

by, among other things, requiring intervenors to set forth at the outset the facts upon which their contention is based and the supporting documentation to give other parties early notice of intervenor's case so as to afford opportunity for early dismissal of contentions where there is no factual dispute. Expediting the hearing process should ultimately provide cost savings to all participants in the process. The content of this rule is being considered as part of the regulatory reform rulemaking package.

TIMETABLE:

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

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

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

i 4

a

TITLE:

, Possible Amendments to "Immediate Effectiveness" Rules

, CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

> This proposed rule would have helped to determine whether NRC should have returned to the former "immediate effectiveness" rule or adopted one of the following alternatives:(1) require the ASLAB to make a separate ruling on the question of effectiveness,

. (2) require final ASLAB and Commission decisions on the merits of certain construction-related issues prior.to authorizing issuances of the construction permit, (3) require final ASLAB and

' Commission decisions on the merits of all issues prior to authorizing issuances of the construction permit; and, return to the former "immediate effectiveness" rule, but relax the standards for obtaining a stay of the ASLAB decisions.

As a result of staff evaluation of the comments received in response to this rule, the issues in this proposed rule have beer incorporated into a proposed rule entitled, " Issuance or Amendment of Power Reactor License or Permit Following Initial Decision", Published February 4,

1987 (52 FR 3442).

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 05/22/80 45 FR 34279 NPRM Comment Period Begin 05/22/80 45 FR 34279 NPRM Comment Period End 07/07/80 J.

Withdrawn 03/87 .

> LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

AGENCY CONTACT

Paul Bollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Office of the General Counsel

! Washington, DC 20555 l 202 634-3224 L

i

)

TITLE: ,

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

10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 19; 10 CFR 20; 10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 70;.

10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 75; 10 CFR 150 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule 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 storage installation (MRS). This revision, required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, is intended to ensure that the i

4 Commission has in place the appropriate regulations to fulfill the requirenents contained in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 4-1982 concerning the licensing of facilities which could be part of the MRS program.

Paragraph (d) of Section 141 of the NWPA provides that any monitored retrievable storage installation pursuant to Section 141 shall be subject to licensing by the Commission. The Commission coula_ await further development of the MRS option before proposing its MRS rules. However, this approach could result in unnecessary delay in reviewing a license application if

congress authorizes construction of an MRS.

] There is no appropriate alternative to rulemaking, the vehicle used

, by NRC to establish its licensing procedures.

The basic requirements for storage of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) currently codified in 10 CFR Part 72 are not being changed, thus, no incremental impact on NRC, l.

industry, or the health and safety of the public is anticipated.

TIMETABLE:

} NPRM 05/27/86 51 FR 19106 i

NPRM Coseent Period End 08/25/86

Final Action Published- 09/00/87 i LEGAL AUTHORITY

I 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; l 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2234; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2237; 42 USC 2282 i EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No i

i I

4 1

i

TITLE:

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

Charles Nilsen J

Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7917 i

I 4

1

, i l

TITLE:

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

10 CFR 4 ABSTRACT:

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

-The Act also contains certain exceptions that permit, under limited circumstances, continued use of age distinctions or

. factors other than age that may have a disproportionate effect on the basis of age. The Act applies to persons of all ages. The proposed rule is necessary to comply with the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, which directs that all Federal agencies empowered to  !

provide Federal financial assistance issue rules, regulations, and directives consistent with standards and procedures established by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).

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

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

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 09/21/81 46 FR 46582 NPRM Conment Period End 11/20/81 i

Final Action Package to EDO 11/00/86 Final Action Published 03/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 6101 1 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No i

AGENCY CONTACT:

Edward E. Tucker Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business

Utilization / Civil Rights, Washington, DC i 301 492-7697 i

t l .__ _- - -- - _- . -__

TITLE:

+ Improved Personnel Dosimeter Processing CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT: l The final rule will require personnel dosimetry processors to meet

! specified performance standards and quality control criteria in order to reduce the widespread variations in both procedures and performance in the dosimetry processing industry.

The rule is necessary since numerous testing programs and dosimetry inter-comparisons have shown that only 25 to 50% of processors are capable of meeting acceptable performance standards and that improvements in performance are at a virtual standstill.

The only alternative to rulemaking is no rulemaking and maintainin the status quo, an alternative that has been considered unacceptab e _'

for years. Several voluntary programs to improve the accuracy and reliability of dosimetry processing have been failures because of

lack of participation by the majority of industry processors. Issuance of a Regulatory Guide alone to assist the processing industry is not 1'

considered feasible as an alternative since there is no obligation on

the industry to follow such guidance in the absence of parallel rulemaking.

The issue will be addressed by requiring personnel dosimetry processors to become accredited under the flational Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) operated by NBS that among other things, requires proficiency testing against a national consensus standard, ANSI N13:11.

Approximately 90 dosimetry processors and 4500 NRC licensees will be affected by the rule with a total annual cost of accreditation to the processing industry of around $470,000 annually and a

correspunding annual increase to licensees of about 6%, from

$24.00 per worker to $25.43 per worker. The public and occupational workers will benefit from the improved accuracy and integrity of dose determinations and records. Other benefits include the continued j assurance of personnel dosimetry processor competence and the formulation of a program that can be easily utilized by other

! State and Federal agencies.

l NRC resources and scheduling required for completion of the final

< rulemaking are estimated to be 0.2 staff-years. In addition an '

estimated 0.1 staff year will be required to coordinate the continuation of the Interagency Agreement between NRC and NBS

and to issue supplementary information on the rule as deemed i necessary.

i I

i

_- . . , _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . ________,.___,_.,.___.______m.

TITLE:

+ Improved Personnel Dosimeter Processing TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 03/28/80 45 FR 20493 ANPRM Comment Period End 06/27/80 45 FR 31118 NPRM 01/10/84 49 FR 1205 NPRM Comment Period End 03/12/84 49 FR 1205 Final Action For Division Review 11/12/85 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 06/25/86 Final Action to ED0 11/24/86 Final Action Published 2/15/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2C33; 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes i AGENCY CONTACT:

Don Nellis Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7989 i

i 4

i t

TITLE:

+ Standards for Protection Against Radiation CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:

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

and apply to all licensees in a consistent manner.

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

Initial estimates of the cost of implementing the revision is about $33 million 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 the revision. l l l I

TITLE:

+ Standards for Protection Against Radiation TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 03/20/80 45 FR 18023 ANPRM Comment Period End 06/18/80 45 FR 18023 NPRM 12/20/85 50 FR 51992 NPRM Comment Period End 05/12/86 51 FR 1092 NPRM Comment Period Extended to 10/31/86

' Final Action for Division Review 09/30/88 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 10/30/88 Final Action Package to EDO 11/06/88 Final Action Published 12/31/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:

Harold Peterson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7691 1

l l

i f

TITLE:

General Requirements for Decomnissioning Nuclear Facilities CFR CITATION:

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

1 The proposed rulemaking action is intended to protect public health and safety by providing assurance that licensees fulfill their responsibility to dispose licensed material including any associated .

contamination when they cease licensed activity. The proposed rule  !

also intends to provide the applicant or licensee with appropriate  !

regulatory guidance for' implementing and accomplishing nuclear facility i decomnissioning. It is necessary to address this issue by amending the

. regulations in order to achieve appropriate assurances that funds for j decommissioning will be available and the decommissioning will be

carried out in an orderly manner. The Connission has indicated a need i for this rulemaking in other previous rulemakings.

l '

The major cost impact of the proposed rule would involve proper 2 planning at all stages of nuclear facility operation. Pro ar

planning includes providing for (1) financial assurance t1at j funding will be available for decommissioning, (2) maintenance of records that could affect decomnissioning, and (3) careful ,

planning of procedures at the time of decommissioning. For l l non-reactor facilities affected by financial assurance

! requirements, it is estimated that the major impact will result

, in an aggregate expenditure of 21 staff-years ($1.6 million) d spreadover5 years (or$320,000 peryear). .

t For the approximately 110 power reactors estimated to be affected  !

(i.e., those with operating licenses and those under construction i which are at least two-thirds complete) plus 75 research and test  !

i reactors, it is estimated that the major impact will result in an i aggregateexpenditureof3.8 staff-years ($288,000) spread over 3 years. These expenditures will ensure that adequate measures have  :

jl been taken to protect the health and safety of occupational workers, l i the public, and the environment within the confines of optimum cost  !

benefit consideration. l I

! TIMETABLE: i j ANPRM 03/13/78 43 FR 10370 i j NPRM 02/11/85 50 FR 5600 NPRM Comment Period End 07/12/85 50 FR 23025

Final Action for Division Review 11/15/86 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 03/30/87 i

. Final Action to EDO 07/15/87 ,

i Final Action Published 10/30/87 i i i

! I l

r I

f

TITLE:

General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 t

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:

Keith G. Steyer/ Frank Cardile

, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7739/7784 i

4 i

i I

i 1

l 36-i

___ - . , . . - _ . . , , . , _ y .-.--__-.--- - _- , .---..-, . - . . - -, - - . , ,.%,--e -

..-y -.-.- - -, - - - - ., ,

s TITLE:

+ Bankruptcy Filing; Notification Requirements

. CFR CITATION:

i 10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72

]

ABSTRACT:

i Notification of the NRC in cases of bankruptcy would alert the

. Comission so that it may deal with potential hazards to the l public health and safety posed by a licensee that does not have the resources to properly handle licensed radioactive material or

) clean up possible contamination. It is necessary to address this i issue because instances have occurred in which materials licensees

, have filed for bankruptcy and NRC has not generally been aware of i this. There are no current regulations requiring that licenses notify the NRC in case of bankruptcy filing. Hence, the NRC has no

means by which it can be made aware of these situations. The proposed i rule would require licensees to notify the appropriate regional

{ office of the NRC in the event of a bankruptcy proceeding involving

the licensee. There is no action required of a licensee by these j amendments unless and until a bankruptcy petition is filed.

The net overall impact on industry of this rule should be negligible since this rule only consists of one additional notification beyond

, that already required by the United States Code and that is simply a notification of NRC by mail. The benefit of the rule is that it will

{

assist in protection of the public health and safety by reducing the risk

! of radiation exposure to the public and workers by enabling NRC to be

, aware of potential licensee problems in handling and disposing of-radioactive materials caused by severe economic problems. The net effect 1 on NRC should be a reduction in staff resources since it would put NRC in 1 a better reactive mode for proceeding with necessary enforcement actions.

i I TIMETABLE:

! NPRM 06/20/86 51 FR 22531 .

NPRM Coment Period End 07/21/86 51 FR 22531 Final Action for Division Review 09/19/86

, Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 10/24/86

! Final Action Published 04/30/87 i

I LEGAL AUTHORITY:

4 42 USC 2201 i EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes i

AGENCY CONTACT:

Frank Cardile Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research -

Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7784

TITLE:

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

10 CFR 39 i

ABSTRACT:

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

way without providing specific guidance. The rule generally j codifies existing licensing practice. Thus, there would be essentially no net incremental costs to licensees. The main l benefit would be to formally state NRC requirements in the

! regulations. The rule would establish a proposed, consistent,

' comprehensive set of the requirements that would minimize the effort required to obtain reciprocity for NRC licensees to operate in Agreement States or vice versa. The rule

required about one staff-year effort.

?

TIMETABLE:

l NPRM 04/08/85 50 FR 13797

NPRM Cossent Period End 07/08/85 50 FR 13797

. Comment Period Extended to 10/09/85 50 FR 32086 Final Action for Division Review 01/17/86 i Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 06/13/86 Final Action Package to EDO 11/14/86 i Final Action Published 02/09/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

AGENCY CONTACT:

l Stephen McGuire

Nuclear Regulatory Cosmission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research I Washington, DC 20555

301 443-7900 j

I i

i 1

4

- - , - e-.-~---.c,a --,--,---+--w- ~-.~,--www

TITLE:

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

10 CFR 40 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rulemaking is intended to incorporate groundwater standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency for-uranium mill tailings into NRC regulations. This action is necessary to make NRC regulations conform to EPA standards as required by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act.

Alternatives to this action involve timing and scope.

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

The comment period has been extended in response to a request from the American Mining Congress.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 11/26/84 49 FR 46425 ANPRM Comment Period End 03/01/85 50 FR 2293 NPRM 07/08/86 51 FR 24697 NPRM Comment Period End 09/08/86 NPRM Comment Period Extended 11/07/86 Final Action Published 06/22/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

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

i TITLE:

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

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would require nuclear power plant licensees to obtain an increased amount of on-site property damage insurance from the current minimum of $585 million to $1.06 billion. The NRC believes that such insurance should be required so that the financing and pacing of cleanup following an accident does not become a public health and safety problem. Recent studies indicate that as much as $1.06 billion may be required to cover on-site cleanup of the worst reactor accidents if inflation and other factors are included. Other issues addressed in the proposed rule are (1) whether the Federal government can preempt State law that prohibits certain public utilities from buying insurance offered by either mutual companies or requiring payment of a retrospective premium and (2) whether a priority of payment of insurance proceeds for decomtamination and cleanup can be imposed. Action in these areas is required for the same reason as imposition of general insurance requirements, i.e. to remove the financial aspects of recovery after an accident from having an adverse impact on public health and safety.

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

The impact of the proposed rule on licensees would probably not be large. Most licensees currently purchase insurance in excess of $1.06 billion. Approximately 10 licensees would be required to carry more insurance than they otherwise would for an annual incremental premium cost of roughly $1 million per year. Thus the total impact of the rule would be approximately $10 million per year. The impact on the public would generally be positive in that public health and safety would be better protected. The impact on the NRC would be minimal with respect to increasing the amount of insurance. A decontamination priority, if it were invoked, could require additional hearings with attendant costs.

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

TITLE:

+ Mandatory Property Insurance for Decontamination of Nuclear Facilities TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 06/24/82 47 FR 27371 ANPRM Comment Period End 09/22/82 47 FR 27371 NPRM 11/08/84 49 FR 44645 NPRM Comment Period End 02/07/85 49 FR 44645 Final Action for Division Review 05/17/85 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 03/18/86 Final Action Package to ED0 03/18/86 Final Action Published 02/28/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

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

f I

t c

TITIE:

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

10 CFR 50, Appendix J ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would update and revise the 1973 criteria for j preoperational and periodic pressure testing for leakage of

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

The revision is urgently needed to resolve continuing conflicts between licensees and NRC inspectors over interpretations, current regulatory practice which is no longer being reflected

accurately by the existing rule, and endorsement in the existing

' regulation of an obsolete national standard that was replaced in 1981.

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

i Still remaining are receipt of public comments and their integration into a revised draft for a final rule.

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

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action to EDO 03/31/86 Proposed Action Published 10/29/86 (51 FR 39538)

NPRM Comment Period End 03/31/87 Final Action for Division Review 07/01/87 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 11/0?/87 Final Action to ED0 02/01/88 l Final Action Published 04/01/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 5841 EFFECIS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No i

j  !

TITLE:

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

Gunter Arndt Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7893 1

P l

TITLE:

+ Station Blackout CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

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

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

A regulatory analysis has been prepared for the proposed rule. The estimated public risk reduction is 145,000 person-rem over 25 years, and the estimated total cost for industry to comply with the proposed rule is

$60 million. This results in an overall cost benefit ratio of about 2,400 person-rem per million dollars.

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

TIMETABLE:

, NPRM 03/21/86 51 FR 9829 NPRM Cc ment Period End 06/19/86 51 FR 9892 Final Action for Division Review 03/00/87 Office Concurrene on Final Action Completed 04/00/87 Final Action to EDO 08/00/87 Final Action Published 10/00/87 1

1 1

_ -. .- ._. ,- , .-<m.- _ , - ,y w - - - - - . .--,w-. --,r , . - - . _.- - , e -

-TITLE:

+ Station Blackout

, LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

Alan Rubin 1 Nuclear _ Regulatory Consission

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1 Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8303 ,

Y I

s

(

I c*

i ,

s I

4 i

i A

D k

s

._. _ _ _ _ _ , _ -, .. . _ . , . __ . . . . . _ _ . , . . - . _ - . - ..'i ._ _

~~

4 ,

TITLE:

+ Broad Scope Modification of General Design Criterion 4 Requirements For Protection Against Dynamic Effects of Postulated Pipe Ruptures CFR SITATION: i 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The proposed broad scope modification of General Design Criterion 4 (GDC 4) would allow demwstration of piping integrity by analyses to serve as a basis for excluding consideration of dynamic effects associated with pipe ruptures. A final rule 4 published April 11,1986 (51 FR 12502) was limited to the primary loops of pressurized water reactors (PWRs), whereas this proposed rule would cover all high energy piping in all light water reactors (LWRs). The modification will permit the general but selective removal of pipe whip restraints and jet impingement shields and other related changes in operating plants, plants under construction and future plant designs, but will not impact other design requirements.

The only alternatives to rulemaking would be the granting of exemptions to GDC 4 or reinterpretation of the text of the existing rule. The staff has, however, indicated that extensive use of exemptions to authorize the elimination of pipe whip restraints is inappropriate and that long precedence prohibits reinterpretation. Therefore, it appears appropriate to underteke rulemaking at this time.

. TIMETABLE:

NPRM 07/23/86 5_1 FR 26393 NPRM Comment Period Begin 07/23/86 ,

NPRM Coment Period End 09/22/86 51 FR 26393  !

Final Action Published 05/15/87 I 1 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

John A. O'Brien Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555

! ,301 443-7854 l

(

s

4 r

r ii ~

. 1 j'y

IITLE'

,

j r .

Timing.Requimnents for Full Participation Emergency , Pre;2aredness

!f', Exercises for Power Reactors Prior to Receipt of an Operating

' i License <

CFR CITATION: ,-

/.

, 10 CFR 50

• t .

A8STRACT: .

d t The oroposed rulemaking would relax the timing requirements for a '

j full participation emergency preparedness exercise for pcver reactors <

prior' to receipt of an opertion license. The Commission believes that f i adoption of the proposed rule would more effectively focus'available resources on the pertinent issues and problems in establishing and maintaining an upgraded and effective day-to-day status of emergency preparedness. ,

An altern3 tive. to the proposed rulemaking would be a major revision of various sections in Appendix E based on risk. '

The issuance o6 the rule will provide consistency to the regulations t

gove'rning the fr'equency and timing of emergency preparedness exercises .

between the preliminary.:nd post licensing stages, also provide more

,, flexibility in the' tining of the full participation exercises to accomodate t!'e needs ef>St' ate and local government prior to issuance i of an operating ifcense. -

The proposed rule wi]T;not greatly affect the industry, sfhce applicants will still be required to conduct an annual emergency preparedness

exercise and will hake' a negligible,effect on the public as adequate ,

emergency preparedness 'at and around nuclear power reactors will- '

j still be assured. .The proposed rule sho'uld have afnfmal impact.

• on NRC resources.

- 4 TIMETABLE

e 4 ,f ,> '

Proposed Action Published 12/02/86 51 FR 43369 i f' ' <

NPRM Comnent Period Expires 01/02/87 51 FR 43369 < ,

Final ~ Action Published 07/30/87 s) s l

LEGAL AUTHORITY _

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 -

[

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No ,.

AGENCY CONTACT:

Michael Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research - '

Washington,'DC'20555 301 443-7657

TITLE:

+ Operators' Licenses CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 55 i

ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Regulatory Consnission was proposing to amend its regulations to (1) require each holder of and each applicant for a license to operate a commercial nuclear power plant to establish and use a systems approach in developing training programs and establishing qualifications requirements for

+ civilian nuclear power plant operators, supervisors, technicians,

and, as appropriate, operating personnel; (2) clarify the regulations for the issuance of licenses to operators and senior operators; (3) revise the requirements and scope of written examinations and operating tests for operators and senior i operators; (4) codify procedures for the administration of l'

requalification examinations; and (5) describe the form and content for operator license applications.

The proposed rulemaking was in response to Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. A regulatory analysis showed a

public risk reduction of.268,000 person-rem at a cost of $240.4 million dollars resulting in a value/ impact ratio of 1,100 person-rem / $million. Coordinated industry objections to the rulemaking were the subject of a Consnission meeting on i April 9,1984. Industry requested that the NRC issue a policy

statement rather than a rule. Consequently, at an October 17,-

1984, Commission meeting, the Consnission directed the staff to

, publish the portion of the proposed rule revising 10 CFR Part 55

" Operators' Licenses," and to draft a Policy Statement on programs for training and qualification of nuclear power plant i personnel. The proposed revision was published for consnent on

-, November 26, 1984, and the effective Policy Statement was published March 20, 1985. .

The Policy Statement replaces the portion of this proposed rule-that would have added requ;rements to 10 CFR Part 50 on training and qualification of plant personnel. The training programs are to be developed and implemented by industry during a two-year period. The policy statement provides guidance regarding NRC's support of the industry-managed training accreditation program and states NRC's continuing responsibility to independently evaluate appitcants' and licensees' implementation of training i programs. The final rulemaking package is currently _ being reviewed by the Commission.

TITLE:

+ Operators' Licenses TIMETABLE:

NPRM 11/26/84 49 FR 46428 NPRM Coment Period End 02/24/85 Final Action for Division Review 10/00/85 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 12/00/85 Final Action Package to EDO 04/00/86 Final Action Package to Comission 04/18/86 Revised Final Action Package to Comission 11/21/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2137; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 10226 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Bruce Boger Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8807 1

-49

TITLE:

+ Personnel Access Authorization Program (Part of Insider Package)

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:

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

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

Extensive comments were received and analyzed.

Alternatives to rulemaking that were investigated included l

endorsing an ANSI standard through a regulatory guide, issuing a policy statement that endorses industry oeveloped guidelines, using staff position papers, and implementing license conditions.

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

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

The net increase in cost per licensee site for all existing or planned power stations over their re.aaining useful lives is $2 million per site. The net increase in cost to the NRC due to estimated time in '

reviewing proposed plans and enforcement activities is $822,700.

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

I l

TITLE:

+PersonnelAccessAuthorizationProgram(PartofInsiderPackage)

ABSTRACT CONT:

By affirmation vote on June 18, 1986, the Commission approved the alternative to rulemaking, to issue a policy statement endorsing the industry-developed guidelines for access authorization, this policy statement is under development. The proposed rule will be withdrawn upon issuance of the policy statement.

TIMETABLE:

Policy Statement / Guidelines to CRGR 11/10/86 Policy Statement / Guidelines to EDO 02/00/87 Policy Statement / Guidelines to Commission 02/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

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

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

10 CFR 51 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule provides a narrative explanation of the numerical values established in Table S-3, " Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data," that appears in the Comission's environmental protection regulations. The proposed rule describes the basis for the values contained in Table S-3, the significance of the uranium fuel cycle data in the table, and the conditions governing the use of the table. The narrative explanation also addresses important fuel cycle impacts and the cumulative impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle for the whole nuclear power industry so that it may be possible to consider these impacts generically rather than repeatedly in individual licensing proceedings, thus reducing litigation time and costs for both NRC and applicants.

The proposea rule was published for public review and coment (46 FR 15154, March 4,1981), but the final rulemaking was deferred pending the outcome of a suit (Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v NRC, No. 74-1486) in the U.S. Court of Appeals.

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

The proposed rule to provide a narrative explanation for Table S-3 was revised to reflect new developments and the passage of time while the rulemaking was deferred. However, final action on the Table S-3 rule was held in abeyance until new values for radon-222 and technetium-99 can be added to the table and covered in the narrative explanation. On October 7, 1984, EPA promulgated new radon standards for inactive uranium mill sites and in October 1985 NRC published revised uranium milling regulations conforming to the new EPA standards. However, EPA received, in ,

August 1985, a court order requiring them to establish radon i standards for active uranium mills. EPA's final standards were issued on September 21, 1986. The Comission directed the staff to develop a schedule for completing the narrative explanation of Table S-3 and the new values for radon-222 and technetium-99.

The staff's estimate is that the completion of a final Table S-3 rule covering the new values for radon-222 and technetium-99, and the narrative explanation will be completed in FY 1989. A Comission Paper presenting the final rulemaking plan and schedule was submitted on August 18, 1986 (SECY 86-242). On September 8, 1986, SECY 86-242 was approved by the Commission.

TITLE:

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

NPRM 03/04/81 46 FR 15154 NPRft Consent Period End 05/04/81 Proposed Action for Division Review 09/00/87 Office Concurrence of Proposed Action 10/00/87 Proposed Action to EDO 12/00/87 Proposed Action Published 03/00/88 Final Action Published 12/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2011; 42 USC 4321 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Glenn A. Terry Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4283 f

i

l TITLE:

+ Elimination of Inconsistencies Between Part 60 and EPA HLW Standard 1

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 directs NRC to promulgate criteria for the licensing of HLW geologic repositories.

Section 121 (c) of this act states that these criteria must be consistent with standards to be developed by EPA for the disposal of HLW in deep geologic repositories. The proposed rule is needed in order to eliminate several inconsistencies with the EPA standards, thus fulfilling the statutory requirement.

Because the NWPA directs NRC to eliminate inconsistencies between Part 60 and the EPA standard, the alternatives to the proposed action are limited by statute.

The public, industry, and NRC will benefit from eliminating inconsistencies in Federal HLW regulations. NRC resources needed would be several staff years but will not include contract resources.

TIMETABLE:

NPRh 06/19/86 51 FR 22288 NPRM Comment Period End 08/18/86 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 01/28/86 Final Action Package to EDO 02/28/87 Final Action Published 04/28/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

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

, 301 443-7668

l TITLE:

+ Changes to Safeguards Reporting Requirements CFR CITATION:

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

The proposed rule would amend reporting requirements of section 73.71 for reports of unaccounted for shipments, suspected thefts, unlawful diversion, and other safeguards events. (Conforming amendments are included for 10 CFR Parts 70, 72, and 74). The staff has found the present requirements confusing to licensees and therefore, difficult for licensees to properly implement.

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

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

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

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

The proposed amendments redefine, in clearer terms, the events to be reported and classify certain of these events into different reporting categories. The current 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> telephonic notification is deleted. All events would be either telephonically reported within one hour or logged in licensee records to be submitted to the NRC quarterly. Concurrent with the ,

rule revision, a revised regulatory guide is being developed '

which provides a format for reporting to the NRC and gives examples of what types of events should be reported.

There is expected to be no cost impact to the public. Benefits to licensees will be clearer, simpler regulations, and a reduction in telephonic and written report making. While the proposed regulations will require more detailed, standardized written reports, the reduction in the number of telephone and written reports is expected to result in a net cost decrease to industry of $641,600 incurred on an annual basis.

I TITLE:

+ Changes to Safeguards Reporting Requirements TIMETABLE:

NPRM 08/27/85 50 FR 34708 NPRM Comment Period End 12/31/85 50 FR 48220 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 12/11/86 Final Action Package to ED0 01/00/87 Final Action Published 01/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

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

TITLE:

+ Requirements for Criminal History Checks CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would add a new requirement for the control and use of criminal history data received from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as part of proposed Federally mandated criminal history checks of individuals granted unescorted access tc nuclear power plants or access to Safeguards Information by power reactor licensees. Issuance of this proposed rule is in response to Public Law 99-399, the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1986, and, thus, there is no alternative to rulemaking. This legislation requires the NRC to issue regulations to establish conditions for the use and control of the criminal history data received from the FBI.

The cost to industry for implementation of this proposed rule would be approximately $5.68 million plus an annual operational cost of $568,000.

The cost to the NRC to implement this rule would be reimbursed by fees collected.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 11/07/86 51 FR 40438 NPRM Comment Period End 12/08/86 Final Action for Division Review 1/00/87 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 01/00/87 Final Action to EDO 02/00/87 Final Action Published 02/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS Oh SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No ,

AGENCY CONTACT:

Kristina Z. Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4754

TITLE:

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

10 CFR 73 A8STRACT:

The proposed rule would moderate the current requirements for the protection of spent fuel shipments against radiological sabotage. L Current more stringent requirements are based on release assumptions and health effects calculations that were made in the 1970s. Data from recently completed research shows that the release and health effects would be far lower than believed at the time the current requirements were issued. In addition, during 1985, comprehensive coordination was carried out with States and the Department of Transportation to assure that perceived safety issues were adequately addressed. The rulemaking is proceeding on a priority basis.

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

Alternative one was rejected because the current requirements, based on the conclusions drawn from recent research, were judged to be overly stringent. Alternative two was rejected because some requirements need to be retained to protect against sabotage scenarios even more severe than the one postulated for the research.

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

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

staff year for FY 1986.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 06/08/84 49 FR 23867 -

l NPRM Comment Period End 09/10/84 l

Final Action for Division Review 02/24/86 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 03/31/86 Final Action Package to ED0 02/00/87 Final Action Published 04/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

l

TITLE:

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

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

1 l

i

~

TITLE:

+ Material Control and Accounting Requirements for Facilities Licensed to Possess and Use Formula Quantities of Strategic l

Special Nuclear Material CFR CITATION: >

10 CFR 74 ,

, ABSTRACT:

i The proposed rulemakin 4 and accounting (MC&A) g would replace requirements existing for fuel cyclematerial facilitiescontrol that are authorized to possess and use formula quantities of strategic special nuclear material (SSNM).

I It would establish a perforniance-oriented regulation that 4

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

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

In response to public consients, the staff has re-evaluated certain technical provisions of the proposed rule and concluded

• that some modifications were warranted. Concurrent with the rule modifications, the acceptance criteria and regulatory analysis were revised. The revised regulatory analysis reflects estimated implementation costs of $2.5 million for the industry that will be offset by a reduction in annual operating costs. Cost recovery t

will occur within two to nine years, depending on the type of facility. The cost to the NRC to complete this rulemaking is estimated to be four staff years which includes time for the review of the plans submitted in response to the rule.

3

TITLE:

+ Material Control and Accounting Requirements for Facilities Licensed to Possess and Use Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

ANPRM 11/18/81 46 FR 45144 ANPRM Comment Period End 02/09/82 46 FR 56625 NPRM 02/02/84 49 FR 4091 NPRM Comment Period End 09/05/84 49 FR 4091 Final Action for Division Review 04/00/86 4 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 09/00/86 Final Action to ED0 9/15/86 Final Action Published 02/00/87 AGENCY CONTACT:

C. W. Emeigh Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washin9 ton, DC 20555 301 427-4769

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

. TITLE:

+ Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 140 ABSTRACT:

The final rule will revise the ENO criteria to eliminate the problems i

that were encountered in the Three Mile Island EN0 detennination. It is desirable to get revised criteria in place in the event they are needed.

There are no alternatives to this rulemaking, as the current EN0 criteria are already embodied in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 140. The only way to modify them, as this rule seeks to do, is through rule making.

There is no safety impact on public health or safety. The ENO criteria provide legal waivers of defenses. Industry (insurers and utilities) claims that a reduction in the ENO criteria could cause increases in insurance premiums. The final rule would also be responsive to PRM-140-1.

1 It is estimated that approximately 1.0 man years of NRC staff time will be required to process the final rule. No contract funding is anticipated.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 04/09/85 50 FR 13976 i NPRM Comment Period End 09/06/85 '

Final Action For Division Review 02/30/87 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 03/30/87 Final Action Package to EDO 04/30/87 Final Action to Cossnission 05/15/87 Final Action Published 07/15/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

l 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2210; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 l 1 l EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No l

AGENCY CONTACT:

Harold Peterson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7691 I

(C) Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking

- - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - , . . - . a ---. --- -s - A-__a .w. 4---. -._- +..a- m. Jaad W---*h-e--- ---e.*-* a_- E - **---A A I

I i

! l l

a  ;

i M

1 i

4 l

l l

l l

l I

TITLE:

Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern; Generic Rulemaking CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:

The advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeks comments on the NRC consideration to amend its regulations to address disposal of radioactive wastes that contain sufficiently low quantities of radionuclides that their disposal does not need to be regulated.

The NRC has already published a policy statement providing guidance for filing petitions for rulemaking to exempt individual waste streams (August 29, 1986; 51 FR 30839). It is believea that generic rulemeking could provide a more efficient and effective means of dealing with disposal of wastes below regulatory concern.

This rule would supplement the policy statement which was a response to Section 10 of the Low-Level Racioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240). The public will be askea to comment on 14 questions.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 12/02/87 51 FR 43367 ANPRM Comment Period End 03/02/87 51 FR 43367 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSIhESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:

AGENCY CONTACT:

Kitty S. Dragonette Nuclear Regulatory Comnnission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4300

TITLE:

+ Financial Responsibility of Non-Reactor Licensees for Cleanup Af ter Accidental and Unexpected Releases CFR CITATION:

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

The Commission issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in June 1985, which sought comments on the advisability of having NRC require a mechanism to assure financial capability on the part of certain NRC materials licensees (e.g., fuel fabricators and users of sealed radiation sources)-to undertake prompt cleanup of accidental releases or contamination, both on and off site. Estimates for cleanup costs in the recent past have ranged up to $2 million for a single event. To date, cleanup has been conducted by the State or Federal government, but frequently public monies are used only after lengthy delays.

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

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

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

Cost to licensees of the possible different financial assurance mechanisms is based on proprietary information. Staff invited comments in response to the ANPRM to address costs aspects, as well as scope of coverage and availability of altecnative mechanisms.

The comments received (approximate?y 160) will be used as an integral part of the rulemaking process. The NRC resources expended on the ANPRM in FY86 were 1.4 FTE. The current FY87 budget to develop the proposed rule is 1.4 FlE.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 06/07/85 50 FR 20906 l ANPRM Comment Period Begin 06/07/85 50 FR 20906 ANPRM Comment Period End 11/07/85 50 FR 41904 Proposed Action Published Undetennined Final Action Published Undetermined TITLE:

+ Financial Responsibility of Non-Reactor Licensees for Cleanup After Accidental and Unexpected Releases LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

Mary Jo Seeman

, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4647 8

b 1

4 d

4

1 8

TITLE:

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

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

The proposed rule would require about 30 fuel cycle and other radioactive materials licensees to submit an emergency plan that would among other actions, require the notification of local authorities in case of an accident ana that the licensee -

recommeno 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 i limits indicate the potential for an accident that could deliver l a radiation dose offsite exceeding one rem effective dose-equivalent or 5 rems to the thyroid or could cause a soluble uranium inhalation of 2 milligrams (a chemical toxicity hazard).

i Currently the proposed requirenents are, for the most part, required by order. However, the Commission decided that they wanted a regulation

for the long term. The cost to licensees for complying with the rule was estimated to be between $26,000 and $73,000 per year per licensee. The cost to NRC was estimated to be $4000,00 per year per licensee. The hRC will expend about 2 man-years of effort to promulgate the rule.

TIMETABLE

2 ANPRM 06/03/81 46 FR 29712 ANPRM Comment Period End 08/03/81 46 FR 29712 Proposed Action for Division Review 02/08/85

. Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 09/25/85

Proposed Action Package to Commission 03/25/86 Commission Directs Revision of Proposed Action 10/28/86

, Revised Proposed Action to EDO 01/23/87 j Revised Proposed Action to Commission 01/30/87 Proposed Action Published 04/15/87

] Final Action Published 03/15/88 i

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

AGENCY CONTACT:

Stephen A. McGuire Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 j 301 443-7900 t

j i

j 4

. , , . . , , ~ , . , - - --------,v-,.,.---.r, - r.---, .-- , __,,, _ - -

TITLE:

+ Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) for Light Water Nuclear Power Reactors CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

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

Use of the proposed acceptance criteria could result in a 5 percent power upgrade for affected plants. The present value of energy replacement cost savings resulting from a potential upgrade would range from 13 to 147 million dollars 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 reactors.

Because the proposed rule represents a significant change in a regulatory requirement, the staff is currently preparing a sumary of ECCS research performed over the last 10 years which will serve as the technical basis for the proposed rule i and a regulatory guide which will provide definition of what constitutes an acceptable best estimate model and acceptable methods of performing the uncertainty evaluation. The estimated cost to the NRC of this rulemaking is 2-3 staff years and l $200,000 of contractor support.

The only option to rulemaking considered by the staff was the continued use of the current licensing approach. At best, this is viewed as an l interim solution because two separate calculations are required to  !

meet the requiren,ents of the current regulation and staff conditions for use of the licensing approach and continued use of the approach risks case-by-case litigation.

l l

l

TITLE:

l

+ Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) for <

Light Water Nuclear Power Reactors TIMETABLE:

AhPRM 12/06/78 43 FR 57157 ANPRM Comnent Period Begin 12/06/78 43 FR 57157 ANPRM Comnent Period End 02/05/79 Proposed Action for Division Review 04/15/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 06/12/86 Proposed Action to EDO 10/16/86 Proposed Action Published 03/00/87

} Final Action Published 03/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2132; 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2239; 42 USC 2282; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846

(

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

Jose N. Reyes Jr.

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Washington, DC 20555 (301)443-7890 TITLE:

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

10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 55 ABSTRACT:

The Comission is considering an amendment to its regulations to require, after January 1,1991, that applicants for licenses as a Senior Operator of a nuclear power plant hold a baccalaureate degree in engineering or a related science from an accredited institution. Other baccalaureate degrees from an accredited institution may be accepted on a case-by-case basis. This contemplated rulemaking action is due to a Comission decision to enhance the levels of engineering and accident management expertise on shift. The current requirement, for candidates with a baccalaureate degree, of two years of responsible nuclear power plant operating experience, would be amended to require one year of operating experience on a like commercial nuclear reactor operating at greater that twenty percent power. The Comission is also considering issuing a policy statement concurrently with this rule related to utility implementation of the rule.

The staff analysis of coments on the ANPRM is continuing and options for rulemaking and/or policy statements to address degree requirements and training for accident management are being developed. A Commission paper is scheduled for Comission consideration by the end of March 1987.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 05/30/86 51 FR 19561 ANPRM Coment Period End 07/29/86 ANPRM Coment Period Extended to 09/29/86 Action Paper to Office Directors for Coment 02/00/87 Action Paper to ED0 03/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201

{

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS: No i AGENCY CONTACT: I Dan Jones Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4813

(D) Unpublished Rules E

l

TITLE:

, + Revised Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 0; 10 CFR 1; 10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 9; 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT: 4 s

The Nuclear Regulatory Comadssion has deferred further consideration of this proposal which would have revised the Commission's procedural rules governing the conduct of all adjuoicatory ' 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 Comunission's procedural rules. The changes set out in this proposed rule are intended to enable the Commission to render cecisions in a more timely fashion and reduce the burden

, , and expense to the parties participating in the proceedings.

TIMETABLE:

-NPRM Undetermined L LEGAL AUTHORITY:

, 42 USCj2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841; 5 USC 552 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSII;ESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No

'~]

i  ; AGENCY CONTACT: ' 'k

~

B. Paul Cotter, Jr.

Naclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555 301 452-7814 l

TITLE:

+ Statement of Organization and General Information CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 1 ABSTRACT:

! The final would rule revise 10 CFR Part 1 which was promulgated on July 18, i 1977(42FR36797). Except for a few revisions, such as address changes,

- the addition of a Commission-level office, and other minor revisions.

most of the remaining descriptions of the Commission's organizational structure have. rmnained unaltered since 1977. During the interim, there have been numerous reorganizations in the structure and functions of many

~

of the Commission's offices. The final rule will reflect the current structure and functions of these offices.

i

~ TIMETABLE:

Fina? Action for Division Review 05/29/87 Qffice Concurrence on Final Action Completed 06/30/87 Ftsal Action to EDO 07/31/87 t'/ns! Action Published 08/31/87 LEGAi. MW21TY:

42 USL 2033; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2039; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5843; 42 USC'5844; 42 USC 5845; 42 USC 5849 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Michael Lesar Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7086 I

4 4

i

TITLE:

• Functions of Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board ,

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The final rule would amend the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's s

regulations to provide for Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board review of all decisions rendered by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in formal agency adjudications. This amendment would change the agency's rules of practice to allow routine referral of requests for certain hearings from a licensing board to an appeal board.

TIMETABLE Final Action Published 01/00/87

! LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2021; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841

] EFFECTS Oh SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No

. AGENCY CONTACT:

Trip Rothschild Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 1 202 634-1465 l

l

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

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT: ,

l The proposed rule would amend the Commission's "immediate effectiveness" regulation that specifies when an initial adjudicatory decision l authorizing the issuance or amendment of a license or permit becomes effective. Changes are proposed that would (1) remove the existing provision governing the effectiveness of initial decisions regarding power reactor construction permits and (2) revise the Commission's existing practice regarding " effectiveness reviews" for full-power operating licenses. The proposed rule also woulo delete language in the existing regulation emanating from Three Mile Island-related regulatory policies, action upon which has now been completed.

The proposed rule would supersede two prior proposed rules entitled "Possible Amendments to 'Imediate Effectiveness' Rules," published May 22,1980 (45 FR 43279), and "Comission Review Procedures for Power Reactor Construction Permits; Imediate Effectiveness Rule," published October 25, 1982 (47 FR 47260).

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 01/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

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

TITLE:

Availability of Official Records CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The proposed amendment would conform the NRC's regulations pertaining to the availability of official records to existing "

case law and agency practice. The purpose of the amendment is to reaffirm that the terms of 10 CFR 2.790 (c) provide submitters of information a qualifieo right to have their information returned upon request. This amendment informs the public of three exceptions to the right to withdraw pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(c) of the NRC's regulations, i.e., information submitted in a rulemaking proceeding that subsequently forms the basis for the final rule, information which has been made available to an advisory committee or was received at an advisory committee meeting, and information that is subject to a pending Freedom of Information Act request.

TIMETABLE:

Next Action Uncetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

Paul Bollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Commission r

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

4 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:

10 CFR 2 l

) '

ABSTRACT:

[ The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) provides three years for the NRC to reach a decision on construction authorization for a high-level waste l ,

repository. In order for the NRC to'be able to.make its decision within 4

the allotted time, ready access to all pertinent records must be assured

'; to all parties in the licensing proceeding. The DOE has comitted to develop an electronic infomation management system to be used for the 2

licensing proceeding. The NRC staff intends to use the process of negotiated rulemaking to develop a proposed rule that would revise the Commission's discovery procedure and motion practice in 10 CFR Part 2 for the high-level waste licensing proceeding. This rule would require the DOE license application and all supporting records to be provided in a standardized electronic fomat. All parties to the licensing proceeding a would be required to submit all relevant data to this system. In turn, all parties would have access to the data base.

Resource estimates are currently under development.

a l TIMETABLE:

(Notice Of Intent) Published 12/18/86 51 FR 45338 Notice of Intent / Comment Period Expires 02/17/87 Prepare draft proposed rule (based on  ;

concensus) and Comission Paper 09/18/87 Proposed Action to EDO 10/20/87 '

Proposed Action Published 12/28/87 Final action to Commission 03/28/88 i

Final action Published 05/16/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

NWPA, AEA, 37 FR 151341, July 28, 1972 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: To be determined AGENCY CONTACT:

i Ken Kalman Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1

Office of Nuclear haterial Safety and Safeguards

. Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4071

)

)

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 ...

i ABSTRACT:

This proposed rule would establish a specific retention period for certain NRC-required. records. It would also provide a uniform standard acceptable to the NRC for the condition of a record throughout a specified retention period. Further, the rule would establish throughout NRC regulations, with some exceptions, uniform retention periods of three years, five years, ten years, and the life of a license. This rule would bring NRC regulations l

into compliance with the Office of Management and Budget's (OM8) regulation (5 CFR 1320.6) that requires a specified retention

• period for each required record. It also implements NRC's 1982 connitment to 0MB to establish a record retention period of determinable. length for each required record.

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

Recordkeeping labor for NRC's approximately 6,700 licensees who would be affected by the rule can be divided into four functions: (1) preparing the report, (2) storing the report, (3)

! files, and (4) retrieving the report information.

The principal savings to the licensee, dispersed over the period licensed, would be in physical storage space and associated storage equipment and materials. The burden of recordkeeping would be reduced approximately 10 percent annually for these licensees by the proposed rule. An estimated-466,323

hours associated with recordkeeping or $28,000,000 annually would

be saved. Preparing and publishing this rule would cost NRC approximately 3000 hours0.0347 days <br />0.833 hours <br />0.00496 weeks <br />0.00114 months <br /> of staff time at $60 per hour for an estimated total'of $180,000.

TIMETABLE:

l Proposed Action for Division Review 01/00/86 l Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 08/00/86 Proposed Action Package to ED0 05/31/87 Proposed Action Published 06/30/87 Final Action Published 10/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201

~

TITLE: .

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

1 Brenda Shelton Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Office of Administration and Resource Management Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8132 i

I i

i

TITLE:

+ Residual Radioactive Contamination Limits for Deconsissioning CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:

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

The proposed amendments are necessary to provide licensees with quantitative criteria to use during deconmissioning relative to cleanup of structures and lands intended to ensure that structures and lands used in NRC licensea facilities and activities will be decontaminated in a manner that adequately protects public health before being released on an unrestricted, unregulated basis. ,

Alternatives to rulemaking would be continued reliance on the issuance of criteria as guidance. However, the criteria are currently incomplete, decisions on implementation and compliance are often required on a case-by-case basis, and criteria issueo by~ guidance may not be enforced in the manner of legally binding regulations.

The proposed rule would relieve the administrative burden on NRC and licensees while providing a consistent and enforceable basis for i agency action. NRC resource requirements are approximately two ,

staff years and a $250,000 research contract. The staff is participating I in an EPA /RES organized interagency working group to develop Federal guidance on this subject.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action for Division Review 06/15/87 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Coripleted 11/15/87 Proposeo Action to EDO 03/15/88 Proposed Action Published 05/15/88 Final Action 01/00/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

AGENCY CONTACT:

Catherine R. Mattsen Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 1 301 443-7689 l l

-l

- in - - 4 + 4 a.-A- 2 s mw m_ e _uu - A

• _aaes..+g .l-..: .aJ.-4 ,.;4.<4..s. $4-.e k.- 84 . <si .r e.

a TITLE:

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

10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

This proposed rule would amend Part 21 and sec. 50.55(e) both of

which require the reporting of safety defects by licensees. This

effort was prompted by TMI Action Plan Task II, J.4 and has as its main objectives

1)eliminationofduplicatereportingamongall i

requirements, (2)(consistent reporting among all reporting requirements, (3) establishment of uniform and clear definitions for defects which need to be reported, (4) establishment of uniform time limits within which a defect must be reported and evaluated and, (5) establishment of uniform content for reporting of defects.

Approximately 450 to 500 reports are issued annually unoer Part 21 and sec. 50.55 (e) respectively. The reports identify plant-specific safety concerns and potential generic safety concerns for further NRC followup. These reports form the basis for numerous NRC bulletins and information notices.

This proposeo rulemaking will reduce the potential for duplicate reporting and evaluation that now exists and will establish a more coherent regulatory framework that is expected to reduce industry and NRC burden in this area without i

sacrificing safety effectiveness.

, Alternatives to this approach varied from establishment of a single rule for all reporting to maintaining a status quo for defect reporting. All alternatives were rejected since they would not result in any substantial improvement to the present regulatory framework.

Current costs of reporting under Part 21 and section 50.55 (e) l are estimated at $12,400,000 annually for industry and $2,900,000 annually for NRC evaluations . It is anticipated that industry reporting burden with the proposed rulemaking will be

, reduced by 36,800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br /> or $2,208,000 while NRC burden should be

, increased by $100,000. Additional burden to industry and NRC, l while minimal, is anticipated in the areas of adherence to time schedules, and enforcement, recordkeeping respectively.

! The Commission disapproved this proposed rule on 10/20/86 and.

provided direction to the staff to revise the proposed rulemaking.

i i

I 80-i

i TITLE:

+ Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action for Division Review 05/00/85 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 06/05/85 Proposed Action Package to ED0 11/18/85 Proposed Action to Commission 12/16/85 Revised Proposed Action to Commission 04/15/87 Final Action Published 10/15/87 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 Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7613

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

1

l TITLE

+ Registration of Sources and Devices CFR CITATION 10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 32; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70 '

F ABSTRACT:

NRC regulations clearly provide for pre-marketing approval of certain sealed sources and devices, such as smoke detectors and gauges. The e

regulations are less clear with respect to pre-marketing approval of

' other products, such as industrial radiographic and in-plant gauging devices. The proposed rule would clearly state the procedures for <

manufacturers and distributors of sources and devices to obtain pre-

' marketing approval of products to be used under specific license.

Consistent with present practice, the rule would require the applicant to submit for approval specified radiation safety information about the product.

The proposed rule would also assure that all manufacturers / distributors (vendors) are informed of NRC's program for pre-marketing approval of sources and devices under specific license. The rule, by improving j

. cosaunication with the vendors, would assure timely and efficient consideration of radiation safety features of products and thus reduce administrative costs for vendors, users and NRC.

i The rulemaking action is not urgent, but is important because it will substantially improve the licensing process and reduce the administrative burden on NRC and licensees. The alternative is to continue in the-present status which involves duplication of effort through repetitive submittals and reviews. Required resources for NRC to complete the rulemaking are 1.0 staff year in FY87 and 1.0 staff year in FY88.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action for Division Review 09/19/86 I Office Concurrence on Proposed Action 10/31/86 '

Proposed Action to ED0 03/00/87 Proposed Action Published 04/00/87 Final Action Published 12/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

! AGENCY CONTACT:

, Steven L. Baggett Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

, Washington, DC 20555 j 301 427-9005 82-

,.-,v,v,r --,,-w wm--r-.- - - - , , , - r--,- ------o,.w~~ - > ~ -~-----,w-- - , - , e,--, ..-nn~ - - - ,,- ~

, TITLE:

+ Informal Hearing Procedures for Materials Licenses Proceedings CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 32; 10 CFR 33; 10 CFR 34; 10 CFR 35; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 71; 10 CFR 72 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. In addition, the proposed rule would encompass the objective of the proposed rule, " Jurisdiction of Adjudicatory Boards," identified as 3150-AA53 which is being deleted from OMB's Unified Agenda. There are no reasonable alternatives to rulemaking for implementing these informal hearing procedures.

The procedures are expected to reduce the economic burden imposed on a participant in a proceeding.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 02/00/87 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 4 Washington, DC 20555 202 634-3224

TITLE:

+ Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Exposure Devices CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 34 '

ABSTRACT:

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

Although a consensus standard for radiographic exposure devices was published in 1981, (American National Standard. N432) it is not clear that all manufacturers are adopting the standard.

The alternatives considered were to take no action at this time; to 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; or to incorporate the consensus standard by reference in the regulations supplemented by such other performance standards as deemed necessary and to impose requirement for radiographers to wear alann dosimeters.

The proposed rule would require licensees to modify radiographic devices to meet the performance standards through-design changes and quality control procedures. Costs of incorporating the proposed changes are estimated to be a one time cost of $1600.00 per licensee to purchase alarm dosimeters and

$250.00 per year per licensee a replace existing devices with devices that meet the requirements of the consensus standard.

Determination of the benefits to be derived from the proposed rule are difficult to determine on a monetary basis but the potential hazards that might be averted include radiation sickness, injury, and even death. NkC resources required for processing this rule to final publication are estimated to be 0.4 person-years.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action for Division Review 12/22/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 02/25/87 Proposed Action to ED0 03/20/87 Proposed Action Published 04/17/87 Final Action Published 12/31/87 TITLE: ..

+ Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Exposure Devices LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Donald O. Nellis Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7989 i

l

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

t

, TITLE:

l + Training and Experience Criteria for the Medical Use of Byproduct Material l CFR CITATION:

10 CFR Part 35 ABSTRACT: .

1 The proposed rule would revise the training and experience criteria that apply to physicians who desire to use radioactive byproduct material in the practice of medicine. The changes contemplated in the proposeo rule are needed to ensure that the training ar.d i experience criteria used by the NRC reflect the evolution of the 4

practice of nuclear medicine. The proposed rule would establish i requirements for physician training and experience that are

, appropriate to the type of use for which a physician seeks to be 1'

authorized. Because training and experience criteria for physicians are specified in the revision to Part 35 any change to these requirements must be accomplished as part of a rulemaking action.

The staff did not consider an alternative of taking no action to be viable because of the level of contention involved and the visibility of the issue within the NRC and medical community. The NRC does not believe that revised training and experience criteria would result in significant changes in current training programs. The wine 4

variety of conditions and factors involved in the practice of nuclear medicine makes calculation of the potential costs to individual physicians or to medical institutions difficult.

i l TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action to Comission 01/00/87 Proposed Action Published 02/00/87 5

Final Action Published 09/00/87 i LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 i EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes i

AGENCY CONTACT:

l Norman L. McElroy Nuclear Regulatory Commission i

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards i Washington, DC 20555 l (301)427-4108 4

i

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

1

! TITLE:

+ Radiation Therapy: Quality Assurance and Penalties for Negligence CFR CITATION:

l 10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering amendments to its i

regulations governing the use of byproduct material for' radiation

therapy. In addition to current requirements, the contemplated amendments woulo require that licensees offering teletherapy or brachytherapy services implement a quality assurance program. The t contemplated amer.dments would also provide for penalties for

! negligence when using byproduct material for radiation therapy.

4 The alternatives to rulemaking considered by the staff were to take no action or to provide quality assurance guidance and request voluntary compliance. The Commission directed the staff to take the rulemaking alternative. Although data on potential cost impacts is incomplete, initial cost estimates indicated that the potential

cost to each of the 1200 affected licensees would be about $1000.00 j per year.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM Action for Division Review 11/00/86 Office Concurrence on ANPRM Completed 12/00/86

+

ANPRM Action to EDO 01/00/87 ANPRM Action Published 05/00/87

Proposed Action Published 03/00/88 Final Action Published 11/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY

42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:

i Norman L. McElroy '

Nuclear Regulatory Consiission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4108

i.

. TITLE:

+ Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 j ABSTRACT:

The Commission proposes to amend its regulations to incorporate by reference the Winter 1984 Addenda, 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, Summer 1984 Addenda Winter 1984 Addenda, Summer 1985 Addenda, Winter 1985 Addenda, and 1986 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 Adaenda and i Winter 1984 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1. This limitation requires j that for certain types of welds, IWB-3640 be used as modified by the.

1 Winter 1985 Addenda. The sections of the ASME Code being incorporated provide rules for the construction of light-water-cooled nuclear power 1 plant components and specify requirements for inservice inspection of 3

those components. Adoption of these amendments would permit the use of improved methods for construction and inservice inspection of nuclear 4

power plants.

, TIMETABLE: r Office Concurrence on Proposed Action 01/30/87

.l Proposed Action to EDO 02/06/87

Proposed Action Published 02/28/87 i

Final Action Published 10/30/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY: l

! 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 i

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES

No l AGENCY CONTACT:

Gilbert C. Millman Nuclear Regulatory Commission

! Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Washington, DC 20555

301 443-7713 a

]

i i

i "

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 tems "important to safety" and

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

Rulemaking was chosen as the method of resolving this issue as a result of the Comission's directive to resolve the issue by rulemaking contained in the Shoreham licensing decision (CLI-84-9, 19 NRC 1323, June 5, 1984).

A position paper requesting approval of the staff proposed definitions and additional guidance from the Comission was signed by the ED0 on May 29, 1986. In addition to rulemaking, the position paper discusses the alternative of the Commission issuing a policy statement concerning the definitions and their usage.

Since the proposed rule is only clarifying existing requinnents, there

! is no impact on the public or the industry as a result of this t rulemaking. It is anticipated that the NRC will expend 3.2 to 4.4 l staff years in developing the final rule over a two year period. The l manpower and time frame will depend upon guidance from the Comission

, regarding the extent to which 10 CFR usage of the terms is to be l consistent, i.e.,10 CFR Part 50 only or all of 10 CFR.

l TIMETABLE:

Comission Decision on SECY 86-164 03/01/87 Proposed Action for Division Review 09/01/87 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 11/01/87 Proposed Action Package to EDO 12/01/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

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

l 1

f I

TITLE:

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

10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 51

! ABSTRACT:

l In a Federal Register notice published on April 14, 1978, the i Cosmission deleted the radon-222 value from Table S-3 because it.

was recognized to be underestimated. Pending rulemaking action to i provide a new estimate for radon-222 in Table S-3, the environmental effects of radon are subject to litigation in individual nuclear power j plant licensing proceedings. The proposed rule was to deal with this

question generically for all neclear power plants; however, the NRC does 4

not expect to receive applications for new nuclear power plant licenses I within the near future, and certain regulatory issues related to radon i

have not yet been resolved.

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

l This would complete Table S-3 and would remove all environmental impacts

of the uranium fuel cycle from further consideration and litigation

! in individual nuclear power plant licensing cases. However, the final l rule could not be forinulated until EPA completed the development of 1 additional radon standards, which were issued September 24, 1986.

Also, the Commission must complete its review of ALAB-701, which is i being held in abeyance for the completion of EPA's radon i standards and for further resolution of the de minimis argument J

concerning the effects of exposure to low levels of raciation. The l Consission directed the staff to develop a schedule for completion of the work required to provide a new radon-222 value for Table S-3 and to resolve the related matters.

l The staff's plan and estimate (SECY 86-242) were submitted on August I

18, 1986 providing for submission of the final rule for Connission

action in December 1988. On September 8, 1986, SECY 86-242 was

approved by the Connission. The final rule will cover the

! new values for radon-222 and technetium-99 and the narrative explanation j of these values and their effect on public health and safety.

i

{ TIMETABLE:

l EPA's New Radon Standards Promulgated 10/08/84 j U. S. Court of Appeals invalidates Table S-3 04/27/85

' EPA New Radon Standards (active mills) 08/15/86 Proposed Action for Division Review 09/00/87 j Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 10/00/87 Proposed Action to EDO 12/00/87 i Proposed Action Published 03/00/88 j Final Action Published 12/00/88 4

y i

4 TITLE:

+ Radon 222 Estimate for Table S-3 7I.

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

William E. Thompson 4 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-9024 1

h i

I TITLE:

+ Part 51; Conforming Amendments CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would provide procedures for perfoming 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 review which NRC perform in licensing other types of nuclear facilities. This issue must be addressed in order to avoid delay in the U.S. HLW Program. The proposed rule would benefit the public, industry, ,

and NRC by clarifying licensing procedures, thus avoiding case.

determinations and possible litigation during the liceqsing of a HLW geologic repository. Minor revisions to Part 60 will be necessary to conform to the environmental requirements of the NWPA.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action Published 9/30/87 Final Action Publisheo 9/30/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

AGENCY CONTACT:

James R. Wolf Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8694 TITLE:

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

10 CFR 60 i

ABSTRACT:

This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeks to revise the definition of HLW in Part 60 to reflect certain changes in the legal definition of HLW contained in.the Nuclear

' Waste Policy Act of 1982. Because of the complex,' issues involved in revising the definition of HLW, which affects virtually the entire radioactive waste management system, the staff is proposing an ANPRM rather than a proposed rule. A revision of the definition of HLW would affect DOE's plans for a geologic repository costs of waste disposal for certain waste generators, and the development of new technologies ano facilities to dispose of certain types of wastes. A definition of HLW which clearly identifies j these highly radioactive wastes needing permanent isolation would benefit the radioactive waste management system. NRC staff time for processing this rule is estimated to be 4 staff years.

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

TIHETABLE:

ANPRM Action for Division Review 09/00/86 Office Concurrence on ANPRM Action Completed 10/00/86 ANPRM Action to EDO 11/07/86 Oroposed Action Published 01/00/88 Fisal Action Published 10/00/88

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Commission

! Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7668

. - . .= - - . __ . . __ -. . --

4 s

TITLE:

+ Criteria and Procedures for Evaluating Requests for Emergency Access to

Low-Level Waste Disposal Sites 1 CFR CITATION

4 10 CFR 62 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would establish criteria and procedures that will be i

used in the execution of the NRC responsibilities under Section 6 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Procedures Amendments Act (LLRWPAA). Section 6 of the LLRWPAA authorizes the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to grant emergency access to any non-Federal low-level waste disposal i

facility, if necessary to eliminate an immediate and serious threat to the public health and safety or the common defense and security which cannot be mitigated by other means. The proposed rule may have a significant impact on the generators of low-level waste, in that it will set the standards high for qualifying for emergency access, and will require them to provide convincing information to the NRC that their being denied access to low-level waste disposal facilities has resulted in an i

immediate and serious threat to the public health and safety or the common defense and security. The current FY87 budget to develop the proposed rule is 1.2 FTE.

TIMETABLE:

Office Concurrence on Proposed Action 04/00/87 Proposed Action to EDO 06/12/87 Proposed Action Published 09/04/87 l Final Action Published 08/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2021 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes 1

! AGENCY CONTACT:

Janet Lambert Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

! Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, DC 20555 1

301 427-4009 i

k

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

d TITLE:

+ Reporting of Special' Nuclear Material Physical Inventory Sudmary (

Results CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 70 ABSTRACT:

4 The NRC's current regulations require fuel facilities to conduct periodic physical inventories of the special nuclear material (SNM) possessed by them. Although the affected licensees have been voluntarily

! reporting their resultant physical inventory summary data to the NRC since 1975, a requirement for this routine reporting has never been incorporated into the regulations.

Rather than pursue a rule for the reporting of_ inventory summary data, the NRC could continue to rely on voluntary reporting of this data. If any of the affected licensees, for whatever reason, should choose to discontinue reporting this data, timely collection of such data could i be continued by an increase in direct inspection efforts; however, this increase would have an adverse impact on the inspection program in

terms of increased costs and staff time. If timely collection of this

data should be discontinued, the NRC would be unable to fulfill its present commitment to timely reporting to the public of differences between licensees' book and physical inventories of SNM (see NUREG-0430

" Licensed Fuel Facility Status Report / Inventory Difference Data").

The proposed rule corrects the present reporting deficiency by requiring the appropriate fuel facility licensees to provide the necessary physical inventory summary data on NRC Form 327. Since these licensees are already supplying this information voluntarily and the NRC is already routinely using it, there are no additional ccits or other impacts associated with the rulemaking. The current schedule calls for

publication of the final rule in May 1987 with a total expenditure of

approximately 0.1 staff years by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.

l TIMETABLE: l Proposed Action to ED0 9/30/86  !

Proposed Action Published 10/00/86 i Final Action Published 05/20/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT: l Darrell Huff Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Washington, DC 20555  ;

301 492-7077 l l

TITLE:

Transportation Regulations: Compatibility With the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 71 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule, would in conjunction with a corresponding rule change by the U.S. Department of Transportation, make the United States Federal regulations for the safe transportation of radioactive material consistent with those of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA regulations can be found in IAEA Safety Standards 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 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 favorable and accident experience of every country that bases it domestic regulations on those of the IAEA can be applied by every other country with consistent regulations to improve its safety program. The action will be handled as a routine updating of NRC transportation regulations. There is no reasonable alternative to rulemaking action. These 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 comments. The task will be scheduled over a 2-year interval ending June 1989 and will consume 2-3 staff years of effort depending dull on the number and difficulty of conflicts to be resolved.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action for Division Review 06/30/87 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 10/30/87 Proposed Action Package to EDO 01/30/88 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 P. Hopkins Nuclear Regulatory Coninission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7690 (A) - Petitions incorporated into final rules or petitions denied since September 30, 1986

)

-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- , _ . . , ,+ a .- -u-- --- -m l

l l

i a

l I

i l

I E

4 i

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER

PRM-30-55 PETITIONER: State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection -

PART: 30

, OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: 31, 32, 33 l FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: August 11, 1977 (42 FR 40791) y-

SUBJECT:

Radiation Standards for Uses of Byproduct Material

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Comission i initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the purpose of l adopting new national standards for users of radioactive l byproduct materials. The petitioner states that the

] Comission Radiation Standards for byproduct material facilities and nuclear power plants differ drastically. 1 The petitioner states that a nuclear power plant's sophis- t

ticated control equipment is designed to handle different types of potential accidents and still keep radiation

exposure to the public within acceptable limits, while a i byproduct material facility (e.g., radiopharmaceutical

plant) does not have the same capabilities. Furthermore, j the petitioner states that because byproduct material i

plants have unrestricted siting, more people are in the

vicinity of a byproduct facility than a nuclear power plant

{ and would be affected by radiation exposure resulting from

! an accident.

, Objective. To reduce unnecessary public exposure to radio-l active substances emitted from byproduct material facilities by the following actions: 1. Establish criteria to quantify the "as low as reasonably achievable" emission reduction policy for major facilities using hyproduct materials from i

man-made fission reactions and require existing plants to  :.:s meet these criteria. 2. Establish siting criteria for these  ::

facilities that would form a basis for evaluating the accep- 2 4

tability of new plant locations in terms of radiation doses to the public. 3. Require new and existing byproduct facili-ties to develop and implement offsite environmental surveil-lance programs to provide information on levels of radio-activity in the environment around these facilities.

Background. The coment period closed October 11, 1977.

Six comments were received, all opposing the petition. The staff is developing a final position on the petition. This I petition was combined with an earlier petition (PPM-50-10)

' rom the State of New Jersey that dealt with similar issues.

PPM-50-10 was withdrawn on September 15, 1983 (4R FR 41429).

1

, - . - . . - - = . - - - . . - -- - - - . - - - _ _ --- . . - - - - - - - - - - _ . - v,--~----~

TIMETABLE: Complete. A Federal Notice withdrawing this petition was published on October 20, 1986 (51 FR 37195)

CONTACT: Richard P. Grill Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7670 i

i 4

l l

a r

1 i

i i

l  !

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-36 PETITIONER: Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group (NUBARG)

PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: 73 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: June 21, 1983 (48 FR 28282)

SUBJECT:

Reporting Requirements in NRC Regulations and Documents

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations in 10 CFR Parts 50 and 73 to eliminate what the petitioner believes are duplicative and unnecessarily burdensome reporting requirements. The petitioner also requests that the Commission amend the technical specifica-tions in licenses of nuclear power plant licensees and revise existing NRC guidance documents to reduce what the petitioner feels are duplicative reporting provisions contained in those documents. The petitioner specifically requests that revisions be made to il 50.54(p), 50.54(q),

50.55(e), 50.59(b), 73.71, and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50; NUREG-0103, -0123 -0212, and -0452; and licensees' technical specifications. In support of its proposed amendments, the petitioner states that the requested revisions would permit ifcensees to make more efficient use of their personnel resources and allow licensees' employees to concentrate their attention on matters of public health and safety.

Objective. To reduce the regulatory burden on nuclear power plant licensees through amendment of existing reporting requirements to eliminate duplicative and unnecessarily burdensome provisions.

Background. The comment period closed August 23, 1983.

The comments on this petition and the petitioner's request will be considered in the NRC's ongoing evaluation and revision of the reporting and recordkeeping burden required of NRC licensees.

TIMETABLE: Complete. A partial grant and partial denial of the petition was published in the Federal Register on October 16, 1986, 51 FR 36812.

CONTACT: R. Stephen Scott Office of Administration 301-492-8585 l

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-37 PETITIONER: Lillian McNally PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: October 31, 1983 (48 FR 50083)

SUBJECT:

Standards for the Levels of Deuterium and Tritium in Water Circulated In and Around Nuclear Power Plants

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that new standards be set for all water circulated in and around nuclear power plants. The petitioner specifically proposes that water circulated in and around nuclear power plants not contain levels of deuterium and tritium which exceed the natural environmental concentration of these elements for a period of one year; that one year later the concentration levels be limited to less than one part by weight in 10,000 parts; and that the level of contaminants be reviewed annually thereafter to determine the attainable purity of circulating water.

Objective. To place a limit on deuterium to reduce the formation of tritium from deuterium by neutron absorption. l j

Background. The comment period closed December 30, 1983.

A response is undergoing staff review.

TIMETABLE: Complete. A notice of denial was published in the Federal Register on November 14, 1986 (51 FR 41353).

CONTACT: Harold T. Peterson, Jr.

Office of Nuclear Pegulatory Research 301-443-7691

-100-

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-39 PETITIONER: Southern California Edison Company PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: May 20, 1985 (50 FR 20799)

SUBJECT:

Emergency Response Plans for Persons Who Are Both Contaminated with Radioactive Material and Physically Injured

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Comission l amend its regulations to clarify that onsite and offsite l emergency response plans need only include medical arrange- I ments for persons who are both contaminated with radioactive  !

material and physically injured in some other manner which i requires medical treatment. The petitioner contends that public safety does not necessitate the prearrangement of emergency medical treatment for severely irradiated persons who have not also suffered physical injury requiring immediate treatment in a medical facility. The petitioner also contends that the class of people for whom advance arrangements for medical services are required is not clearly stated in the present wording of 10 CFR Part 50 and proposes revising 10 CFR50.47(b)(12).

Objective. To establish standards for prearranged emergency medical services which are based upon a scientific and medical understanding of what is necessary to protect the public.

Background. The staff is evaluating comments received and drafting a resolution.

TIMETABLE: Complete. A notice withdrawing the petition was published in in the Federal Register on December 5, 1986 (51 FR 43930).

CONTACT: Michael Jangochian Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7657

-101-

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-71-10 PETITIONER: State of Wisconsin PART: 71 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 4,1985(50FR4866)

SUBJECT:

Transportation of Irradiated Reactor Fuel (Spent Fuel)

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission establish a regulatory process that would provide an opportunity for public participation in the evaluation and approval of proposed shipments of irradiated reactor fuel (spent fuel). The petitioner points out that the transportation of irradiated reactor fuel is an increasingly significant activity because nuclear reactor facilities are reaching maximum capacity of their spent fuel storage pools. The petitioner, a State through which numerous shipments of irradiated reactor fuel have passed and through which future shipments are scheduled, has an interest in protecting its citizens by ensuring that transporters of spent fuel have adequately prepared for potential emergencies. The petitioner alleges that there has been no Federal agency considering the risks associated with the shipping routes. The petitioner points out that the Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, and the NRC could potentially influence transportation decision-making. The petitioner concludes that the NRC has the primary responsibility to protect against the risks of radiation exposure and that the NRC should adopt the proposed amendments that will provide the NRC and the public the opportunity to evaluate the propriety of spent fuel shipments. ,

Objective. To protect against the risks of radiation exposure associated with the transportation of irradiated reactor fuel and to provide the public the opportunity to evaluate the propriety of spent fuel shipments.

Background. The comment period closed April 5, 1985.

TIMETABLE: Complete. A notice of denial was on October 16,1986(51FR26816)publishedintheFederalRegister CONTACT: Donald R. Hopkins Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7690

-102-

(B) - Petitions incorporated into proposed rules

i d

1 f

l -

i

)

i I

I i

i b

I I

l 3

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-71-1, PRM-71-2, PRM-71-4 PETITIONER: EnergyResearchandDevelopmentAdministration(ERDA)/ DOE (PRM-71-1)

American National Standards Inst. Comittee N14 (PRM-71-2)

Chem-NuclearSystems,Inc.(PRM-71-4)

PART: 71 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: PRM-71-1 September 22,1975(40FR43517);

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

SUBJECT:

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

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners requested that the Comission amend its regulations at il 71.7 and 71.10 to exempt " low specific activity material," as defined in 6 71.4(g), from ,

the requirerrents of Part 71. This action was requested to to correct an inconsistency between NRC regulations and those of DOT and IAEA. The petitioners claim that duplicate, rather than inadequate, control exists in this area, but do not provide economic loss data. Therefore the necessity and urgency for addressing this issue is minimal. The issue la a generic one, effecting a large segment of the licensee population including all nuclear reactor licensees, so rulemaking is the only t reasonable alternative. If the exemption requested in the petitions were granted, NRC would no longer regulate in the area j of transportation of larger quantities of low specific activity i radioactive material. Since a relatively large number (40) of NRC approved package designs are used for transporting larger quantities of low specific activity materials NRC could eliminate a sizeable workload by approving the exemption.

Industry would likewise benefit economically by not having to obtain NRC approval of special packages for this type of material, and by not having to build or use the special packages.

Unless, DOT chose to counter the NRC exemption with regulatory controls of its own in this area, larger quantities of low specific activity materials would likely be shipped in lesser package at greater public risk. However, since the petitions are being processed together with an amendment to NRC rules which would limit the definition of " low specific activity materials" to an extent not yet determined, it is not yet possible to determine the effects on the public.

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

-103-

l i

i i Background. Conments were received on these petitions over 2

j a period of one and one-half years. Altogether, five favorable consents were received. In July 1979, the j

.Connission approved a proposed revision (SECY-79-192) to l the NRC transportation regulations in 10 CFR Part 71 to l

make them more compatible with those of the IAEA, including the requested revision to 5 71.7 to exempt " low specific activity material" from the requirements of Part 71. The j

proposed rule change was published in the Federal Register j on August 17, 1979 (44 FR 48234). During the development j of the final rule, however, the transportation program i office (NNSS) reversed its earlier decision to exempt " low l specific activity material" from Part 71 until a deficiency

! in the rule is corrected and directed that action on the i petitiens be delayed until a new rulemaking action is

initiated to correct the deficiency. Work on that rulemaking i

I action has been temporarily terminated pending completion '

of a study being conducted under the control of DOT.

TIMETABLE

Resolution of this petition is expected in FY 1989. I c

l CONTACT: Donald R. Hopkins Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7690 i 1

l l

l I i 1

4 i

s 1

I i

j -104-

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

PART: 73 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: September 15, 1977 (42FR46431)

SUBJECT:

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

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request elimination of the requirement for " pat down" physical searches of individuals entering a protected area of a nuclear power plant. The

petitioners contend that the requirement is unnecessary in i that comparable highly sensitive facilities such as those I used to store nuclear weapons do not have such a requirement.

The petitioners state that their petition would permit " pat down" searches and that individuals entering a protected area would be put on notice that they are subject to tbse searches. Existing requirements for the use of detection i

equipment would not be affected. The petition includes proposed amendatory text to Part 73. The petitioners also have submitted a memorandum in support of the petition.

Objective. To eliminate the requirement for " pat down" physical searches of individuals entering a protected ares '

of a nuclear power plant.

Background. The coment period closed October 17, 1977.

Approximately 100 comments were received. Eighty coments were from utilities and supported the petition. The other 20 disagreed with the petition. Currently effective ,

, regulations require, in part, that licensees conduct

physical " pat down" se

arches of their employees and other persons before allowing them to enter a protected area of a power reactor facility. However, NRC has extended tn licensees relief from this requirement while a proposed rulemaking proceeding in physical searches is conducted.

The most recent notice granting a continuation of this

! relief was published in the Federal Register on December 1 l 1980(45FR79492). The Commission notified the petitioner that action on the petition has been delayed pending l resolution of the rulemaking proceeding to modify require-  ;

monts for physical searches at nuclear power plants.

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

-105-

TIMETABLE: Consiission action on the petition for rulemaking is pending issuance of the final rule on pat-down searches. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on August 1, 1984 (49 FR 30738), and the comment period for the rule was extended to March 7,1985(49FR48200). The resol:4 tion of the petition is scheduled to be published January 1987. j CONTACT: Kristina Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguarc's l

301-427-4754

i I

l l

l l

l l

l l

l

{

l l

l -106-l l

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

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

SUBJECT:

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

SUMMARY

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

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

Background. The coment period closed April 19, 1982.

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

TIMETABLE: Commission action on the petition will follow publication of the final rule, " Miscellaneous Amendments Concerning Physical Protection of '

Nuclear Power Plants." The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on August 1, 1984 (49 FR 30735), and the coment period for the rule was extended to March 7,1985(49FR 48200). The final rule was August 4,1986(51FR27817)pubitshedon

. Resolution of the petition is scheduled for January 1987.

Withdrawal of the petition is expected in the i near future. I CONTACT: Kristina Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-427-4754

-107-

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

PART: 73 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: Hone FEDERAL REGISTEP, CITATION: February 16,1982(47FR6657)

SUBJECT:

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

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request that the Commission eliminate the requirement for searches of hand-carried personal effects of screened employees entering a protected area of a nuclear power plant. The petitioners contend that the requirement is unnecessary as

demonstrated by the absence of these kinds of searches in comparable Federal programs. The petitioners also contend that the requirement is an ineffective means of preventing insiders from sabotaging the plant. The petition includes proposed amendatory text that would achieve this requested change.

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

Background. The coment period closed April 19, 1982.

1 Ten coments on the petition were received. Action on the ,

petition is delayed pending resolution of policy questions I in current rulemakings.

TIMETABLE: Comission action on the petition will follow publication of the final " Pat-Down Rule." The proposed rule was pubitshed in the Federal Register on August 1, 1984 (49 FR 30738), and the comment period for the rule was extended to March 7, 1985 (49 FR 48200). The final rule was published on August 4,1986(51FR27822).

Resolution of the petition is scheduled for January 1987.

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

)

}

v f

! -108-

i i

3 I

j (C) - Petitions pending staff review i

l i

I l

i i

1 1

l l

l l

I l

___ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ - - . . . _ _ , _ . -- .. . , - . , _ , _ . , . . _ , . - _ - - . . . . . . . .- , , _ . ,. -v.,. ,y-__, _<_

f

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-40-25 PETITIONER: State of Alabama PART: 40 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: NONE

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION

December 31,1985(50FR53335) 1

SUBJECT:

Regulations Governing Unimportant Quentities of Source

Material i

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend

its regulations governing unimportant quantities of source i material. The petitioner suggests that the NRC examine the

! exemption from licensing for products or parts of products j fabricated of or containing tungsten or magnesium thorium a

alloys whose thorium content is less than 4 percent by j weight and either remove the restriction on this exemption 4 or set out the restriction as part of a general license.

J The petitioner believes that, in placing a restriction on

an exemption, the NRC has created a structurally deficient

regulation that may lead to unintentir.nal violations by

, persons who may receive products covered by the exemption and be unaware of any further restrictions.

i Objectiv_e. To ensure that a person who obtains an exempt 1 product covered by the exemption is aware of any limitations placed on the use of the product.

Background. The comment period for this action closed Fa7ch 3,1986. Only one coment was received, and it opposed the petition, j TIMETABLE: Staff action on the petition is scheduled to be completed August 1987.

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

-109-

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-21 PETITIONER: Northern States Power Company and Wisconsin Electric Power Company PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: 2 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: July 21,1977(42FR37458)

SUBJECT:

Plant Security Information

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request that the Commission amend its regulations (1) in i 50.34(c) to include plant security information within the definition of Restricted

, within the definition of National Data,or,Information; Security alternatively (2)ini2.905toensurethatdiscovery of plant security information is subject to the protections of Subpart I of Part 2; (3) in Subpart I of Part 2 to exslicitly recognize that the protections required by the Subpart extend to information not under Commission control; and (4) to delete i 2.790(d)(1) that currently could permit disclosure of plant security information without the protections of Subpart I of Part 2.

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

Background. The coment period closed September 19, 1977.

Twelve comments were received, nine of which endorsed the petition. Consideration to grant the petition was under '

review based on Pub. L.96-295 (NRC FY 00 Authorization Bill) that amended the Atomic Energy Act by adding Section 147, " Safeguards Information," which directs the Commission to prescribe regulations or issue orders to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of safeguards information that specifically identifies the Itcensees' or applicants' detailed security measures, etc.

TIMETABLE: OGC is preparing petition denial criteria. Office review and concurrence on Federal notice is scheduled to be completed in December 1986. The notice of denial is scheduled for publication in January 1987.

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

-110-

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 REGISTEP CITATION: February 4,1980(45FR7653)

SUBJECT:

Extension of Construction Completion Date

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners filed essentially identical petitions which request that the Commission amend its regulations in Part 50, 5 50.55, to require that a " good cause" proceeding concerning a requested amendment of a construction permit to exceed the latest construction completion date must consider whether a permittee has shown good cause for the continued construction of a nuclear power plant in light of all the circumstances at the time the application is considered. The petitioners further request that the Commission determine that " good cause" is not limited to the reasons why construction was not completed by the latest completion date in the construc-tion permit.

Objective. To prevent frustration of the statutory purposes of Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, which permits the extension of the completion date for construction of a nuclear power plant only for good cause shown.

Background. The comment period closed April 4, 1980. Six coments were received, including two from the petitioners on jurisdictional issues. Coments filed by parties other than the petitioners opposed the petition. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (AS.R) and the Commissinn have ruled on the " good cause" issue which is the subject of this petition.

The matter was alluded to in the Dail_1y case before the U.S.

Court of Appeals. The staff has prepared a draf t proposal for the Commission. The State of Illinois has formally withdrawn its petition. The other petitioners have not yet formally withdrawn their petition.

TIMETABLE: Resolution of this petition is delayed until a decision ,

is reached by the DC Circuit Court on cAtension of the l construction permit in the Comancho Peak case. Publication of l the resolution is scheduled for August 1987. l CONTACT: Ronald H. Smith Office of the General Counsel 301 402-4396 111-1 I

j PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-?1 PETITIONER: Citizens' Task Force PART: 50 -

OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: 70 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: March 24,1982(47FR12639) l

SUBJECT:

Emergency Preparedness  ;

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Comission  !

amend its regulations to require that (1) the present  !

ten-mile emergency planning zone radius be extended to l towns bordering on or partially within this zonetwenty miles and include any(2) all comun, population in excess of 5.000 persons be provided by the i respective utility with the funding to purchase, install, i and operate radiological monitoring equipment tn reach and I maintain the level of preparedness deemed necessary by the i affected municipalities and(3)utilitiesberequiredto ,

finance the emergency planning efforts of municipalities j located near nuclear reactors. l Objective. To establish an effective notification and evacuation system in comunities located near nuclear reactors.  ;

t Rackgrnund. The comment period closed May 24, 1982. f TillETABLE: Comission action on the response to the petitioner is l scheduled for June 1987 (to be coordinated with the severe accident research program and publication of j NUREG-1150).

CONTACT: Stephen A. McGuire  !

Office of Nuclear Pe0ulatory Research 301 443 7900

-112-

PETITION DOCKET NUM8ER: PRM-50-41 PETITIONER: Public Citizen PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: May12,1986(51FR17361)

SUBJECT:

Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the NRC imediately undertake rulemaking to comply with the statutory mandate of the NRC Training Authorization statute, Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982(NWPA),42U.S.C.I10?26. The petitioner thinks that to comply with this statute, the NRC would have to take appropriate steps to adopt specific reflulations, or other Comission guidance setting forth deta' led requirements for training and fitness for duty for nuclear power plant Itcensee personnel. The petitioner contends that the Comission Policy Statement on Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel (50 FR 11147) that was published Parch 20, 1985, and the proposal of a Policy Statment on Fitness for Duty of Power Plant Personnel are legally insufficient to fulfill the NWPA Section 306 statutory inandate.

Objective. To require that the NRC adopt specific regulatf6ns or other Comission guidance setting forth detailed requirements for training and fitness for duty of nuclear power plant personnel. I Packground. The comment period ended July 11, 1986, and l the stafT is evaluating the coments. l

-l TIMETAPLE: Resolution of the petition is scheduled to be published January 1987.

CONTACT: Thomas F. Dorian l' Office of the General Counsel 301-492 0690 113-

l PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-44 PETITIONER: Comittee to Bridge the Gap PART: 50 1

OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: September 3, 1986 (51 FR 31341)

SUBJECT:

Fire Protection Standards for Graphite Reactors l

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Comission l amend its regulations to require operators of reactors j that use graphite as a moderator or reflector to (1) l prepare and submit for NRC approval fire response plans for a graphite fire and (2) measure the energy stored in  :

their graphite, and revise their safety analyses to consider the risks and consequences of a graphite fire in their facilities.

During the coment period, the staff is administering a technical assistance contract with a national laboratory to evaluate independently the technical issues related to this petition.

' The schedules are timed so that the contractor can also assist the staff with the evaluation of coments received. Technical l

issues under study include: the necessary and sufficient conditions to cause graphite ignition and to lead to self-sustaining, rapid oxidation reactions; the build-up, storage, and release of "Wigner" energy resulting from fast neutron irradiation of graphite; actual involvement of graphite burining in the Windscale and Chernobyl reactor accidents; and implications of these issues to the safety of operation of NRC-licenses non-power reactors.

This issue has not previously been explicitly addressed in depth by NRC, although some reactors have been evaluated case-by-case. The issue does not appear to be one requiring urgent rulemaking action by NRC, hence the route of equesting comments was selected.

Objective. To adequately protect the public in the event of a Tire at a reactor that uses graphite.

Background. The initial coment period was scheduled to close hovemliiF 3,1986. The coment period was extended to February 3, 1987 TIMETABLE: Staff action on the petition is scheduled to be l

completed August 1987.

CONTACT: Theodore S. Michaels Office of Nuclear Reactor pegulation 301-492-8251

-114-

i PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-45 PETITIONER: Kenneth G. Sexton PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: November 6,1986(51FR40335)

SUBJECT:

Extending the Emergency Planning Zone

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission 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 and beyond the 10-mile distance provided in the Connission's regulations is inadequate because the current 10-mile EPZ was determined with what the petitioner considers outdated methodologies and data The petitioner points out that advanced techniques and new information obtained through research in the last 10 years have produced improved calculations for determining the size of an EPZ.

Objective. The petitoner 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 determination report by any interested parties.

Background. The comment period for this petition, originally to expire on December 5, 1986 was extended to March 9, 1987.

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

CONTACT: Steve McGuire Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7900

-115-

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-46 PETITIONER: State of Maine PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION : December 30,1986(51FR47025)

SUBJECT:

Emergency Planning SUMARY: The petitioner requests that the Consnission 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.

Background. The comment period expired March 2, 1987.

TIMETABLE: Staff action on the petition is scheduled to be completed in November 1987, but depends on the Commission policy decision in the emergency planning area.

CONTACT: Stewn A. McGuire Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7900 4

-116-

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-60-2 and PRM-60-2A PETITIONER: States of Nevada and Minnesota PART: 60 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: April 30, 1985 (50 FR 18267)

December 19, 1985 (50 FR 51701)

SUBJECT:

Implementation of Certain Environmental Standards Which Have Been Proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency

SUMMARY

Description. The original petition (PRM-60-2) asked the Comission to revise 10 CFR Part 60 by adopting certain " assurance requirements" previously included in proposed standards published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The NRC had objected to EPA's " assurance requirements" as being outside the scope of EPA's environmental standard-setting authority. Since the NRC's objection to these requirements was principally jurisdictional, the petitioners sought to expedite promulgation of the final EPA standards by petitioning the Commission to incorporate EPA's wording within-the NRC's own regulations. Later, following publication of EPA's final standards, the petitioners filed an amended petition (PRM-60-20A) which revised the text of the requested changes consistent with the wording published by EPA. The amended petition continues to seek adoption of EPA's " assurance requirements," which the petitioners believe would lead to a safer high-level waste (HLW) repository, and also proposes requirements and considerations for Commission adoption of DOE's Environmental Impact Statement as. required by section 114(f) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

Objective. To amend 10 CFR Part 60 to be consistent with final EPA HLW standards to enhance HLW repository safety.

Background. . The original petition (PRM-60-2) was docketed by the Commission on January 28, 1985, receipt was noticed in the Federal Register on April i 30, 1985, and public comments were received until l July 1, 1985. The amended petition (PRM-60-?A) was docketed by the Commission on October 3, 1985. On June 19, 1986, the NRC published proposed revisions i to 10 CFR Part 60 intended to conform Part 60 to the final EPA HLW standards. The proposed amendments are similar, but not identical, to the changes requested in the revised petition.

-117-

TIMETABLE: The staff plans to finalize its conforming revisions i

to Part 60 by September 1987. These revisions will.

respond to the portions of this petition which request adoption of EPA's " assurance requirements." The staff will separately address adoption of the Department of Energy's Environmental Impact. Statement in conforming amendments to 10 CFR Part 51. A response to the petition will be prepared following completion of these two rulemakings.

CONTACT: Regis Boyle Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-427-4799 i

l 1

-118-i

'l PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-73-6 PETITIONER: Wisconsin Electric Power Company, et al.

i PART: 73 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 16, 1982 (47 FR 6659)

SUBJECT:

Modification of Qualifications for Security Personnel of Nuclear Power Plants and Other Special Nuclear Material Licensees

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request that the Commission eliminate the requirement that armed security personnel at nuclear power plants or other facilities licensed to handle special nuclear material (1) carry an extra pair of eye-glasses and (2) undergo an annual medical examination within the preceding 30 days of an annual physical fitness test.

The petitioners contend that these requirements are

" excessive and unreasonable" when compared to similar requirements for security personnel in other government agencies or in operations with security requirements comparable to those of nuclear power plants. The petition includes proposed amendatory text which would achieve these modified requirements.

Objective. To eliminate requirements for security personnel that the petitioner contends are " excessive and unreasonable."

Background. The comment period closed April 19, 1982.

Nine comments on the petition were received and are being evaluated.

TIMETABLE: Commission action on this petition is scheduled for January 1987.

CONTACT: Sandra Frattali Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-427-4368

-119-

(D) - Petitions with deferred action

A a .w-- a-,.. aea,, ,-a-. , , _ _. . , ., a,,,, a u___ - - w -, -- -----

4. ---.. _ _ ___ __

d

.I

-l

+

l I

I l

t 1

I f

J I

I I

' 9 l

l i

l l

l l

I l

l l

l D

l J

n PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-20-14 i

PETITIONER: The University of Utah PART: 20 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: January 30, 1984 (49 FR 3667) i

SUBJECT:

Disposal of Very Low Concentrations of Short-Lived j Radionuclides i

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner proposed an amendment of 6 20.306

' and the addition of a new 9 20.307 to alleviate'a number of problems that many licensees are experiencing under current regulations I with the disposal of experimental animal waste material and j

certain radionuclide components. The petitioner states that i the changes would substantially reduce nonradiological risks related to the collection, storage, packaging, and shipping of certain biological and chemical wastes without compromising or reducing radiation protection.

i Objective. To obtain additional options for the disposal

• l of very low concentrations of short-lived radionuclides.

Background. A request for information was published with the notice of receipt of the petition. The comment period closed March 30, 1984. Forty-five comment letters were l received, including one from the petitioner that revised i

i the initial petition and offered a second version that was based on the petitioner's analysis of the comment letters.

Most of the comment letters favored the petition. Approxi-l mately one-fourth of the comment letters contained data 1

that were solicited when the notice of receipt of the 4

petition was published. These data will be used to help evaluate the merit of the petition. The staff is in the process of analyzing the data, the petition, the revised petition, and other coment letters and has requested guidance on appropriate methodology from the Environmental Protection Agency. The Commission published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on December 2,1987(51FR43367) regarding criteria for radioactive waste below regulatory-concern. About I staff year will be required to complete action on this petition. ,

TIMETABLE: Resolutir,n of this petition is scheduled to be published August 1987.

CONTACT: Catherine Mattsen Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7689

-121- .

l PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-20-15 PETITIONEP: Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and Utility Nuclear Waste

Management Group (UNWMG)

PART: 20 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: NONE FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: September 19, 1984 (49 FR 36653)

SUBJECT:

New Methods of Disposal of Waste Oil Contaminated by Low-Level Radioactive Material from Muclear Power Plants

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request that the Commission issue a regulation governing the disposal of waste oil contaminated by low-level radioactive material from nuclear power plants by establishing radionuclide concentrations in waste oil at which disposal may be carried out without regard to the radioactive material content of the waste. Each year, the petitioners state, quantities of waste oil containing very low levels of radioactive contamination are produced at nuclear power plants. The petitioners maintain that the currently used method of disposal (which is absorption or solidification, transportation to, and burial at a licensed disposal facility) is costly, inconsistent with NRC's policy in favor of volume reduction, and represents an inefficient use of resources. In order to provide efficient, environ-mentally acceptable, and cost beneficial methods, the petitioners propose six disposal methods with specific gross activity limits for itemized radionuclides to be included in a new Appendix E to Part 20.

' Obiective. To develop a "below regulatory concerns" value of 1 mrem /yr for disposal of waste oil generated in nuclear power plants, which is consistent with Commission and ACRS philosophies and policies. The provisions of 40 CFR Part

190 would be met.

Background. The comment period closed November 19, 1984.

TIMETABLE: Resolution of this petition is scheduled for April 1987.

CONTACT: Charles Bartlett 4

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7656

, -122-

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-40-23 PETITIONER: Sierra Club PART: 40 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 25, 1981 (46 FR 14021);

May 2, 1983 (48 FR 19722)

SUBJECT:

Licensing the Possession of Uranium Mill Tailings at Inactive Storage Sites.

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to license the possession of uranium mill tailings of inactive storage sites. The petitioner proposes the following regulatory action to ensure that the public health and safety is adequately protected: (1) repeal the licensing exemption for inactive uranium mill tailings sites subject to the Department of Energy's remedial programs; (2) require a license for the possession of byproduct material on any other property in the vicinity of an inactive mill 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 filed an amendment to the original petition. In the amendment, the petitioner requests that, in the event that NRC denies the earlier requests, NRC take further action to ensure that the management of byproduct material located on or derived from inactive uranium processing sites is conducted in a manner that protects the public health and safety and the environment. The petitioner also requests that the NRC take action to govern the management of byproduct material l not subject to licensing under section 81 of the Atomic

! Energy Act.

Obiective. To license the protection of uranium mill s

tailings at inactive storage sites or take other regulatory action to protect the public health and safety and the environment from the radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with the tailings. The petitioner believes that this action is necessary if NRC is to adequately fulfill its statutory responsibilities under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act.

-123-

Background The comment period closed April 27, 1981. Three comments were received, all stating the petition should be denied. The comment period on the amendment to the petition closed June 30, 1983. Uranium mill tailings are regulated under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (Pub. L.95-604, 42 U.S.C. 7901, et seq.). Title I of the Act directs that the Department of Energy, in consul-tation with NRC, conduct a remedial action program at certain inactive uranium mill tailings sites. Title V of the Act authorizes NRC to regulate disposal of the tailings at active sites. The staff is preparing a response to the petition.

TIMETABLE: Resolution of this petition is scheduled for August 1987, following publication of the revision to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40, scheduled for April 1987. I CONTACT: Frank Swanberg Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7815 l

i

-124-

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 Commission 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 petitioner suggests specific amendments to the criteria governing the selection of new tailings disposal sites or the adequacy of existing tailings disposal sites, the

seepage of toxic 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 ,

i mill operator to cover the cost of long-term surveillance.

1 The petitioner supports its suggested amendments with information it says was not available to the Commission at the time the regulations were issued.

Objective. To significantly reduce the compliance costs incurred by the petitioner in the operation of its uranium milling facilities while continuing to adequately protect public health, safety, and the environment.

l Background. The comment period that originally closed l January 31, 1983, was extended until May 2, 1983. The petitioner is a New York-based corporation engaged in uranium exploration, milling, and mining. The regulations the petitioner seeks to amend were issued as part of NPC'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 (45 FR 65531).

TIMETABLE: Resolution of this petition is scheduled for August 1987, following publication of the revision to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40, scheduled for April 1987.

CONTACT: Frank Swanberg Office of Nuclear Pegulatory Research 301-443-7815

-125-

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

i

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-20 PETITIONER: Free Environment, Inc., et al.

l PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: 100 l FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: May 19, 1977 (42 FR 25785)

SUBJECT:

Reactor Safety Measures '

SUMMARY

Descriation. The petition requested that the Comission i amend ' art 50 be# ore proceeding with the processing of 2

license applications for the Central Iowa Nuclear Project

. to require that (1) all nuclear reactors be located below j ground level; (2) all nuclear reactors be housed in sealed

! buildings within which permanent heavy vacuums are j 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 he sited at least 40 miles from major population centers.

Objective. To ensure that additional safety measures are employed in the construction and siting of nuclear power plants. The petitioner seeks to have

! recommendations and procedures practiced or

encouraged by various organizations and some current NRC guidelines adopted as mandatory requirements in the

! Commission's regulations.

l Background. The comment period closed July 18, 1977. I Three comments were received. The first three parts of

the petition (see Description section above) were incorporated with PRM-50-19 for staff action purposes.

4 A notice of denial for the third part of the petition was l published in the Federal Register on February.2,1978 i (43 FR 4466). A notice of denial for the first two parts i of the petition was published April 19, 1978 (43 FR 16556).

i NRC staff work on the fourth part of the petition will be i carried out in connection with the ongoing Part 100 j rulemaking on demographic criteria. Petitioners were

notified by letter on January 26, 1982, that the proposed

'! rule on siting criteria will be delayed until summer 1983, to await safety goal information and. source term reevaluation.

-126-

[

y,,,,, - ,,--.,--c y--_y- y, ,,-,y-- --- , - - - , =-r--

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

Recent events, ir.cluding 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 Commission's

. Executive Director for Operations to conclude that this

. rulemaking should be terminated. When the Commission decides that further rulemaking on demographic criteria r should be undertaken, the unresolved portions of the petition will be considered in the context of that i rulema king.

TIMETABLE: Resolution scheduled for completion in August 1987.

CONTACT: John Stewart Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301 443-7980 J

i 1

I

-127-

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-51-1 PETITIONER: New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution PART: 51

)

OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None j

FFDERAL REGISTER CITATION: January 16, 1976 (41 FR 2448) l

SUBJECT:

Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle  !

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission initiate a rulemaking to amend its summary of environmental )

considerations in the uranium fuel cycle presented in Table S-3 of Part 51. The petitioner declares that (1) the current Table S-3 seriously underestimates the impact on j human health and safety by disregarding the long-term effects of certain radionuclides, particularly thorium-230 which decays into radon gas; (2) the health effects of krypton-85 and tri.tdum releases from fuel reprocessing plants are underestimated; (3) releases of carbon-14 from the fuel cycle should be included; (4) the term " man-rems" does not provide a meaningful representation of health effects, at least in terms of radionuclides involved in l this petition, and that human deaths from man-rem exposures i provide a more comprehensible consequence of fuel cycle activities; and (5) the magnitude of the potential death toll from mill tailings alone alters previous judgments and requires a reassessment of previous conclusions to authorize construction and operation of nuclear reactors and the post-ponement of all pending applications for construction or operating authority until final resolution of the issue by the Commission.

Objective. The petitioner proposes action to amend Table S-3 in ways that they claim will more accurately reflect the impact of the long-term effects of certain long-lived radionuclides on human health and safety. The petitioner also proposes to suspend all activities related to nuclear power plant construction and operation until the Commission reassesses the health and safety effects of mine tailings.

Background. The Commissien acted on all items of the petition on April 14, 1978 (46 FR 15613) except for a future rulemaking proceeding to amend the Table S-3 value for radon. The Federal Register notice of April 14, 1978, removed the radon value from Table S-3 and made it subject

-128-

to litigation in individual licensing proceedings.

Litigation on the radon environmental impacts in cases pending before the Commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board was heard in a combined hearing in February 1980. The Appeal Board's initial decision (A. LAB-640 May 13,1981) upheld the staff's estimates of radon releases from the nuclear fuel cycle, and the final decision (ALAB-701, November 19,1982) affirmed the staff's conclusion that radon releases would not cause significant health effects. This decision was appealed to the Comissioners for review, and the Commissioners deferred their review until the new EPA standards for radon have been analyzed and the NRC's milling regulations revised as necessary to conform to them.

Rulemaking to add the new value for radon-222 in Table S-3 will be affected by the new EPA standards for radon. On October 7, 1984, EPA promulgated new radon standards for inactive uranium mill sites, and, in October 1985, NRC published revised uranium milling regulations conforming to the new EPA standards. However, the matter is not yet completely settled, because EPA received, in August 1985, a court order requiring them to establish radon standards for active uranium mills. These standards were issued on September 24, 1986.

The Comission plans a single rulemaking to cover the narrative explanation of Table S-3 and the new values for radon-222 and technetium-99. The staff sent to the Commission a paper suggesting a schedule on which this rulemaking can be accomplished.

TIMETABLE: The Staff sent to the Commission a paper (SECY-86-242),

dated August 18, 1986, suggesting a schedule for completing the rulemaking by December 1988. This rulemaking will complete NPC response to the petition of the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution. On September 8, 1986, the staff's plan and schedule to resolve all issues related to Table S-3 and its narrative explanation was approved by the Commission.

CONTACT: William E. Thompson Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-427-9024

-129-

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-100-2 PETITIONER: Public Interest Research Group, et al.

PART: 100 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: July 1, 1976 (41 FR 27141)

SUBJECT:

Population Density Criteria Near Nuclear Power Plants

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request that the Commission amend its 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 Commission is able to generate its own numerical standards on population density.

Objective. To restrict utilities trom building nuclear reactors too close to metropolitan areas.

Background. The comment period closed August 30, 1976.

Twelve comments were received. An NRC staff paper (SECY-78-624) was submitted to the Commission on December 4, 1978. In a memorandum to the Executive Director for Operations dated February 15, 1979, the Commission deferred action on the population density siting criteria issue pending submission of the Siting Policy Task Force report. The petitioners were notified of this deferral by 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 summer 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 Commission's Executive Director for Operations to conclude that this rulemaking should be terminated. When the Commission

-130-

decides that further rulemaking on demographic criteria should be undertaken, the unresolved portions of the petition will be considered in the context of that rulemaking.

TIMETABLE: Resolution scheduled for completion in August 1987.

CONTACT: John Stewart Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7980

-131-

~

u s. Nuctin uaut rDa, cO 0= i n er Nuve t- <t e,

• r,oc. , v., N. . .. ,

agPOa=

7"',"50 B IOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG-0936 Vol . 5 , No.

SEE IN51RUCrtONS ON rME mavenst 2 Faf La ANO svef etts 3 LEaveSLANK NRC Regulatory Agenda Quarterly Report October - December 1986 (j,'""'"'"",,,,

. ur 0.,s, Ja ry 1987 f . O. . . .t.Om . 10 oONr. n..

g

/May 1987 7 PGRFOMutNG OaGANilAf SON NAuf ANO tsaiLING ADOA essicsi,ee le cears e PROstcr.T A5F/ wore UNei NvW56R Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration and Re urces Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissi Washington, D.C. 20555

'O $rCN$0 ming CRGANr4AfiON Nawt aNO MAILING ADDREbS ffence a cases t ia Y vPt OF REPORT Same as 7 above Quarterly D Pt AlOO COv Ento stsecte.,.e ser.se October-December 1936 12 SUPPLtwtNT ART NOTES l 13 A.$ f M AC f ,100 meses er sessi The NRC Regulatory Agenda is a compil io of all rules on which the NRC has proposed or is considering action an all etitions for rulemaking which have

been received by the Commission anc are pe ing disposition by the Commission.

The Regulatory Agenda is updated d issued ach quarter, i

I

.. Docuot r .N.L . . . . ..C Os06sca ,v0 s ..

• v,. g 1, compilation f rules petitions r rulemaking .

Unlimited

.. .icu.itv ct.si...eJE

< r.e ,.,e,

. .o s.c Nr.... .No o n.us Unclassified t r.< <w n Ilnci a c c i finel ir Nuweem os PaGes is Paict

• U. S.COVERhMLmi 94147ING CFFICC e199f *191 60 2 63111

UNITED STATES speciat rouar CLASS RATE NUCLEAR REGULATORY Commission l WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 "oST^ MQ'5 "^'

,,yg%D 5,,,

1-RULES Section I - Rules " N peu,trygTninT7E E,$300 m Action Completed Rules 120555078877 US NRC-0 ARM-ADM hikHINGTON 1 1AN187 g h g huh GT BR-POR NUREG DC 20555 Proposed Rules l

l Advance Notice - Proposed Rulemaking l

1 Unpublished Rules l

l Section 11 - Petitions for Rulemaking Petitions - Final or Denied l

. Petitions - Incorporated into Proposed Rules Petitions - Pending Petitions - Deferred Action 1