ML20216C166

NRC Regulatory Agenda.Quarterly Report,January-March 1987

ML20216C166
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/30/1987
From:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
To:
References
NUREG-0936, NUREG-0936-V06-N01, NUREG-936, NUREG-936-V6-N1, NUDOCS 8706300230
Download: ML20216C166 (139)

Text

.

NUREG-0936 Vol. 6, No.1 o

NRC Regulatory Agenda 1

l l

3 Quarterly Report January - March 1987 j

i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration and Resources Management 4

p ** *' %

s s

r t

e 8706300230 870630l't j

PDR NUREG 0936 R PDR_

.- i

...........n

~<p.

n

~-

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; l

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, N RC regulations in the Code of l

1 Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances.

l reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic j

Documents available from the National Technical Information Service include NUREG series -

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 draft 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 l

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

I Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process l

are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, and are available l

there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be j

purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the American National Standards institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.

j I

NUREG-0936 Vol. 6, No.1 l

NRC Regulatory Agenda 1

Quarterly Report January - March 1987 l

. Manuscript Completed: April 1987 D:te Published: June 1987 Divisio'n of Rules and Records Office of Administration and Resources Management O.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

,f...s,

+

I k

i i

r l

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

]

SECTION I - RULES (A) Rules on which' final action has been taken Page since December 31, 1986 Commission Review Procedures for Power Reactor Construction Permits; r

l Immediate Effectiveness Rule (Part 2)...............................

1 Possible Amendments to "Immediate Effectiveness" Rules (Parts 2, 50).....

2 i

Improved Personnel Dosimeter Processing (Part 20)........................

3 Bankrup cy Filing; Notification Requirements (Parts 30, 40, 50, 61, 70 l

72.................................................................

4 Modification of Protection Requirements for Spent Fuel Shipments (Part 73)...........................................................

5 Material Control and Accounting Requirements for Facilities Licensed to Possess and Use Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear i

Material (Parts 70, 74).............................................

6 Operators' Licenses (Parts 50, 55).......................................

7 j

Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Well Logging Operations j

(Part39)..........................................................

8 1

Requirements for Criminal History Checks (Part 73).......................

9 l

(B) PROPOSED RULES Revision to Ex Parte and Separation of Functions Rules Applicable to Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings (Parts 0, 2)...,................

11 i

Procedures Involving (the Equal Access to Justice Act: Parts 1, 2)........................................

12 Implementation Adjudications -- Special Procedures for Resolving Conflicts Concerning the Disclosure or Nondisclosure of Information (Part 2)...........................................................

14 Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings-- Procedural Changes in Hearing Process (Part 2)................................

15 iii

7 i

Page Issuance or Amendment of Power Reactor License or Permit Following Initial Decision (Part 2)........................................

16 Modifications to the NRC Hearing Process (Limited Interrogatories and Factual Basis for Contentions) (Part 2)......................

17 r

Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level l

Radioactive Waste (Parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 51, 70, 72, 73, 75, 150).............................................................

18 l

Nondiscrimination on Basis of Age in Federally Assisted Commission Programs (Part 4)................................................

20

(

Standards for Protection Against Radiation (Part 20)..................

21 Registration of Sources and Devices (Parts 30, 32)....................

23 General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities (Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, 72)...................................

24 l

Completeness and Accuracy of Information Provided to the Commission (Parts 30, 40, 50, 55, 60, 61, 70, 71, 72, 150)..................

26 Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Ground Water Protection and Other Issues (Part 40).................................................

'27 3

l Chances in Property Insurance Requirements for NRC Licensed Nuclear Power Plants (Part 50)...........................................

28 Station Blackout (Part 50)............................................

30 Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors (Part 50, Appendix J)............................

32 Broad Scope Modification of General Design Criterion 4 Requirements For Protection Against Dynamic Effects of Postulated Pipe i

Ruptures (Part50)...............................................

34 l

Timing Requirements for Full Participation Emergency Preparedness Exercises for Power Reactors Prior to Receipt of an Operating License (Part 50, Appendix E)....................................

35 j

i l

i; i

)

i l

l, iv

]

l i

i I

Page Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) for Light Water Nuclear Power Reactors (Part 50).....................

36 l

i Consideration of Emergency Planning Rule Changes to Deal With Lack of Governmental Cooperation in Offsite Emergency Planning (Part50)........................................................

38 Personnel Access Authorization Program (Part of Insider Package) i (Parts 50, 73)...................................................

39 Explanation to Table S-3 Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data (Part51)........................

A1 Elimination of Inconsistencies Between Part 60 and EPA HLW Standard (Part.60)........................................................

43 Changes to Safeguards Reporting Requirements (Parts 70,77,73,74)...

44 Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (Part 140)...........

46 i

(C) - Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemoking Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern: Generic Rulemakin

( Pa rt s 2, ? 0 )........................................... g 47 Financial Responsibility of Non-Reactor Licensees for Cleanup After Accidental and Unexpected Releases (Parts 30,40,61,70,72)......

48 l

Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive Materials Licensees (Parts 30,40,70).............................

50 Degree Reouirement for Senior Operators at Nuclear Power Plants (Parts 50, 55).....................................................

51 Definition of High-Level Radioactive Waste (HLW) in 10 CFR Part 60 (Part60)..........................................................

52 (D) - Unpublished Rules Restriction Against Ownership of Certain Security Interests by Commissioners. Certain Staff Members, and Other Related Persernel:

Vested Pension Interests (Pert 0)..................................

53.

v l

l

i Page Standards and Procedures for Case-by-Case Exemptions for De Minimis Interests from Prohibitions Against Employee's Participation in j

a Particular Matter Affecting Employee's Financial Interests

)

(Part 0)............................................................

54 j

Revised Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings (Parts 0, 1, 2, 9, 50)..............................................

55 Statement of Organization and General Information (Part 1)...............

56 Functions of Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (Part 2)...........

57 Availabili ty of Official Records (Part 2)................................

58 Negotiated Rulemaking on the Submission and Management of Records and Documents Related to the Licensing of a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste (Parts 2, 60)..........

59 i

Retention Periods for Records (Parts 4, 11, 21, 25, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35,40,50,60,61,70,71).........................................

60 Update of Freedom of Information Act Procedures and Other Minor Amendments (Part 9).................................................

62 Deletion of Part 11 Requirement for Renewal of "R" Clearances i

(Part11)..........................................................

63 Residual Radioactive Contamination Limits for Decommissioning (Part20)...........................................................

64 Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures-for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance (Parts 21, 50)...............

65 Informal Hearing Procedures for Materials Licenses Proceedings (Parts 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 50, 61, 70, 71, 72)..................

67 i

Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Exposure Devices

}

(Part34)...........................................................

68 Training and Experience Criteria for the Medical Use of Byproduct Material (Part 35)..................................................

70 Misadministrations (Part35)............................................

71 Codes and Standards for Nuclea r Power Plants (Part 50)...................

72' s

l vi l

.i

i i

P_ age Safety Related and Important to Safety in '10 CFR Part 50 I

(Part50)..........................................................;.

73 Radon.222EstimateforTableS-3-(Parts 50,51)..........................

751

- )

Part 51; Conforming Amendments (Parts 51, 60)............................

77

' Criteria 'and Procedures for Evaluating Requests for Emergency q

Access to Low-Level Waste Dis posal Si tes (Part 62)...................

78

-j 1

Reporting of Special Nuclear Material Physical Inventory Sumary.

Results (Part 70)...................................................

79

. Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)patibility With the International l

Transportation Regulations: Com (Part 71)...............................

80

- 4 1

j l

5

.q

]

~'!

vii i

!n

,l I-i i -

m s

l i'

SECTION II - PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING tm (A) - Petitions incorporated into final rules or petitions denied since December 31,:1986 PlantSecurityInformation(PRM-50-21)..............................

81 Training'of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel (PRM-50-41)...............

82 Elimination of " Pat Down" Physical Searches of Individuals at Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-73-2)................................

83' Elimination of Required Log-Out of Personnel from Vital Areas ofNuclearPowerReactors(PRfi-73-7).............................

85 Elimination of Required. Search of Hand-Carried Packages of Personnel at Nuclear. Power Plants (PRM-73-8).............'......

86 (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).....

87-

?

(C) - Petitions pending staff review Administration of Aerosols and Gases (PRM-35-6).....................

89 Regulations Governing Unimportant Quantities of Source Material (PRM-40-25)....................................................

90 Extension of Construction Completion Date (PRM-50-25 and.

PRM-50-25A)....................................................-

91 Energency Preparedness (PRM-50-31)..................................

92

)

ix-

l 1

Page Fire-Protection' Standards for Graphite Rea'ctors (PRM-50-44).........

93 Extending the Emergency Pla'nning Zone'(PRM-50-45)...................

94!

Emergency; Planning (PRM-50-46)......................................-

95 Establishing an Employee Concerns Program and Resolution-of' l

Employee-Identified Concerns'at Nuclear Facilities j

'(PRM-50-47)....................................................

96

{

j 11mplementation'of Certain Environmental:Standaras'Which Have Been j

Proposed'by.theLEnvironmental Protection Agency (PRM-60-2'.

1 dnd.PRM-60-2A)..................................................

~97-Modification' of Qualifications for Security Personnel of Nuclear-

- k i

Power Plants and Other Special Nuclear Material Licensees.

J (PRM-73-6)......................................................

99 l

l (D) - Petitions with deferred action I

i 1

Disposa'l of Very Low Concentrations'of Short-Lived Radionuclides (PRM-20-14);...................................................

101 New Methods of Disposal of Waste Oil Contaminated by(Low-Level-Radioactive Material from Nuclear Power Plants PRM-20-15)......

102 Licensing the Possession of Uranium. Mill Tailings at Inactive

~

Storage Sites (PRM-40-23)......................................:

.103 3

Revised Criteri'a for Operation of Uranium Mills-and Cisposition.-

I of Tailings or Kastes (PRM-40-24)...............................

105 l

Reactor Safety Measures.(PRM-50-20).................................

7106 Environmental Impacts of'the Uranium Fuel Cycle (PRM-51-1)..........

108 1

Population Density Criteria Near Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-100-2).....................................................

110 q

u

~

h i

X 1J ll

.4 1

~

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

Organization of the Agenda The agenda consists of two sections. Both sections'have been updated through March 31,.1987..Section.I, " Rules" includes:

(A)' Rules on which final u

action has been taken since December 31, 1986, the closing date'of the last l

NRC Regulatory' Agenda,7(B). Rules published previousl

.I which the Commission has.not taken final action; (C)y as proposed rules on Rules' published as advance notices.of. proposed rulemaking for which neither a proposed nor-final rule has been issued;'and (D) Unpublished rules on which the NRC expects to take' action.

u Section II. Petitions for. Rulemaking" includes: (A) Petitions denied or incor-1 porated into final rules since December 31,.1986,.(B) Petitions incorporated

.into. proposed rules, (C) Petitions pending staff review, and (D) Petitions with deferred action..

o

'In Section l' 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 th_e'part by'dats of most recent publication.

If ~a-rule amends multiple parts, the rule is listed under the' lowest affected part.

In Section II of the agenda, the petitions are ordered from 1_owest to highest part of 10;CFR and are identified with a j

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.

.l The dates listed under the heading " Timetable" for scheduled action.by the Commission or the Executive. Director for.0perations (EDO).on-particular rules or petitions are considered tentative and are not: binding on the Commission or its-staff. They are included for planning purposes 'only. This Regulatory' Agenda j

is published to provide increased notice and.public participati.on in the = rule-making proceedings included on the agenda. The NRC may, however, consider or-l act on any rulemaking proceeding even if it is not included in this. Regulatory

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

i

^

The Executive Director for Operations (E00) initiated a. pro'cedure forfthe 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 ED0 approval prior: to the commitment:of?

additional resources.

xi'

l i

ll IY Rules that have received EDO approval to date are identified as indicated below. As additional rules receive EDO approval, they will be identified in subsequent editions of this agenda. Those unpublished. rules whose further development has been terminated will be noted in this edition of the agerda 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.

l 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 j

Executive Order 12291.

j Public Participation in Rulemaking l

Comments on any rule in the agenda may be sent to the Secretary of the Comission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.

Comments may also be hand delivered to Room 1131, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC between 8:15 a.m. and 5:15

{

p.m.

Comments received on rules for which the comment period has closed will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before the closure dates j

specified in the agenda.

The agenda and any comments received on any rule listed on the agenda are I

available for public inspection, and copying at a cost of five cents per page, at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC. Single copies of this agenda may be purchased from the l

U.S. Government Printing Office (GP0).

Customers may call (202) 275-2060 or (202) 275-2171 or write to the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Post Office Box 37082, Washington, D.C. 20013-7082.

)

Additional Rulemaking Information For further information concerning NRC rulemaking procedures or.the status of any rule listed in this agenda, contact Alzonia Shepard, Rules and i

Procedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone (301) 492-7086, persons outs He 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.

t xii

I (A) Rules on which final action has been taken since December 31, 1986 b

1 1

i e

I l

I t

t A

I t

i I

\\

9 h

i TITLE:

Comission Review Procedures.for Power Reactor Construction Permits; Imediate Effectiveness Rule l

CFR CITATION:

I 10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would.have amended the imediate effectiveness rule with regard to rules of practice for granting a power reactor construction permit to conform to those for granting an operating license.

As a result of staff evaluation, the' issues in this proposed rule have been incorporated in a' proposed rule. entitled " Issuance or Amendment of Power Reactor License' or' Permit Following Initial y-'

. Decision" published 2/4/87(52FR3442).

l TIMETABLE:

l NPRM 10/25/82 47 FR 47260 NPRM Comment Period End 11/24/82 47 FR 47260 Withdrawn 02/04/87' LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

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

'I i

1

' -i

_ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ -

{

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; or (3) require final ASLAB and Commission decisions on the merit.s of all issues prior to y.

^

authorizing issuances of the construction permit; and, return to the former "irmediate 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 been 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 Withdrawn 03/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFFCTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:

No AGENCY CONTACT:

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

m t

d-

~

g TITLE:

+ Improved Personnel Dosimeter Processing.

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:

t The final rule requires personnel dosimetry processors to meet N' n pecified performance standards and quality control criteria in order s

tgreduce the widespread variations in both procedures and performance in the dosimetry processingLindustry.

Thefruleisnecessarysincenumeroustestingprogramsanddosimetry

~ inter-comparisons have shown that only 25 to 50% of the processors-are capable of meeting acceptable. performance standards and that imtsovements in performance are at a virtual standstill.

The.1ssueds being addresied by requiring personnel dosimeiry processors.

to become accredited under the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) operated by NBS that, among other things, requires proficiency testing against-a r}ational consensus standard,' ANSI.N13:11.

Approxihiutely 90 dosimetry processors and 4,500 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 correspondirg-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 contiriued assurance of. personnel dosimetry processor competence and'the formulation of a progran that enn be. easily utilized by other State and Federal agencies.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 03/28/80 45 FR 20493

..45 FR 31118 ANPRM Comment Period End - 06/27/80 NPRM 'A/10/84 49 FR 1205,

49 FR 1205 NPRM Comment Period End 03/12/84 Final Action Published 2/I3/87 52 FR 4601 T

Final Action Effective 2/12/88 52 FR 4601 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

~

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

Don.Nellis Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7989 3

4

.____m____._.__....___

-}

)

TITLE:

+ Bankruptcy Filing; Notification Requirements CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72 ABSTRACT:

The final rule requires licensees to notify the appropriate regional office of the NRC in the event of a bankruptcy proceeding involving the licensee.

Notification of the NRC in cases of bankruptcy would alert the Commission so that it nay deal with potential hazards to the public health and safety posed by a licensee that does not have the resources to properly handle licensed radioactive material or clean up possible contamination. This rule is necessary to address this. issue because instances have occurred in'which materials licensees have ff ? =d for bankruptcy and NRC has not generally been aware of this.

ii.ere are no current regulations requiring that licensees notify the NRC in case of bankruptcy filing.

Hence, the NRC has no means by which it can be made aware of these situations.

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

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 06/20/86 51 FR 22531 NPRM Comment Period End 07/21/86 51 FR'22531 Final Action Published 01/12/87 52 FR 1292 Final Action Effective 02/11/87' LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:

Yes AGENCY CONTACT:

Keith Steyer/frenk Cardile Nuclear Regulatory Commission I

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l

Washington, DC 20555.

301 443-7739/7784 -

t a

1 TITLE:

+ Modification of Protection Requirements;for Spent Fuel Shipments

' CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:

By memorandum dated January 20,.1987, the Executive Director for.

. 0perations terminated activity on this. rulemaking, The proposed rule would have moderated the current requirements for the protection of spent. fuel shipments'against radiological sabotage.

The proposed rule would.have provided the. level of safeguards deemed essential to the protection of spentLfuel shipments.

TIMETABLE:...

NPRM 06/08/84 :49'FR 23867 NPRM Comment Period End 09/10/84 Withdrawn 01/20/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

--42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2157; 42 USC 2073-EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND'0THER ENTITIES: No AGENCYLCONTACT:

-l Carl B. Sawyer-i

. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and' Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4269 t- ~

TITLE:

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

10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 74 ABSTRACT:

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

It establishes a performance-oriented regulation that emphasizes tinely 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 alleviates these liabilities by requiring tests on a more timely basis on small plant subdivisions.

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 Published 03/30/87 52 FR 10033 Final Action Effective 04/29/87 52 FR 10033 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 584)

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

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

' I

d l

TITLE:

+ Operators' Licenses CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50; 10 CFR-55 ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending 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

.requalification examinations;'and (5) describe the form and i

content for operator license applications, j

This rule is in response to Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. A regulatory analysis showed a public risk reduction i

of 268,00; person-rem at a cost of $240.4 million dollars resulting in a value/ impact ratio of 1,100 person-rem /$million.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 11/26/84 49 FR 46428 NPRM Comment Period End 02/24/85 Final Action Published 03/25/87 52 FR 9453 Final Action Effective 05/26/87 52 FR 9453 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2137; 42 USC 2201;L42 USC 584); 42 USC 10226.

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

John Hannon Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4868 I

-1 q

J 6

0'..

.-__m___-

~

.; (

' ~

. TITLE:'

L

+ Licenses and Radiation' Safety Requirements for Well Logging L

Operations CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 39; ABSTRACT:

The final rule will establish specific radiation safety requirements applicable to licensees who perform. operations..

such as.well logging and subsurface use of radioactive materials in traceristudies. :The rule is necessary because current.

NRC-regulations address these_ operations,in a general way without providing specific guidance. The rule, generally codifies existing. licensing practice..Thus,,there would be.

essentia11y'no net incrementa1Lcosts'to. licensees.

~The main benefit would be to forma 11y state NRC_ requirements in the; regulations..The rule will establish a proposed, consistent,-

. comprehensive set of the requirements.that would minimize the' effort required to obtain reciprocity'for.NRC: licensees 1

to operate' in Agreement States or-vice. versa.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 04/08/85 50 FR 13797 NPRM Coment Period End 07/08/85 -50 FR;13797..

Comment Period Extended to' 10/09/85' 50 FR 32086 Final Action Published 03/17/87 52 FR 8225

-Final Action Effective 07/14/87: 52'.FR 8225L LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

Stephen McGuire Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555-301'443-7735

1 I

8-1 l

\\

1 1

l TITLE-

+ Requirements for Criminal History Checks -

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 73 1

ABSTRACT:

The final rule adds 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 to nuclear power plants or access I

to Safeguards Information by power reactor licensees.

Issuance of this proposed rule is in response to Public Law 99-399, the Omnibus Diplomatic-I

' Security and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1986, and, thus, there is no i

alternative to rulemaking. This legislation requires the NRC to issue l

regulations to establish conditions for the use and control of the i

criminal history data received from the FBI.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 11/07/86 51 FR 40438 NPRM Comment Period End 12/08/86 Final Action Published 03/02/87 52 FR 6310 Final' Action Effective 04/01/87 52 FR 6310 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

i Kristina Z. Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards i

Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4754

-1 l

i i

9

1 i

)

i I

l l

1 (B).ProposedRules 4

i i

i i

)

' j i

1 i

i 4

j

.e

~!

i e-

B 1

I i

I 1

l

)

I i

1 I

1 l

TITLE:.

i Revision to Ex Parte and Separation of Functions Rales Applicable to Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings-i CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 0; 10 CFR 2

.j ABSTRACT:

l The proposed rule would amend the Comission's regulations i

dealing with ex parte communications and separation of adjudicatory and nonadjudicatory functions in formal adjudicatory 3) proceedings. to update the agency's rules of practice and to incorporate requirements, imposed by the Government in the'

^

Sunshine'.Act. Changes are proposed in both the form and the substance of the existing rules to clarify their meaning' and to aid agency adjudicatory officials'to maintain effective comunication 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 entf tied, "Ex Parte Communications and Separation of Adjudicatory and Non Adjudicatory Functions," (3150-AA00) published March 7, 1979 (44 l

FR 12428).

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 03/26/86

-51 FR 10393.

NPRM Coment Period End -06/26/86 51 FR 19067 Final Action 06/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

i 5USC554(d);5USC557(d)

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

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

l TITLE:

Procedures Involving the Equal Access to Justice Act:

Implementation CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 1; 10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

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

Additionally, in August 1985, the President signed into law an enactment renewing the EAJA after its expiration under a statutory sunset requirement. This legislation, Pub. L. No. 99-80 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 53180 NPRM Comment Period End 11/28/81 46 FR 53189 Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

5 USC 504.

l 1

TITLE:

r-ProceduresInvolvingltheEqualAccesstoJustice:Act:.

Implementation EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS'AND OTHER ENTITIES: No

' AGENCY. CONTACT:

Paul ~Bollwerk Nuclear ~ Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC:20555

'202 634-3224 s

l l

l l

4

). _ _ _ _ _ -.

lg

~

n

(

-TITLE:

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

10 CFR 2 LABSTRACT:.

The. Nuclear < Regulatory Commissfon:is considering amending.its

' rules of practice to provide special: procedures for-resolving

' conflicts concerning the disclosure or nondisclosure of.

informationirelating to'an NRC investigation or inspection or

-provided by a confidential; source and deemed relevant and<

' materia 11to an adjudication. Prepared'at the express direction of the Comission,'the proposed amendments apply to all NRC offices -

that have.information relevant and material-to an adjudication.

The proposed amendments. provide for'ex parte in camera-presentations.and. follow.- guidance contained in-the Comission!s -

recent statement of policy onlinvestigations, inspections, and adjudicatory proceedings.

As a procedural rule, the proposed.

amendments are not.likely to have a significant. cost impact i

upon the industry, TIMETABLE:

50 FR 21036.

NPRM '05/22/85 NPRM Coment Period' End 08/23/85 50 FR 30446 Final Action for Division. Review 110/01/86' Office Concurrence on Final' Action Completed 01/15/87' Final Action to<EDO 03/01/87-Final Action Published 05/00/87 LEGAL' AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC.2231; 42.USC 2241;'42 USC 5841

.j EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS'AND OTHER ENTITIES:' No q

1 AGENCY ~ CONTACT:

' Jane'R. Mapes-1 Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555' 301 492-8695

~

._14_'

I f

4

,.1 t

i I

i

(

TITLE:

Rules of' Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings-- Procedural:

Changos in Hearing Process-CFR CITATION:

j 10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:'

.i The' Nuclear: Regulatory Commission' (NRC) is considering amendments

• s to its' rules:of practice which address;the following aspects of.

[

- the hearing process: admission of contentions, discovery against -

-1 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 tof: fact or conclusions of law, or'in an. appellate'brief suhmitted by a person'who does not have the burden of/ proof or who has.only a limited interest in.

H the. proceeding. These proposals'were' initially developed by.'the.

Regulatory Reform Task Force and published for public comment-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'.

~

U

- The NRC'is also considering related amendments on the process'of.

intervention that were developed by Conurissioner Asselstine..

The staff is analyzing pubic comments received on the' proposals and expects.to forward a recommendation for the Casutission's-consideration'in August 1987.

TIETA8LE:

NPRM 07/03/86l51FR24365' NPRM Comment' Period Extended to 10/17/86.51 FR 31340 Finai Rule 09/00/87 LEGAL AUTh0RITY:

' 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42'USC 5841-EFFECTS ON SMU. BUSIKSS AIS DIER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:'

1 t-Linda Gilbert Nuclear Regulatory Ceumrissica Office of the General Counsel-Washington, DC 20555 i

' 301:492-7678~

i

. {

]

z

p.

s

=

p

. TITLE:2Issuance or Amendment ~of Power Reactor License or Permit Following Initial Decision CFR CITATION:-

10 CFR 2 9

ABSTRACT:

4 The proposed rule.would amend the-Commission's:"immediate effectiveness"

regulation that_ specifies when anLinitial adjudicatory decision authorizing-the issuance or amendment of a license or permit becomes effective.t 'Changesfare proposed-that would -(1). remove thel 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.u The-proposed rule also would delete language in the existing regulation emanating from :Three Mile-Island-related s

regulatory; policies, action upon which has now beenL completed..

The proposed. rule supersedes two prior-proposed: rules; entitle'd "Possible Amendments to 'Immediate Effectiveness' Rules," published May 22,:1980 (45 FR 43279),' and " Commission. Review Procedures for Power:

Reactor Construction Permits; Immediate Effectiveness Rule," published October 25,;1982.(47'FR.47260).

-TIMETABLE:

Proposed. Action Published 02/04/87 52-FR 3442.

NPRM Comment' Period End' 04/06/87. 52 FR-3442:

Final Action Undetermined.

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

No AGENCY CONTACT:

Paul Bollwerk Nuclear' Regulatory. Commission -

'j Office of:the General Counsel

)

Fashington, DC'20555 3

202 634-3224 h

j u

mb

i p

s-lTITLE:Modifications to the'NRC Hearing Process-(Limited InterrogatoriesandFa.ctualBasisforContentionsk CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:.-

The proposed rule would exped.ite conduct'of NRC adjudicatory.

H proceedings by requiring.intervenors in formal NRC hearings to; 1

-set.forth the facts,on which contentions-.are-based and the.

sources or documents used to establish those. facts and limit the number of. interrogatories that. a party. may file:in an NRC:

proceeding.JThe proposed rule would expedite the; hearing-'processL

-by, among other. things, requiring intervenors to set forth at the.

L outset the. facts upon which their contention'is based and theo L"

supporting documentation to give other parties early noticeLof:

'intervenor's case'so as to afford' opportunity for early dismissal-

~ f contentions where there is no factualidispute J Expediting the-o

' hearing' process should: ultimately' provide' cost savings'to alli participants in the process.1The 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:

1 42 USC 2239 EFFECTSONSMALLBUSINESSANDOTHERENTITIES$No-1 AGENCY-CONTACT:

R Trip Rothschild -

-I Nuclear. Regulatory Commission?

.0ffice of:the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-1465 e

4 8

t.

-17,-

~

~ ;

i

+

i c

q x

1 0.

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.e. monitored retrievable storage installation (MS). This revision is intended to ensure thatr the.Comission: has' in piace the appropriate regulations' to fulfill' the' requirements contained in the Nuclear Waste' Policy Act'of 1982 concerning'the: licensing of facilities which could.be part of the MRS program.

' Paragraph (d)'of Section:141 of the NWPA provides that:any.

monitored retrievable storage installation pursuant to Sectionl 141 shall;be subject to licensing by the Comission. The Comission.could await further development of-the MRS option-before proposing its MRS rules. However, this' approach could result in unnecessary delay.in reviewing a license application. if-Congress. authorizes construction;of a'n 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 j

spent fuel storage installation'(ISFSI) currently codified in 10 CFR' Part 72 are not being changed, thus, no incremental: impact.on-NRC'-

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

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 05/27/86 51 FR:19106 j

NPRM Comment Period End, 08/25/86 1

Final Action to EDO 07/30/87.

3 Final Action to Comission 08/15/87-Final Action ~ Published ' 09/00/87 l

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2021;.42 USC 2071; 42 USC 2073;.42 USC 2077;,42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2099; 42 USC 2111;-42 USC 2201;'42 USC 2232;c 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2234;.42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2237; 42 USC 2282' EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:- No^

f -

.~

i

< l TITLE:

+- Licensing Requirenents' for the Storage of Spent Fuel and High-

' Level Radioactive Waste.

AGENCY CONTACT:.

Keith Steyer/ Charles Nilsen.

3 J

' Nuclear Regulatory Comission l

Office'of Nuclear Regulatory Research-Washington, DC 20555 j

301 443-7739/7917-i

. i i

a l

c, 4

A f

i i

i

.: t

- i i

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,l regulations, l

and directives consistent with standards and procedures I

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 1

to comply with the-requirement that final agency regulations not

'i be published until the Secretary of HHS approved them. HHS has indicated its approval of the draft' final rule in a letter transmitted to the NRC,

. TIMETABLE:

NPRM 09/21/81 46 FR 46582 NPRM Comment Period End 11/20/81 Final Action Package to ED0 11/00/86 Final Action Published 06/00/87 1

LEGAL AUTHORITY-i

~42 USC 6101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:

No AGENCY CONTACT:

-Edward E. Tucker Nuclear Regulatory Commission

=

Office-of SmallLand Disadvantaged Business 1

Utilization / Civil Rights, Washington,- DC l

301 492-7697

.l l

TITLE:

1

+ Standards for Protection Against. Radiation.

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 20

. ABSTRACT:

Radiation protection philosophy and technology have changed j

markedly-since the 'present Part 20 was promulgated nearly. 30

'j 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 l

present Part 20 has become outdated, most radiation protection i

actions occur'through licensing actions independent of Part 20. A 1

complete revision is necessary.to provide better assurance of-.

J protection against radiation; establish a clear health protection basis'for. the limits; reflect current information'on health risk, dosimetry,'and radiation prctection 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 l

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 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.

i i

Y~

TITLE:-

+' Standards for Protection Against Radiation?

TIMETABLE:.

'ANPRM '03/20/80- 45 FR 18023 ANPRM Comment Period Endt 06/13/801 45 FR 18023

-j

.NPRMr.12/20/85,~50 FR~51992~

l NPRM Coment-PeriodL End 05/22/86.51'FR'1092

-NPRM' Comment Period ~ Extended to '10/31/86.

FinalTAction for' Division Review. 09/30/88

' Office' Concurrence on Final Action' Completed ;11/30/88

Final' Action

Packagefto.ED0'12/06/88 l

' Final ~ Action Published 01/31/89 1'

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 1

Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7691 q

J 1

i i

I i

'I

.l ik '

l -

j j

.. x

/;

I i

. TITLE:

+ Registration ~of Sources and Devices j

CFR CITATION:.

)

!;10 CFR 30; 10.CFR 32:

1 ABSTRACT:

NRC regulations: clearly provide for pre-marketing-approval' of certain -

sealed sources:and devices,.such as smoke detectorsiand: gauges. The; I

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

1

'other. products, such asjindustrial 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 ths rule would require,the applicant-to submit for approval..specified radiation. safety information about the

'l product..

.j

Thef proposedirule would also' assure that all-manufacturers / distributors

-(vendors) are informed of NRC's program fo'r pre-marketing.approvaliof sources and devices'under specific' license. The: rule, by improving communication with the vendors.woul_d. assure timely and efficient consideration of radiation. safety features of products and thusl reduce administrative. costs 1for vendors, users and NRC..

The rulemaking action'is-not urgent, but is;important because it will substantially improve the licensing process and reduce the' administrative.

~ The alternativeLis to cont'nue in the

. burden on NRC.and' licensees.

present status which involves duplication of ~ effort.through coetitivet submittals: and reviews. : Required' resources for? NRC to complete the rulemaking are 1.0 staff ye.ar?in!FY87 and 1.0 staff yeartin-F.Y88..

l TIMETABLE:.-

Proposed Action Published. 01/23/87 (52.FR2540)

NPRM Comment Period End 03/24/87 (52 FR 2540).

Final Action for Division;Reviewj09/00/87' Office Concurrence on. Final Action Completed 10/00/871

-Final Action to E00 111/00/87

j Final Action Published 12/00/87 i

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

x

' AGENCY-CONTACT:

Steven'L. Baggett Nuclear; Regulatory Commission

'i Office;of Nuclear Material: Safety.and Safeguards' Washington, DC 20555 301-427-9005 a

y t l

~

, - i r*

' TITLE:

'+' General. Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities CFR CITATION:'

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

~The proposed rulemaking action.is intended to protect public health.-

and safety by providing assurance that licensees. fulfill their-responsibility to dispose of licensed material' including-any associated contamination when they cease. licensed activity.

The proposed rulec also' intends to provide the applicant or licensee with appropriate :

' regulatory guidance for implementing'and accomplishing nuclear' facility

. decommissioning. It is.necessary to address this!1ssue by amending the regulations in order to achieve appropriate' assurances that funds for decommissioning will be available'and;the decommissioning'will be=

carried _out in an orderly manner. The Commission has indicated a need for~ this rulemaking in other. previous ' rulemakings.-

The major' cost impact of the proposed rule would involve proper f

planning at all stages' of nuclear facility operation. Pro >er 1

planning includes providing for'(1) financial assurance t1at funding willl be available forl decommissioning,1(2) maintenance of-

' records that could affect' decomissioning,.and (3) careful planning'of procedures ~ at the time of decommissioning. For non-reactor facilities affected by financialfassurance requirements, it is estimated.that the major impact will result :

in an aggregate expenditure of 21 staff-years ($1.6 million)-

spread over 5 years-(or $320,000 per year).!

For the approximately 110 power reactors estimated to be affected (i.e., those with operating licenses;and those under construction which are at least two-thirds complete) plus:75 research and test; reactors, it is estimated that the major impact williresult in an-aggregate expenditure of 3.8 staff-years ($288,000)2 spread'over 3;

. years. These expenditures will' ensure that adequate;measuresLhave been taken to protect the health and safety of occupational' workers, the, public, and' the~ environment within' the confines' of-optimum cost -

benefit' consideration.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 03/13/78 43 FR 10370 NPRM 02/11/85. 50 FR 5600-NPRM Comment Period End' 07/12/85 50:FR 23025 Final Action for' Division Review 11/15/86 Final 1 Action for Office Concurrence 02/27/87 Office Concurrence on Final' Action Completed :03/30/87:

' Final? Action to CRGR 04/30/87

)

Final Action' to ED0; 07/15/87 FinalTAction to Commission:07/30/87-1 Final-Action Published 10/30/87' s

_24-1 1

y

' TITLE:-

+ General l Requirements for Decomissioning Nuclear Facilities LEGAL: AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201

' EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:

Yes

' A"GENCY! CONTACT:..

Keith G.-Steyer/ Frank Cardile Nuclear' Regulatory Comission.

0ffice of Nuclear Regulatory ~Research-Washington,-DC 20555 f

'301 443-7739/7784-i 4

l 3

i

{.

p 1

-TITLE:

L

• Completeness and Accuracy of Information Provided to the Commission CFR CITATION:

10 CFR'30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10'CFR 55;-10 CFR 60; 10 CFR 61;

'10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 71; 10.CFR 72;'10 CFR 150 ABSTRACT:

The NRC is' amending its regulations to' codify.the' obligations of licensees.and applicants for' licenses to provide the Comission with

. complete and accurate-information, to provide for. disclosure of.

-information-identified by licensees.as sign.ificant for. licensed.

. activities and to define those circumstances when inaccurate or incomplate information will be labeled material false statements; TIMETABLE:..

03/11/87 52.FR~7432 l

Proposed Action Published l

NPRM Comment Period End' 04/10/87.

Next Action ~ Undetermined i

LEGAL' AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201;-42 USC 2021a;.42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5851; 42 USC 10141; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 2201(o)

.J EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIESi No i

AGENCY CONTACT:

Karen Cyr.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel-Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7269

.l F

j

, c j

y s

} ':

- t.

l i

i 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 ANPRM 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 i

other requirements recently$540 million for all tailingspromulgated will co) from about $310 million to j

generated by the year 2000. The range depends on the eventual cost of groundwater protection for future tailings. The EPA J

regulations are binding on NRC licensees in the interim.

The comment period was 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 Extended 11/07/86 Final Action Published 10/00/87 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 Comission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington. D.C. 20555 301 427-4300 TITLE:

+ Changes in Property Insurance Requirements for NRC Licensed Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

.The proposed rule wou!d require nuclear power plant licensees to obtain an increased alcunt of on-site property damage insurance from the current minimum of $585 million to $1.06 billion. The NRC believes i

that such insurance snould be required so that the financing and pacing of cleanup following an accident does not become a public health and j

safety problem. Recent studies indicate that as much as $1.06 billion may be required to' cover on-site cleanup of the worst reactor I

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 1

that public health and safety would be better protected. The impact on the NRC would be minimal with respect to increasing the 1

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. _ _ _- -

1 j

j

' TITLE:

+ Changes in Property Insurance Requirements for NRC Licensed Nuclear Power Plants -

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 Initial Action Package.to ED0 03/18/86' Final. Action Package Approved by CRGR 03/17/87 j

Final Action Package to EDO 03/24/87 q

Final Action Published 05/15/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 1

I EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No j

]

AGENCY CONTACT:

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

i 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.

The proposed requirements were developed in response to information generated by the Commission's study of Unresolved Safety Issue A-44, Station Blackout. The proposed rule is intended to provide further assurance that a loss of both off-site, and emergency on-rite electric 4

AC power systems will not adversely affect the public heaith and safety.

l 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 doll.ars.

The alternatives to this proposed rulemaking are to take no action or to i

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 1

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 1

is the recommended alternative based on its enforceability and, in part, on the favorable cost / benefit ratio.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 03/21/86 51 FR 9829 NPRM Connent Period End 06/19/86 51 FR 989?

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 i

TITLE:

+ Station Blackout 1

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

?

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

)

-AGENCY CONTACT:

Alan Rubin Nuclear Regulatory Comission 3

Office. of Nuclear Reactor Regulation j

4 Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8303 J

~

1 1

(

.i I

l i

- :{

I I

TITLE:

+ Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for l

Water-Cooled Power Reactors CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50; Appendix J ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would update and revise the 1973 criteria for preoperational and periodic pressure testing for leakage of primary containment boundaries of water-cooled power reactors.

Problems have l

developed in application and interpretation of the existing rule. These result from changes in testing technology, test criteria, and a relevant national standard that needs to be recognized.

It is proposed to revise the rule as noted to make it current and improve its usefulness.

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

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

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

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 I percent per year pe'r plant due to increased testing.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action to EDO 03/31/86 i

Proposed Action Published 10/29/86 (51 FR 39538) j NPRM Comment Period Extended to 04/24/87 (52 FR 2416)

Final Action for Division Review 07/01/87 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 11/02/87 Final Action to ED0 02/01/88 Final Action Published 04/01/88

1 l

TITLE:

d

+ Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing 'for

. Water-Cooled Power Reactors LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 5841'

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

Gunter Arndt Nuclear. Regulatory Commission-Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301-443-7893 4

l l

i i t'

'i

TITLE:

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

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The proposed broad scope modification of General Design Criterion 4 (GDC 4) would allow demonstration of piping integrity by analyses to serve as a basis for excluding consideration of i

dynamic effects associated with pipe ruptures. A final rule 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 undertake rulemaking at this time.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 07/23/86 51 FR'26393 NPRM Comment Period Begin 07/23/86 NPRM Comment Period End 09/22/86 51 FR 26393 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 04/15/87 Final Action to CRGR and ACRS 05/00/87 Final Action to EDO 06/00/87 Final Action to Commission 06/15/87 Final Action Published 09/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:

No i

I AGENCY CONTACT:

i John A. O'Brien Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l

Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7854 i l

1-TITLE:

+ Timing Requirements for Full Participation Emergency Preparedness Exercises for Power Reactors Prior. to. Receipt ~of an Operating License CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50, Appendix E ABSTRACT:

The proposed rulemaking would relax' the timing requirements for a full participation emergency preparedness exercise for power reactors prior to receipt of an opertion license.

The Commission believes that adoption of the proposed rule would more effectively focus available resources on the pertinent issues and' problems in establishing land maintainingfan upgraded and. effective. day-to-day status.of. emergency preparedness.

~

The issuance of the rule will provide'. consistency to the. regulations governing the frequency and timing ofl emergency-preparedness exercises between the' preliminary and post licensing stages, and also provide more flexibility in.the timing'of the full participation exercises to accomodate the needs of State and local governments prior to the' issuance of an operating license.

The proposed rule will not greatly affect ~the industry. since applicants will still.be required to conduct an annual emergency preparedness-

-exercise and will have a negligible effection the public as adequate'-

emergency preparedness at and around nuclear power reactors will still be assured. The proposed rule should have minimal impact on NRC resources.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action Published 12/02/86 51-FR 43369 NPRM Comment Period Extended to 01/12/87152 FR 543 Final Action to EDO 03/20/87 Final Action Published 07/30/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846L 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 -

l-l

1 l:

F TITLE::

+ Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core; Cooling Systems-(ECCS)lfori L

Light Water Nuclear Power Reactors-CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 p

ABSTRACT:

l 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 that result in estimates of cooling system performance are significantly worse than estimates based on the improved knowledge gained from thisLresearch 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 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.

i Because the proposed rule represents a significant change in a regulatory requirement, the staff is _ currently preparing a summary of ECCS research performed over the last 10 years.which, will serve as the technical basis for the proposed rule and a regulatory guide which will provide definition of what constitutes an acceptable best estimate model and acceptable i

methods of performing the uncertainty evaluation. The. estimated 1

cost to the NRC of this rulemaking.is 2-3 staff years and

$200,000 of contractor support'.

The only option to rulemaking considered by the staff was' the continued use.of the current licensing approach. At best thislis viewed as an interim solution because two separate calculations are required'to meet the requirements of the current regulation-and staff conditions for'-

use of the licensing approach and continued use of the approach risks case-by-case litigation.,

TITLE:-

+-Acceptance' Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) for-Light Water Nuclear Power Reactors TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 12/06/78 43 FR 57157 ANPRM Comment Period Begin 12/06/78 43 FR 57157 ANPRM Coment Period End 02/05/79 Proposed Action Published -03/03/87. 52 FR 6334

NPRM Coment Period Expired 07/01/87 Final Action Published '01/30/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY

42 USC 2132; 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC-2232; q

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.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

' Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 (301) 443-7890 e

TITLE:

l Consideration of Emergency Planning Rule Changes to Deal With Lack of Governmental Cooperation in Offsite Emergency Planning I

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would in limited circumstances, allow a full power nuclear plant operation to begin when there is a lack of State or local government cooperation in offsite emergency planning.

In earlier regulations, the Commission published revised emergency planning regulations which required that emergency plans be developed by licensees in cooperation with State and local governments.

l Although the Comission acknowledged the possibility that.some l

governments might not cooperate, the Comission premised the new rules on.a coordinated effort among all parties.

Because this coordination has proved impossible to achieve in a few isolated cases, this proposed rulemaking is intended to cover those cases not contemplated by the 1980 amendments. The amendments will probably not impact on NRC resources.

Industry may experience a positive financial effect in the earlier operation of nuclear power plants already completed but currently non-operational due to governmental non-cooperation.

i The public may be affected in that there may be less coordinated i

offsite emergency plan as co:npared to sites where full coordination has been-achieved.

TIMETABLE-J Proposed Action Published 03/06/87 52 FR 6980 l

NPRM Coment Period Extended 06/04/87 52 FR 6980 LEGAL AUTHORITY 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 i

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT-William M. Shields l

Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8693 l

l,

Q j

i

. 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, j

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

Extensive comments were. received and analyzed.

~

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

The proposed regulation would protect against the " insider"-

threat at reactors.through the use of three' components:.'(1)a background investigation to determine past history,:(2) a psychological assessment to determine current emotional 1

stability, and (3).a continual behavioral' observation program to i

detect behavioral changes in an individual.once granted unescorted access, i

Primary benefit to the public and licensees would be an increased assurancetof 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'reactcr personnel.

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

~

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

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

]

1 4

.l,

y

TITLE:

+ Personnel Access Authorization Program (Part of Insider Packege)

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 04/00/87 Policy Statement / Guidelines to Commission 05/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5.841' 4

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 y

j l

I l

i TITLE:

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

10 CFR 51 1

ABSTRACT:

~ The proposed rule provides a narrative explanation of the numerical values established in Table S-3, " Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data," that appears in the Commission's environmental protection regulations. The proposed rule describes the basis for the values contained in Table S-3, the significance of the uranium fuel. cycle data in the table, and the conditions governing the use of the table. The' narrative explanation'also addresses important fuel cycle impacts and the cumulative impacts.

of the nuclear fuel cycle for the whole nuclear power. industry so that it may be possible to consider these impacts generically rather than repeatedly in individual licensing proceedings, thus reducing litigation time and costs for both NRC and applicants.

J The proposed rule was published for public review and comment.

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

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

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

conforming to the new EPA standards. However, EPA received, in August 1985, a court order requiring them to establish radon standards for active uranium mills. EPA's final standards were issued on September 21, 1986. The Commission 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 Commission Paper presenting the final rulemaking plan and schedule was submitted-on August 18,1986(SECY86-242).l0nSeptember8.1986,.SECY86-242-was approved by the Commission, i

l TITLE:

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

l NPRM 03/04/81 46 FR 15154 NPRM Comment Period End 05/04/81 Proposed Action for Division Review 09/00/87 Office Concurrence of Proposed Action 10/00/87 i

Proposed Action to ED0/ Commission 04/00/88 Proposed Action Published 05/00/88 Final Action Published 12/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

William Pearson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 f

301 443-7682 l

l l

i

l t

I s

TITLE 3

+ Elimination of Inconsistencies Between Part 60 and EPA HLW Standard-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 requirenent.

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.

1 TIMETABLE:

l NPRM 06/19/86 51 FR 22288 1

NPRM Comment Period End 08/18/86 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 03/20/87-Final Action to EDO 03/24/87 Final Action..to Connission 04/30/87 1

Final Action Published 07/30/87

]

LEGAL AUTHORITY 42 USC 10101 j

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:

No AGENCY CONTACT:

Frank Costanzi/ Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington,'DC 20555 301 427-9101/443-7668 3

i r

.c 1

g

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 NP.C 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 i

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.

ra 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 to CRGR' 12/19/86 Final Action to EDO 04/00/87-Final Action Published 04/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201;'42 USC 5841 j

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

Priscilla A.'Dwyer.

Nuclear Regulatory Comission-Office of Nuclear. Safety and Safeguards

. Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4773

.i i

i i

)

^ x

______________i_._.___-.-

i l

i TITLE:

i i

+ Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 140 ABSTRACT:

The final rule will revise the EN0 criteria to eliminate the problems

_j that were encountered in the Three Mile Island ENO determination.

It is desirable to get revised criteria in place in the event they are needed.

There are no alternatives to this 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-i making.

There is no safety impact on public health or safety. The EN0 criteria provide legal waivers of. defenses.

Industry (insurers and utilities) claims that a reduction in the EN0 criteria could cause increases in insurance premiums. The final rule would also be responsive to PRM-140-1.

It is estimated that approximately 1.0 man year of NRC staff time will be required to process the final rule.

No contract funding is anticipated.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 04/09/85 50 FR 13978 NPRM Comment Period End 09/06/85 Final Action For Division Review 02/17/87 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 05/30/87 Final Action Package to EDO 06/30/87 Final Action to Commission 07/15/87 Final Action Published 09/15/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

1 Harold Peterson i

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7691 _ - - - - - - - - -

d

(C) - Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking 4

c b

o

l l

1 l

l l

s I

.l l

..a.

l TITLE:

Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern; Generic Rulemaking

'l CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:

The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) 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 D

~for filing petitions for rulemaking to exempt individual waste streams (August 29, 1986; 51 FR 30839)..It is believed that generic rulemaking could provide a more efficient and effective means of dealing with ~ disposal of wastes below regulatory concern.

Generic rulemaking would supplement the policy statement which was a response to Section 10 of the Low-Leve1' Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240).

The public will be asked to comment on 14 questions. The ANPRM requests public comment on several alternative appraches the NRC could take.

Public comment will help to determine whether and how NRC should proceed on the matter.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 12/02/87-51 FR 43367 ANPRM Comment Period End 03/02/87 51 FR 43367 Final Action: Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

Pub. L.99-240

)

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

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

_ __ 2 1 ---_-------_--

TITLE:

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

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

l The Commission issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) i 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 alternative mechanisms.

The comments received (approximately 160) will be used as an integral 1

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 FTE.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 06/07/85 50 FR 20906 ANPRM Comment Period Begin 06/07/85 50 FR 20906 I

f ANPRM Comment Period End '11/07/85 50 FR 41904 Proposed Action Published Undetermined

TITLE:

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

42 USC 2201 l

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTNER ENTITIES: Undetermined AGENCY CONTACT:

Mary Jo Seeman Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4647 i

I q

i i.;

i

l TITLE:

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

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

The proposed rule would require about 30 fuel cycle and other radioactive materials licensees to submit an emergency plan that would among other actions, require the notification of local authorities in case of an accident and that the licensee recommend protective actions for the public. The proposed rule is-intended to further protect the public from accidental exposure to radiation. The affected licensees are those whose possession limits indicate the potential for an accident that could deliver a radiation dose offsite exceeding one rem effective dose equivalent or 5 rems to the thyroid or could cause a soluble uranium inhalation of 2 milligrams (a chemical toxicity hazard).

Currently the proposed requirements are, for the most part, required by order. However, the Commission decided that they wanted a regulation 3

for the long term. The cost of the rule for licensees was estimated i

to be between $26,000 and $73,000 per year per licensee. The cost to NRC was estimated to be $4,000 per year per licensee. The NRC t

will expend about 2 man-years of effort to promulgate the rule.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 06/03/81 46 FR 29712 j

ANPRM Comment Period End 08/03/81 46 FR 29712 i

Proposed Action for Division Review 02/08/85 i

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

Proposed Action Package to Commission 03/25/86 Commission Directs Revision of Proposed Action 10/28/86-Revised Proposed Action to ED0 01/23/87 Revised Proposed Action to Commission 02/02/87 Proposed Action Published 04/15/87 Final Action Published 03/15/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 1

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No l

AGENCY CCNTACT:

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

i

l i

TITLE:

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

10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 55 ABSTRACT:

1

- The Comission is considering an amendment to its regulations to

. require, that applicants for a -senior operator license of a:

. nuclear power; plant, hold a baccalaureate degree in engineering i

or a related science from an accredited institution after January 1,.

j

.1991. Other baccalaureate degrees from an accredited institution may-be acceptedLon a case-by-case basis. This contemplated rulemaking action is due to a. Commission' decision to enhance the levels-

-l of engineering and accident management expertise'on shift.

{

The current. requirement, for candidates with a baccalaureate ~

1 degree, of two years of responsible nuclear power plant operating 1

experience, would be amended to require one year of operating experience on a like comercial nuclear. reactor operating at

]

greater than twenty-percent power.

The Comission is also-R considering issuing a policy statement' concurrently with this rule j

related to utility implementation of the rule.-

The staff analysis of comments on the ANPRM has been completed o

and options for rulemaking and/or policy statementsLto address-degree requirements and training-fnr accident management have been developed. A Comission paper.is scheduled.for consideration by

)

the end.of March 1987.

l" TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 05/31/86 51 FR.19561 ANPRM Comment Period Extended to'.09/29/86

' Action Paper to Office Director ~for Comment 03/23/87-Action Paper to EDO 03/30/87 LEGAL-AUTHORITY::

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

Dan Jones Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington,.DC 20555' 301 492 4813.

TITLE:

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

10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:

'This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (M!PRN) 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.-8ecause 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 and facilities-to dispose of certain types of wastes. A definition of HLW which clearly identifies-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 rulemakina would be to-take no action or request Congress to amend the NWPA. The rulemaking would eliminate uncertainty and reduce costs for the public, industry, and NRC.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM Action Published 02/27/87 52 FR 5992 ANPRM Comment Period End 04/29/87 Proposed Action to EDO 08/15/87.

Proposed Action to Commission 08/30/87 Proposed Action Published 09/30/87 Final Action Published 10/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL' BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:

No AGENCY-CONTACT:

Frank Costanzi/ Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

. Washington, DC 20555-301 443-7910/7668 i

(D) - Unpublished Rules l

1

)

l l

D I

l

i TITLE:

• Restriction Against Ownership of Certain Security Interests by Commissioners, Certain Staff Members, and Other Related Personnel:

Vested Pension Interests CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 0 ABSTRACT:

The final rule will amend the regulations governing the owenrship by NRC employees of stocks', bonds, and other security interests in companies engaged in activities relating to the nuclear fuel cycle.

The final rule also addresses the treatment of vested pension interests held by NRC employees. Present NRC regulations require. that employees not own security interests in companies _ engaged in. fuel.

cycle activities, regardless 'of. whether the company derived significant

-gross revenues _or a significant percentage of its revenues from those -

activities. _Under the revised regulation,~the NRC's' Executive Director _

for Operations, after consultations with the Office of the General l Counsel, willi designate the major fuel ' cycle applicants.and licensees whose security interests are subject to the agency's stock ownership-restrictions and thus may.not be owned by NRC. employees. With regard to vested pension interests, the amendment to the regulations will; codify existing agency practice to provide' explicitly.that no employee -

is to provide advice to the NRC on matters affecting a company _in-which he or she has a vested pension: interest from prior. employment.

Because these amendments relate solely to matters of agency management or personnel, they would have no impact upon the public or the nuclear industry. Adopticn of the amendments regarding the prohibited securities list would benefit NRC employees, since'it would resultiin the deletion of several companies from the prohibited ' securities ' list, therebyJ allowing NRC employees to own security interests in.those companies.

The adoption of the amendment _on. vested pensions would have no effect-upon NRC employees, since it merely codifies existing agency practice.

TIMETABLE:

Final Action Published 04/30/87 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER INTITIES:

N/A AGENCY CONTACT:

-Paul.Bo11werk Nuclear Regulatney Commission Office of the 9.teral Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-3224 _ _. _.

I s

TITLE:

• Standards and Procedures for Case-by-Case Exemptions for De Minimis

. Interests from Prohibition against Employee's. Participation in a Particular Matter Affecting Employee's Financial Interests CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 0 ABSTRACT:

'The final rule revises NRC regulations governing the granting of statutorily authorized case-by-case exemptions for. insubstantial-interests from the prohibition against an employee's personal and substantial participation in a.particular. matter in which the employee, or certain persons or organizations-related to the employee, has a financial interest.. The -final rule, which, pertains to all NRC employees, sets out-revised procedures for granting case-by-case exemptions:in instances where the interest involved is not so substantial as to be deemed likely to affect the integrity of the services which the Government.may expect from the employee.

TIMETABLE:

Final Action Published 05/00/07 j

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

1 42 USC 2035;-42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 18'USC 207 i

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

Steven Crockett Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel 202 634-1465 TITLE:Revised Rules of' Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings CFR CITATION:

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

The Nuclear Regulatory Comission has deferred further consideration of-this proposal which would have revised the Comission's procedural rules governing the conduct of all adjudicatory. proceedings, with the' exception of. export licensing proceedings. The proposed rule would comprehensively j

restate current practice, retitle the hearing office, and revise and 1

reor.;anize. the Comission's procedural rules. The changes set out

'in t11s proposed rule are intended.to enable the Comission to

]

render decisions in a more timely fashion and reduce the burden 1

and expense to the parties participating in the proceedings.

j TIMETABLE:

NPRM Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:.

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841; 5 USC 552 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:

No AGENCY CONTACT:

l B.

Paul Cotter, Jr.

Nuclear Regulatory Comission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555' 301 492-7787 i

TITLE:

+ Statement of Organization and General-Information CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 1 ABSTRACT:

The final. would. rule revise '10 CFR Part I which was promulgated on July 18, 1977(42FR36797).

Except' for'a few revisions, such as address' changes, the addition of a Commission-level office, and other minor revisions, l

1 most of the~ remaining descriptions of;the Commission's organizational' structure have remained unaltered since 1977.

Duringlthe_ interim, there have been numerous reorganizations in the structure and-functions of many i

of. the Commission's. offices. The final' rule'will reflect 'the current.

structure and functions of'these offices..

i

~ TIMETABLE:

-l Final. Action for Division Review; 05/29/87

.)

Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 06/30/87.

Final Action to ED0 07/31/87 Final Action. Published 08/31/87 j

LEGAL AUTHORITY:-

42 USC 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 j

4 i

j,

j j

TITLE:

• Functions of Atomic' Safety and Licensing ' Appeal Board Y

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

1 The final rule would amend the Nuclear Regulatory Commission'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 j

~

the agency's rules of practice to allow routine referral of. requests 1

for certain hearings from a licensing board to an. appeal board.

TIMETABLE-

)

Final Action Published.01/00/87 i

q LEGAL AUTHORITY:

1 42 USC 2021; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841 1

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

J Trip Rothschild Office of the General Counsel Washington..DC 20555 202 634-1465 1

l s

l I

t o

F i

s-l '

l J

a TITLE:

Availability of Official Records i

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

1 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 reaffirmthatthetermsof10CFR2.790-(c)providesubmittersof.

information-a qualified right;to have their information returned upon. request. This amendrent inforns the public of three exce)tionstothe-righttowithdrawpursuantto10CFR2.790(c) of tie NRC's regulations, i.e., information submitted in a rulemaking proceeding that subsequently forms the basis for the final rule, infonnation '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 Undetermined i

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

Paul Bo11werk Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-3224 l

4 TITLE:

Negotiated Rulemaking on the Submission and Management of Records and 1

Documents Related to the Licensing of a. Geologic Repository for the Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste j

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 60 1

1 ABSTRACT:

'Tne Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) provides three years for the NRC to reach a decision on construction authorization for a high-level waste repository.

In order for the NRC to be able to make its decision within the allotted time, ready access to all pertinent records must be assured to all parties in the licensing proceeding. The DOE has. committed to i

develop en electronic information management system to be used for the licensing proceeding.,The NRC staff intends to use the process of negotiated rulemaking to develop a proposed rule that would revise the i

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 anc all supporting. records to be provided in a standardized electronic format.

All parties to the licensing pro'ceeding

]

would be required to-submit all relevant data to this system.- In turn, j

all parties would have access to the data base.

Resource estimates currently under development.

TIMETABLE:

(Notice Of Intent) Published 12/18/86 51 FR 45338 Notice of Intent / Comment Period Expires 02/18/86 Prepare Draft Proposed Action 04/22/87-Proposed Action to EDO 10/20/87 Proposed Action Published 07/08/88 Final Action to Commission 09/19/88 Final Action Published 10/14/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

NWPA, AEA, EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:

To be determined AGENCY CONTACT:

Francis X. Cameron Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 i

301 492-8689 i

l l l y

I TITLE:

Retention Periods for Records CFR CITATION:

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

ABSTRACT:

This proposed rule would establish a 'pecific retention period.

for certain NRC-required records. It would also provide a uniform standard acceptable to the NRC for she 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 yearsi ten years,.

and the life of a license.'This rule would bring NRC regulations into compliance with the Office of Management and Budget's (0MB) regulation (5 CFR 1320.6) that requires a specified retentioni period for each required record. It also implements NRC'.s 1982 comr tment to OMB to establish a record retention period of d

detenninable length for each required record.

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

1 Recordkeeping labor for NRC's approximately 6,700 licensees who would be affected by the rule can be divided into four

-functions: (1)preparingthereport,(2)storingthereport,(3)-

files, and (4) retrieving the report information.

The principal savings to the licensee,-dispersed over the period licensed, would be in physical storage. space and:

associated storage equipment and materials. The burden.of recordkeeping would be reduced'approximately 10 percent' annually for these licensees by the proposed rule.'An estimated-466,323 hours0.00374 days <br />0.0897 hours <br />5.340608e-4 weeks <br />1.229015e-4 months <br /> associated with recordkeeping or.$28,000,000 annually would be. saved.~_. Preparing and publishing this rule would cost NRC-approximately 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:

' Proposed Action for Division Review 01/00/86_'

Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed CS/00/86 Proposed Action Package to EDO J05/31/87 Proposed Action Published- 06/30/87 Final Action Published: 10/00/87 LEGAL-AUTHORITY:-

42 USC 2201'

i TITLE:

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

Brenda Shelton Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Administration and Resource Management Washington,.DC 20555 301 492-8132

)

1

)

)

.J i

.i I

I i

0 t

l -

i

TITLE:

• Update of Freedom of Information Act Procedures and Other Minor Amendments-I CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 9 l

ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule revises Part 9 to reflect changes in the Freedom of Information Act. This action is being taken to comply with Pub. L.99-570, " Freedom of Information Reform Act of 1986," signed into law by the President on October 1986. These amendments will also reflect recent case law, current NRC organizational structure, and current agency practice and delegation. The revision will also reduce the repetition of statutory requirements.

i TIMETABLE-i Proposed Action Published 06/15/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

)

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841;.5 USC 552; 31 USC 9701; 5 USC 552a;

)

5 USC.552b 1

I EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No

{

AGENCY CONTACT:

Donnie H. Grimsley Nuclear Regulatory Consnission Office of Administration Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7211 TITLE:

• + Deletion of Part 11 Requirement for Renewal of "R" Clearances CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 11 ABSTRACT:

The current regulations require licensees to renew "R" clearances every 5 years.

This level of clearance corresponds to the "L" clearances used by NRC and DOE which do not require renewal..

Because of this equivalence, the renewal requirement for the "R" level licensee clearance is deemed unnecessary. This rulemaking would delete that requirement from Part 11.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action for Division Review 05/31/87 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Complete 07/31/87 Proposed Action to EDO 09/30/87 Proposed Action Published 12/31/87 Final Action Published 12/31/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42USC2201(1),42USC5841 EFFECTS ON SPALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:

No AGENCY CONTACT:

Sandra D. Fratta11 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research j

l Washington, DC 20555 (301) 443-7746 i

f VITLE:

Residual Radioactive Contamination Limits for Decommissioning-

+

CFR CITATION:

'10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would establish residual radioactive contamination limits (including induced and other volumetric radioactivity as well as removable and fixed surface-contamination) which must be met before structures and lands can

be released on'an unrestricted, unregulated basis. Structures and lands with residual radioactive contamination ~below these limits would be eligible for unrestricted. release without regulatory-restrictions from a radioactivity standpoint.-

The proposed amendments are necessary.to provide licensees with.

. quantitative criteria to use during decommissioning relative to cleanup of structures and lands intended to ensure that structures and lands used in NRC-licensed? facilities and 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're11anceLon'the:

issuance of criteria as guidance.

However, the' criteria are currently 1

incomplete, decisions on implementation and compliance are often required on a case-by-case basis,'and criteria issued 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-agency action. NRC resource requirements are approximately 2.

staff-years and a $237,000 research contract. Staffeis participating in an EPA organized interagency working group developing. Federal guidance on this subject.

~

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action for. Division Review 06/15/87-Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed' 11/15/S7:

Proposed Action to EDO 03/15/88 Proposed Action Published- 05/15/88-Final Action- 08/15/89-LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

Catherine R; Mattsen-Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory'Research Washington,DCf20555

- 301'443-7689-..

i -

TITLE:

+ Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the i

Reportir.g of Defects and Noncompliance i

)

CFR CITATION:

)

10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 50 l

ABSTRACT:

4 This proposed rule would amend Part 21 and sec. 50.55(e) both of which require the reporting of safety defects by licensees. This i

effort was prompted by TMI Action Plan Task II, J.4 and has as its main objectives: (1) elimination of duplicate reporting among all requirements, (2) consistent reporting among all reporting requirements, (3) establishment of uniform and clear definitions for defects which need to be reported, (4) establishment of I

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

i Approximately 450 to 500 reports are issued annually under 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 proposed rulemaking will reduce the potential for j

duplicate reporting and evaluation that now exists and will i

j establish a more coherent regulatory framework that is expected j

to reduce industry and NRC burden in this area without sacrificing safety effectiveness.

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

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

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 06/05/05 Proposed Action Package to EDO 11/18/85 Proposed Action to Commission 12/16/85 Commission Action 10/20/86 Revised Proposed Action to EDO 05/27/87 Proposed Action to Commission 06/30/87.

Revised Proposed Action Published 07/15/87:

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 EnforceNent Washington, DC 20555 i

301 492-7613 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 Comission 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 OM8'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 4 proceeding.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 05/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

No-1 AGENCY CONTACT:

Paul Bollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washiagton, DC 20555 3

202 634-3224

.j i

.i '

TITLE:

)

+ Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Exposure Devices CFR CITATION:

i 10 CFR 34 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would amend the present regulations to.

establish performance standards'for industrial radiography 4

exposure devices.-0verexposures of radiogra)hers (and occasionally the general public) are more t1an double that of i

other radiation workers and have been a concern to the NRC for-some time. Approximately 25-35% of the radiography overexposures are associated with equipment malfunction. The issue of safety requirements for these devices is'a primary concern since the devices use relatively high intensity, high energy garuna-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 lat this-time; to amend the regulations to require performance standards for.

i 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 i

performance standards deemed necessary; and to incorporate..the consensus standard by reference in the regulations. supplemented by such other performance standards as deemed necessary, plus a requirement for radiographers to wear alarm dosimeters.

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 $1,600 per licensee to purchase alarm dosimeters and R

$250 per year per licensee to ' replace existing. devices.with.

devices that meet the requirements of the consensus standard.

Determination of the benefits to be derived from the proposed -

i rule are difficult to determine on a monetary basis but the potentiat hazards that might be averted include radiation sickness, injury, and even death. -NRC' resources: required for-processing this rule to final publication are estimated to be 0.4 person-years.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action for Division Review. 12/22/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 04/30/87 Proposed Action to ECC. 05/22/87 Proposed' Action Published 06/26/87 Final Action Published 12/31/87 ;

TITLE:

+~ Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Exposure Devices -

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 llSC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233

- EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:

No AGENCY. CONTACT:

Donald 0. Nellis Nuclear ~ Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7989 l

1 3

y i

1

l

, {

'l 4

m

TITLE:

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

10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT:

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 contenplated in the proposed rule are needed to ensure that the training and experience criteria used by the NRC reflect the evolution of the practice of nuclear medicine. The proposed rule would establish requirements for physician training and experience that are appropriate to the type of use for which a physician seeks to be 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 l

viable because of the level of contention involved ar.d the visibility j

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 wide 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.

TIMETABLE:

l Proposed Action to Commission 02/20/87 Proposed Action Published 04/00/87 Final Action Published 06/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 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)427-4100 !

l

l t

l TITLE:

+ Misadministrations j

CFR CITATION:

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

regulations governing the use of byproduct material for radiation i

therapy. In addition to current requirements, the contemplated l

amendments would require that licensees offering 3atient care services implement a quality assurance program. T1e contemplated amendments would also clarify plans for responding to misadministrations.

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 j

cost to each of the 1200 affected licensees would be about $1000.00 i

per year.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM Action for Division Review 08/01/86 l

Office Concurrence on ANPRM Completed 12/10/86 ANPRM Action to ED0 02/03/87 l

ANPRM Action to Commission 02/05/87 1

I ANPRM Action Published 04/00/87 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:

Norman L. McElroy Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards i

Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4108 TITLE:

-+ Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50-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 ASF '4de. ' A limitation is placed on the use of paragraph IWB-3640 as' contained in the Winter.1983 Addenda and=

Winter.1984 Addenda of.Section XI, Division 1..This_ limitation-requires that for.certain types'of welds, IWB-3640 be used as modified by the Winter.1985 Addenda. The sections of the ASME Code being incorporated-provide rules for the construction of light-water-cooled nuclear power-plant components and specify requirements for inservice. inspection of those. components. -Adoption'of these amendments would permit the use of improved methods for construction and inservice inspection of. nuclear.

power plants.

TIMETABLE:

Office Concurrence on Proposed Action 12/31/86 Proposed Action to ED0 02/09/87 Proposed Action Published 04/17/87 Fir.a1 Action Published 12/18/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

Gilbert C. Millman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301:443-7713

' 72-a-

q TITLE:

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

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to clarify its regulations on the use of the tenns "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 l

and additional guidance from the Comission was signed by the EDO 1

on May 29, 1986.

In addition to rulemaking, the position paper discusses the alternative of the Comission issuing a policy statement concerning the definitions and their usage.

Since the proposed rule is only clarifying existing requirments, there is no impact on the public or the industry as a result of this rulemaking.

It is anticipated that the NRC will expend 3.2 to 4.4-staff years in developing the final rule over a two year period. The manpower and time frame will depend on Comission guidance received on the extent to which 10 CFR usage of the terms is to be consistent 1.e.,

i 10 CFR Part 50 only or all of 10 CFR.

TIMETABLE:

Comission Decision on SECY 86-164 06/01/87 Proposed Action for Division Review 12/01/87 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 12/15/87 Proposed Action Package to EDO 12/01/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 TITLE:

Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

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

4

/.

p,

TITLE:

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

10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 51 ABSTRACT:

In a Federal Register notice published on April 14, 1978, the Comission deleted the radon-222 value from Table S-3 because it was recognized to be underestimated. Pending rulemaking action to provide a new estimate for radon-222 in Table S-3, the environmental effects of radon are subject to litigation in individual nuclear power plant licensing proceedings. The proposed rule was to deal with this question generically for all nuclear power plants; however, the NRC does I

not expect to receive applications for new nuclear power plant licenses within the near future, and certain regulatory issues related to radon have not yet been resolved.

The Commission 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.

This would complete Table S-3 and would remove all environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle from further consideration and litigation in individual nuclear power plant licensing cases. However, the final rule could not be formulated until EPA completed the development of additional radon standards, which were issued September 24, 1986.

Also, the Commission must complete its review of ALAB-701, which is being held in abeyance for the completion of EPA's radon standards and for further resolution of the de minimis argument concerning the effects of exposure to low leve1s of radiation. The Commission 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.

The staff's plan and estimate (SECY 86-242) were submitted on August 18, 1986 providing for submission of the final rule for Comission action in December 1988. On September 8, 1986, SECY 86-242 was approved by the Commission. The final rule will cover the new values for radon-222 and technetium-99 and the narrative explanation of these values and their effect on public health and safety.

TIMETABLE:

EPA's New Radon Standards Promulgated 10/08/84 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 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 10/00/87 Proposed Action to ED0 and Commission 04/00/88 Proposed Action Published 05/00/88 Final Action Published 12/00/88 1

i TITLE:.

+ Radon'222 Estimate for Table S-3 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

. 42 USC.2201; 42.USC 5841; 42 USC 5842L

. EFFECTS ON.SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:

No-AGENCY CONTACT:.

William Pearson Nuclear Regulatory Comission--

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington..DC.20555.

301 443-7682 g

~

<.)

-, a

..n.

l TITLE:

+ Part 51; Conforming Amendments CFR CITATION:

1 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would provide procedures for performing an.

i environmental review of High Level Waste geologic repositories.

(

Part 51 contains no provisions for the environmental review of a j

license application for a HLW repository. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established requirements for_ environmental i

reviews which are at variance with.the environmental review which i

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 HLW geologic repository licensing. Minor. revisions to Part 60 will be necessary to conform to the environmental requirements of the NWPA.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action Published 9/30/87 Final Action Published 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 1

I 1

TITLE:

+ triteria and Procedures for Evaluating Requests for Emergency Access to i

Low-Level Waste Disposal Sites CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 62

' ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would establish criteria and procedures that will be 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 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 loy-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 1to low-level waste disposal facilities has resulted in an immediate and serious threat to the public health and safety or the common defense and security.

TIMETABLE:

Office Concurrence on Proposed Action 05/00/87-

' Proposed Action to ED0 07/00/87 Proposed Action Published 10/00/87 Final Action Published 08/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2021 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:

Yes AGENCY CONTACT:

Janet Lambert Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4009 l

TITLE:

+ Reporting of Special Nuclear Material Physical Inventory Summary Results CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 70 ABSTRACT:

The NRC's current regulations require fuel facilities to conduct periodic physical inventories of the special nuclear material (SNM) possessed by them. Although the affectea licensa.s have been voluntarily reporting their resultant physical inventory sumary 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 cculd 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 t'mely 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 costs or other impacts associated with the rulemaking.

The current schedule calls for 4

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.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action to EDO 9/30/86 Proposed Action Published 10/00/86 Final Action Published 05/20/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

~

42 USC 5841 s

\\

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

Darrell Huff Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7077 i,

b.

n%

O

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 Series No. 6. " Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material," 1985 Edition.

Consistency in transportation regulations throughout the world facilitates the free movement of radioactive materials between countries for medical, research, industrial, and nuclear fuel cycle purposes.

Consistency of transportation regulations throughout the world also contributes to safety by concentrating the efforts of the world's experts on a single set of safety standards and guidance (those of the IAEA) from which individual ccuntries can develop their domestic regulations.-

Perhaps as important, the favorable and accident experience of every l

country that bases it domestic regulations on those of the IAEA can with consistent regulations to be applied by every other country' action will be handled as a routine improve its safety program. The updating of NRC transportation regulations. There is no reasonable alternative to rulemaking action. These changes should result in a ll minimal increase in costs to affected licensees.

Proposed changes to 6

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 l

ending January 1989 and will consume 2-3 staff-years of effort depending 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 01/30/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

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

Yes AGENCY CONTACT:

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

(A)- Petitions incorporated ~into final rules or petitions denied since December 31, 1986

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-21 PETITIONER:

Northern States Power Company and Wisconsin l

Electric Power Company PART:

50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:

2 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: July 21, 1977 (42 FR 37458)

]

SUBJECT:

Plant Security Information i

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request that the Commission j

amend its regulations-(1) in 9 50.34(c) to include plant i

security information within the definition of Restricted j

Data, or, alternatively (2) in 6 2.905 to ensure that discovery

, within the definition of National Security Information; of plant security information is subject to the protections J

of Subpart I of Part 2; (3) in Subpart I of Part 2 to 1

explicitly recognize that the protections required by the i

Subpart extend to information not under Commission control; and (4) to delete 9 2.790(d)(1) that currently could permit i

disclosure of plant security information without the protections of Subpart I of Part 2.

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

Background. The connent period closed September 19, 1977.

Twelve comments were received, nine of which endorsed the petition. Consideration to Crant the petition'was under review based on Pub. L.96-295 (NRC FY 80 Authorization Bill) that amended the Atomic Energy Act by adding Section 147, " Safeguards Informatien," which directs the Commission to prescribe regulations or issue orders to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of safeguards information that specifically identifies the licensees' or applicants' detailed security measures, etc.

TIMETABLE: ' A notice of denial was published in the Federal Register on 02/26/87 (52 FR 5780).

CONTACT: Kristina Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-427-4754 PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:

PRM-50-41 PETITIONER: Public Citizen PART: 50

'OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: May 12, 1986 (51 FR'17361)

SUBJECT:

Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel

SUMMARY

Description.

The.1etitioner requests that the_NRC-immediately underta ce.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.610226. The petitioner thinks that'

-to comply with this statute, the NRC.would have to take appropriate steps to adopt specific regulations, or other Comission guidance setting forth detailed requirements' for '

training and fitness for duty for nuclear. power plant licensee personnel. The petitioner contends that the-Commission Policy Statement on Training and. Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personne1' (50 FR 11147) that was-published March 20, 1985, and the proposal of a Policy '

Statement on Fitness for Duty of Power Plant Personnel are legally insufficient to fulfill the NWPA Section 306 statutory mandate.-

Objective. To require that the.NRC adopt specific-regulations or'other Comission guidance setting. forth detailed requirements for training. and fitness.for duty.of nuclear power plant personnel.

Background., The comment period ended July 11, 1986, and the staff is evaluating the comments..

TIMETABLE: A notice denying this petition was published intthe' Federal Register on 02/02/87(52FR3121).

CONTACT: Thomas F. Dorian Office of the General Counsel 301-492-8690 i 1

i PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:

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

j 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 that comparable highly sensitive facilities such as those used to store nuclear weapons do not have such a requirement.

The petitioners state that their petition would permit " pat down" searches and that individuals entering a protected area would be put on notice that they are subject to these searches.

Existing requirements for the use of detection equipment would not be affected. The petition includes proposed amendatory text.to Part 73.

The petitioners also have submitted a memorandum in support of the petition.

_0bjective. To eliminate the requirement for " pat down" physical searches of individuals entering a protected area of a nuclear power plant.

Background. The comment period closed October 17, 1977.

Approximately 100 comments were received.

Eighty comments were from utilities and supported the petition.- The other

{

20 disagreed with the petition. Currently effective regulations require, in part, that licensees conduct physical " pat down" searches of their employees and other persons before allowing them to enter a protected area of a power reactor facility. However, NRC has extended to i

licensees relief from this requirement while a proposed rulemaking proceeding in physical searches is conducted.

i The most recent notice granting a continuation of this relief was published in the Federal Register on December 1, 1980(45FR79492). The Comission notified the petitioner that action on the petition has been delayed pending resolution of the rulemaking proceeding to modify require-l ments for physical searches at nuclear power plants.

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

" I

TIMETABLE: The petitioner withdrew this petition by memorandum.

dated 01/02/87. A notice of withdrawal was published in the Federal Register on 02/26/87(52~FR5781).

CONTACT:

Kristina Jamgochian

. Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-427-4754 i

, ~

i i

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:

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

PART: 73 i

OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:

None j

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION:

February 16, 1982 (47 FR 6658) i

SUBJECT:

Elimination of' Required Log-Out of Personnel from i

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

_h nuclear power reactors for individuals given. access to normally unoccupied vital areas.

Background. The comment period closed April 19, 1982.

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

TIMETABLE: The petitioner withdrew this petition by memo dated 01/12/87.

i A notice of withdrawal was published in the' Federal Register on 02/26/87 (52 FR 5781).

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

,s>

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:

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

PART: 73 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None l

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION:

February 16, 1982 (47 FR 6657)

SUBJECT:

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

SUMMARY

Description.

The petitioners request that the Commission eliminate the requirement for searches of 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 a.nendatory text that would achieve this-requested change.

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

I Background. The coment period closed April 19 -1982.

Ten coments on the petition were received. Action on the petition is delayed pending resolution of policy questions i

in current rulemakings.

TIMETABLE: The petitioner withdrew this petition by memo dated 01/12/87 A notice of withdrawal was published in the Federal ReSar on 02/26/87 (52 FR 5781).

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

(B) - Petitions incorporated into proposed rules 8

r f

1 l

l l

l k

l i

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

American National Standards Inst. CommitteeN14(PRM-71-2)

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

PART:

71 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None I

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION:

PRM-71-1, September 22, 1975 (40 FR 43517);

l 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 i

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners requested that the Commission amend its regulations at 66 71.7 and 71.10 to exempt " low specific activity material," as defined in 6 71.4(g), from the requirements of Part 71. This action was requested 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 is a generic one, effecting a large segment of the licensee population including all nuclear reactor licensees, so rulemaking is the only reasonable alternative.

If the exemption requested in the petitions were granted, NRC would no longer regulate in the area of transportation of larger quantities of low specific activity radioactive material. Since a relatively large number (40) of NRC approved package designs are used for transporting larger i

quantities of low specific activity materials, NRC could i

eliminate a sizeable workload by approving the exemption.

i Industry would likewise benefit economically by not having to obtain NRC approval of special packages for this type of i

material, and by not having to build or use the special packages.

i Unless, DOT chose to counter the NRC exemption with regulatory controls of its cwn in this area, larger quantities of low specific activity materials would likely be shipped in lesser M i package at greater public risk. However, since the petitions M

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 j

the packaging requirements of 10 CFR Part 71 to achieve compatibility among the regulations of the NRC, DOT, and IAEA. i

Y Background. Coments were received on these petitions over a period of one and one-half years. Altogether, five favorable comments were received.

In July 1979, the Comission' approved a proposed revision (SECY-79-192) to the NRC transportation regulations in 10 CFR Part 71 to make them more compatible with those of the IAEA, including the requested revision to 6 71.7 to exempt " low specific activity material" from the requirements of Part 71. The proposed rule change was published in the Federal Register on August 17,1979 (44 FR 48234)., During the development of the final rule, however, the transportation program office (NMSS) reversed its earlier decision to exempt " low specific activity material" from Part 71 until a deficiency in the rule is corrected and directed that action on the' petitions be delayed until a new rulemaking action is initiated to correct the deficiency. Work on that rulemaking action has been temporarily terminated pending completion 4

l of a study being conducted under the control of DOT.

TIMETABLE: Resolution of this petition is expected by~ August 1987.

CONTACT:

Donald R. Hopkins Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.

301-443-7690 j

l l

l l

4 l

e i

1 1

(C) - Petitions pending staff review l

l l

1 l

2 l

t

I i

l l

l 1

i I

1 Mb W-

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-35-6 PETITIONER:. Mallinckrodt, Inc.

PART: 35 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Not Yet Published

SUBJECT:

Administration of aerosols and gases.

]

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission remove the requirement in the revision to Part"35, effective. Apr11 1,1987, that radioactive aerosols be administered in rooms that are at negative pressure from surrounding rooms.

The petitioner states i

that although the NRC imposes identical regulatory requirements on radioactive aerosols and gases, the _ safety measures necessary to assure'public. health and safety are different for aerosols and gases. Becaues the imposition of the negative room pressure requirement and radioactive aerosols could have and adverse

-i 1

impact on the delivery of health care to patients with pulmonary.

J disease, and because the petitioner believes that such a requirement is unnecessary to protect public health and safety, the petitioner requests that the negative room pressure requirement be removed, 4

TIMETABLE: The staff is currently developing a proposed rule to respond to the issue in this petition.

CONTACT: Judy Foulke Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-427-4108 7

6 i

1 i

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:

PRM-40-25 PETITIONER:

State of Alabama PART: 40 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:

NONE FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: December 31,1985(50FR53335)

SUBJECT:

Regulations Governing Unimportant Quantities of Source Material

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 i

fabricated of or containing tungsten or magnesium-thorium alloys whose thorium content is less than 4. percent by weight and either remove the restriction on this exemption I

or set out the restriction as part of a general. license.

l The petitioner believes that, in placing a restriction on an exemption.the NRC has created a. structurally deficient j

regulation that may lead to unintentional violations'by j

persons who may receive products covered by the exemption I

and be unaware of any further restrictions.

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

limitations placed on the use of the product.

I Background. The comment period for this action closed i

March 3, 1986. Only one comment was. received, and it opposed the petition.

l TIMETABLE:

Staff action on the petition is scheduled to be completed i

August 1987.

CONTACT: Sterling Bell Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

301-427-9026 _

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-25, PRM-50-25A

' PETITIONER: State of Illinois and the. Porter' County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America, Inc., et al.

PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 4, 1980 (45 FR 7653)

SUBJECT:

' Extension of Construction Completion Date

SUMMARY

Description..The petitioners filed' essentially identical petitions which request.that the Comission amend its regulations in Part 50, 0.50.55, 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 6t' the time-..the application is considered.. The petitioners

.further request that the Commission determine that " good cause" is not 11mited 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,i1980.- Six; coments were received, including'two from the: petitioners -

on jurisdictional issues. Comments filed by~ parties other:

than the petitioners opposed the' petition.!- The Atomic: Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) and the Commission have ruled on-the " good cause" issue which'is.the subject of this petition.

The matter was alluded to in.the Bailly case beforeithe U.S.-

Court of Appeals. The staff has prepared a draft 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.delayedTuntil a" decision isLreached by the DC Circuit-Court ~on extension ~of the' construction permit in the Comanche Peak case. Publication of the resolution is scheduled for AugustL1987.-

d CONTACT: Ronald M. Smith.

~ Office:of the General Counsel:

301-492-4396-91.-

m

'w 3

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRt!-50-31 1

PETITIONER: Citizens' Task Force l

I PART: 50 i

OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: 70 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: March 24,1982 (47 FR 12639)

SUBJECT:

Emergency Preparedness

SUMMARY

Description.

The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to require that (1) the present ten-mile emergency planning zone radius be extended to twenty miles and include any(2) all communities with a towns bordering on or partially within this zone; population in excess of 5,000 persons be provided by the respective utility with the funding to purchase, install, and operate radiological monitoring equipment to reach and maintain the level of preparedness deemed necessary by the affected municipalities; and (3) utilities be required to finance the emergency planning efforts of municipalities located near nuclear reactors.

Objective. To establish'an effective notification and evacuation syr: tem in communities located near nuclear reactors.

Background. The comment period closed May 24, 1982.

TIMETABLE:

Comission action on the resp (onse to the petitioner is scheduled for November 1987 to be coordinated with the severe accident research program and publication of NUREG-1150); however, this is dependent upon the Commission's policy decision in the emergency planning area.

CONTACT: Stephen A. McGuire Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7900 l

l 1

] _

l

PETTTION DOCKET NUMBER:

PRM-50-44 l

PETITIONER: Connittee to Bridge the Gap PART:

50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: September 3,1986(51FR31341)

SUBJECT:

Fire Protection Standards for Graphite Reactors

SUMMARY

Description.

The petitioner requests that the Commission i

amend its regulations to require operators of reactors that use graphite as a moderator or reflector to (1) 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 j

their facilities.

j During the comment period, the staff is administering a technical assistance contract with a national laboratory to evaluate 3

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 comments received. Technical i

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 burning 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 requesting comments was selected.

Obiective. To adequately protect the public in the event of a fire at a reactor that uses graphite.

Background. The comment period expired on February 3, 1987.

Twenty-eight comments were received in response to the petition.

The staff and its contractor are evaluating these. comments.

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

CONTACT: Theodore S. Michaels Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 301-492-8251 lj 1

I l

I PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-45 i

i PETITIONER:

Kenneth G. Sexton j

i PART:

~50 I

OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:

None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION:

October 6,1986(51FR35518)

SUBJECT:

Extending the Emergency Planning Zone

]

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to require that current methodologies and' analytical techniques be used to reevaluate the established Emergency Planning 8

Zone (EPZ) for nuclear power plants. The petitioner is concerned that emergency planning for areas within and beyond the 10-m11e distance provided in the Commission's regulations is inadequate because the i

current 10-mile EPZ was determined with what the petitioner considers outdated methodologies'and data i

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 has been extended to April-15, 1987.

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

CONTACT: Steve McGuire Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7900 I f

i I

j PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-46 i

PETITIONER: State of Maine PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:

None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION : December 30,1986(51FR47025)

SUBJECT:

Emergency Planning

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its

~

emergency planning regulations to (1) expand the emergency planning zone for the plume exposure pathway and for the-ingestion pathway; i

(2) require that emergency planning be done before any construction of a nuclear facility is permitted and that the: Governor of each j

affected State approve the emergency plans as-a precondition to a

construction; and (3) require that offsite emergency preparedness findings be made before any fuel loading and/or low power operations j

are permitted.

j 4

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 i

decision in the emergency planning area.

{

CONTACT: Steven A. McGuire Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7900 l

{

l i

i l

.l ]

o

j PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-47 PETITIONER: Quality Technology Company PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: January 12, 1987 (52 FR 1200)

SUBJECT:

Establishing an Employee Concerns Program and Resolution of Employee-Identified Concerns at Nuclear Facilities 4

SUBJECT:

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission add to its regulations requirements that all utilities involved 1

in a nuclear program establish and maintain an employee concerns program and report to the NRC's Office of Investigation all employee-identified concerns related to " wrongdoing

~

activities." Based on the petitioner's experience with employee concerns. programs, the petitioner contends that more than half of employee-identified concerns are substantiated and that adding these requirements to the NRC's regulations may ensure resolution of the issues related to these concerns.

Objective. To require that all utilities involved in a nuclear program (1) establish and maintain an employee concerns program and (2) report to the NRC's Office of Investigation all employee-identified concerns related to " wrongdoing activities."

Background. The petitioner conducted or participated in employee concerns programs at several utilities and thinks that such a program is an effective vehicle for obtaining accurate and insightful information about nuclear safety-related issues from employees involved in the construction'or operation of a nuclear facility. The comment period closed March-13, 1987.

TIMETABLE: Staff action on the petition will be scheduled after the comment period closes.

CONTACT:

Stanley Turel Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7750 l [

3 i

i i

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 (50FR18267) n December 19, 1985'(50 FR 61701) l

SUBJECT:

Implementation of Certain Environmental Standards Which Have Been Proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency J

i

SUMMARY

Description.

The original petition (PRM-60-2) asked the Commission to revise 10 CFR Part 60 by adopting certain " assurance requirements" previously included in proposed standards published by the Environmental ProtectionAgency(EPA). The NRC had objected to EPA's " assurance requirements" as being outside the 1

scope of EPA's environmental standard-setting-j authority. Since the NRC's objection to these 1

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-q 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)oftheNuclearWastePolicyAct.-

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 30, 1985, and public comments were received until July 1, 1985. The anended petition'(PRM-60-2A) was docketed by the Commission on October 3, 1986. On June 19, 1986, the NRC published proposed revisions to 10 CFR Part 60 intended to conform Part 60:to the final EPA HLW standards. The comment period ended August 18, 1986.

- 4

-1 4

)

4 TIMETABLE: The staff plans to finalize-its conforming revisions i

to Part 60_hy September 1987.

These revisions will-respond to the portions of this petition which request adoption of-EPA's " assurance requirements." The staff-j will separately address adoption of the Department' of 4

Energy's Environmental. Impact Stattnent in conforming amendments to 10 CFR Part 51. ' A response to the petition will be prepared following completion of these i

two rulemakings.

CONTACT: Regis Boyle Office of. Nuclear Material Safetu nd e,,

, us 301-427-4799

(

l i 2

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-73-6 PETITIONER: Wisconsin Electric Power Company, et al.

PART: 73 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:

None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION:

February 16,'1982(47'FR6659)

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 perind closed Apr11 19. 1982.

Nine comments on.the petition were received and are being evaluated.

TIMETABLE:

Commission. action on.this petition is scheduled for June.1987..

CONTACT: Sandra Frattali Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-427-4368

-99.

)

)

l 1

(D) - Petitions with deferred action i

4 V

i c

i I

e s

____---_..-_ma.m_...

-g.

g%

4. -

..v%.

'w.

i

% u l

w J

g!

,~

\\

i

'S i

1 1

W 4A A %

g r4 k

l 1

?

l w

a y6-

-a A

b \\

.w.

.o v

h.

J. y,

. c., 'I.

'S

.+

4 n.

A.

1 PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:

PRM-20-14 PETITIONER: -The University of Utah PART: 20 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:

None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: January 30, 1984 (49 FR 3667)

SUBJECT:

Disposal of Very Low Concentrations of Short-Lived Radionuclides

~

SUMMARY

. Description. The petitioner proposed an amendment of.6 20.306 and.the addition of a'new 6 20.307, to alleviate a number of problems-that many licensees are experiencing under current regulations with the disposal of. experimental animal. waste material' and -

certain radionuclide components. The petitioner states that the changes would substantially reduce.nonradiological risks related to.the-collection, storage packaging,~and shipping of certain biological and chemical wastes without compromising or reducing-radiation protection.

Objective. 'To obtain additjonal options for the disposal 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 received, including one from the petitioner that revised the initial petition and offered a second version that was based on, the. petitioner's analysis of the comment letters.

Most of the coment letters favored the petition... Approxi-

-mately one-fourth of the comment letters contained data that were solicited when the notice of receipt of the' petition was published. These data will:be used to help.

evaluate the merit of.the petition. The staff iscin:the process of analyzing the data, the petition, the. revised.

petition, and other comment letters and has requested ;

guidancef on appropriate methodology from the' Environmental Protection Agency. The Comission 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 toi complete -

action on this petition.'

'~

TIMETABLE: Resolution of this petition-is-scheduled to be published

-August 1987.-

CONTACT: Catherine Mattson Office of Nuclear. Regulatory.Research

-301-443-7689

-.o

-101-

__._.._.m

h PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-20-15 PETITIONER:

Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and Utility Nuclear Waste ManagementGroup(UNWMG)

PART: 20 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:

NONE FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: September 19, 1984 (49 FR 36653)

SUBJECT:

New Methods of Disposal of Waste 011 Contaminated by Low-Level Radioactive Material from Nuclear Power Plants

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request that the Comission 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 1

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.

Objective. To develop a "below regulatory concerns" value of 1 mrem /yr for disposal of. waste oil generated inl 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: Catherine Mattsen Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7689

-102-

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-40-23 PETITIONER: Sierra Club PART: 40 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION:

February 25,'1981'(46FR14021)~;

May 2, 1983 (48 FR 19722)

SUBJECT:

LicensingthePossession1ofUraniumMillTailingsat; Inactive Storage Sites.

SUMARY: Description. The^ petitioner requssts 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 healthiand 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 pos' session of byproduct material-on any other property in the~ vicinity of an inactive mill tailings site if!the byproduct materialsare derived from-the sites; or,--in the alternative, '(3) conduct. a rulemaking_

to determine whether a licensing exemptionfof 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~publicLhealth and. safety and-the environment. The petitioner also requests that the NRC.

take action to govern the management of byproduct material not subject to licensing under section 81 of the Atomic Energy Act.

Objective. To license the protection of uranium mill tailings at inactive storage sites or;take other regulatory action to protect the public health and safety and the environment from the radiological:and nonradiological

. hazards-associated with the tailings. The' petitioner-believes that this action is^necessary if NRC is to adequately-fulfill its statutory responsibilities under the' Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act.

-103-

?

a

+

.,1-r Background Thb 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 reculated under the. Uranium Mill Tailings ' Radiation Control Act of 1978 (Pub. L.95-604, 42 U.S.C.3 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 March 1988,:following publication of the revision to

. Appendix A to 10 CFR'Part 40, scheduled for' September 1987.

CONTACT: 1: Frank Swanberg.

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research-301-443-7815 j

j g

-104-

,0 i

i

i

. PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:

PRM-40-24 PETITIONER:- Union Carbide Corporation PART: 40

.0THER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: November 30,1982(47FR53889)-

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-dispcsal 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 orLwastes;to prevent the surface exhalation of radon, and the charge imposed'on'each:

mill operator to cover the cost of long-term' surveillance.

The petitioner supports'its suggested amendments with information it says was not available to the Connission at

~

the time the regulations were issued.

Objective. To significantly reduce the. compliance costs incurred by the petitioner in the operation of its uranium milling facilities while-continuing to adequately ~ protect' public health, safety, and the environment.-

Background.. The comment period that originally closed

January 31, 1983, was extended"until.May.2,--1983. The--

petitioner is a New York-based corporation engaged in uranium exploration, milling, 'and mining. ;The regulations the petitioner seeks to amend were' issued?as part-of.NRC's.

regulations implementing the Uranium Mill' Tailings Radiation. Control Act~of 1978-(Pub'. L.95-604, 42 U.S.C.

7901. et. seq.~ ). These regulations were published in the Federal Register on October 3,:1980l(45FR65531).

TIMETABLE: Resolution of. this petition is' scheduled for March

'1988, following publication of the revision to i Appendix A:to 10 CFR Part 40, scheduled for April-1987.

CONTACT:: Frank:Swanberg

- Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research-.

301-443-7815

-105-F l

_-----_----------.___..____L,_.

n._

(

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER PRM-50-20 PETITIONER:

Free Environment, Inc., et al.

1 PART: 50 0THER AFFECTED PARTS:

100 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: May-19,1977.(42'FR:25785)

SUBJECT:

Reactor. Safety Measures,

SUMMARY

Descri stion..

The petition requested that.the Commission amend ' art.50 before proceeding with the processing oft j

license applications for..the Central' Iowa Nuclear Projebt

.to require that-(1) all nuclear reactors:be located below?

d ground level;. (2) all-nuclear.- reactors be. housed in sealed' 1

buildings within which permanent heavy. vacuums are maintained; (3).a full-time Federal employee, with full 1

authority to order the: plant to be shut;down in case' of -

]

any operational abnormality, always be present in all-nuclear. generating stations;.and-(4) the Central Iowa-Nuclear. Project. and all other. reactors be. sited.at least -

40 miles,from. major population; centers.

3 Objective.. To ensure that.additiona1{ safety measures-are employed in the construction. and. siting of.

nuclear power plants. ~ The petitioner seeks to have J

recommendations and procedures practiced or:

encouraged ~ by various organizations'and.some current.

NRC guidelines. adopted as: mandatory requirements in the l

Commission's regulations.-

Background..The comment period-closed July 18,.1977..

Three coments were. received. The first three parts.of -

thepetition(seeDescriptionsectionabove)were incorporated with PRM-50-19 for> staff action purposes.1 A notice of denial for the third part'of the petition was p(43 FR 4466).ublished in the Federal Register on February 2,1978 A notice of denial.'for.the first two parts of the petition was published April 19, 1978 (43 FR 16556

~NRC staff. work on the fourth part of the petition will be carried out in connection with.the ongoing.Part 100 :

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.<

).

-106 '

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'sL Executive Director for Operations to conclude that this rulemaking should be terminated.

When the Commission' 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.

1 TIMETABLE: Resolution scheduled for completion in August 1987.

CONTACT: John Stewart l

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 1

301-443-7980 4

l j

i i

\\

a

-107-a

PETITION DOCKET-NUMBER:

PRM-51-1 PETITIONER: New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution PART: 51-OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:

None I

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: -January 16,1976(41FR2448):

SUBJECT:

Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fue1~ Cycle

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Comission initiate a rulemaking to amend its sumary of environmental considerations in the uranium fuel cycle presented in-Table S-3 of-Part 51.. The petitioner declaresL that '(1) the current Table S-3 seriously underestimates the impact on 4

human health and safety by disregarding the long-term-effects of certain radionuclides, particularly thorium-230 which decays into radon. gas; (2) the health effects of

. krypton-85 and tritium releases from fuel reprocessing 1

plantsareunderestimated;(3)~releasesofcarbon-14from

')

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 I

this petition, and that human deaths from man-rem exposures

. provide a more. comprehensible consequence of fuel. cycle activities; and (5) the magnitude of_the potential: death toll from mill tailings alone alters.provious 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 Comission.

l Objective. The petitioner proposes. action to amend Table-S-3 in ways that they claim will more accurately reflect 4

the impact of the long-term effects of certain long-lived i l

radionuclides on human hoalth and safety.

The petitioner i

also proposes to suspend.all. activities related to nuclear power plant construction and operation until the Comission reassesses the health and safety effects of mine tailings.

Background. The Comission acted on all items tof the petition on A)ril 14, 1978 (46 FR 15613) except for a..

- future rulema cing 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

-108-

m i

i to litigation in individual licensing proceedings.

Litigation on the radon environmental impacts in cases pending before the Comission's Atomic Safety and Licensing i

Appeal Board was heard in a combined hearing in February 1980. The Appeal Board's initial decision (ALAB-640 May 13,1981) upheld the staff's estimates of radon releases from the nuclear fuel cycle, and the final decision (ALAB-701, November 19,1982) affirmed the staff's conclusion that radon releases would not cause significant health effects. This decision was appealed to the Comissioners for review, and the Commissioners deferred their review until the new EPA standards for radon have been analyzed j

and the NRC's milling regulations revised as necessary to

]

conform to them, j

i Rulemaking to add the new value for radon-222 in Table S-3 j

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 I

published revised uranium milling regulations conforming to the new EPA standards. However, the matter is not yet i

completely settled, because EPA received, in August 1985, 1

a. court order requiring them to establish radon standards for active uranium mills. These standards were issued on

{

1 September 24, 1986.

The Commission 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 NRC 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 Pearson Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7682

-109-

1

- i 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(41FR27141)

SUBJECT:

' Population Density Criteria Near Nuclear Power Plants

SUMMARY

Description.

The petitioners request that the Comission 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 from. building nuclear l

reactors too close to metropolitan areas.

Background. The coment 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 Chernoby1' in the USSR, continued uncertainty.over certain aspects of the accident _ source term work, and the' lack.of-projected Construction Permit Applications have. led the Comission's '

Executive Director fer 0perations to conclude that this rulemaking should be terminated.. hen the-Comission W

4

-110-

')

[.

'l 1

1 decides that further rulemaking on demographic critoria.

should be undertaken, the_ unresolved portions of the j

petition will be considered'in the context of that l

rulemaking.-

TIMETABLE: Resolution scheduled for completion in August 1987.

'l CONTACT: John Stewart Office of Nuclear-Regulatory Research 301-443-7980 a

1 1

1 8

i i

1

.i 1'I i

-l 4

1

'l i

i

-l

-111-l

-l

pores 335 u s. O'UCLEA2; 5 s tut & TOR V COMMeessom t #,teo?T Numet,s (AmqnsW errtOC. sew Fat he,if asyl "A*"#

BIBUOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET i

NUREG[6,Vol.6,No.I ne N.TzuCT,0N. ON T.. Rev R3.

2. TITLt AND SuSTITLE 3 (gAvg gL

~

NRC Regulatory Agenda Quarterly Report January - March 1987 I

• o^'* "oa ' co""'o l

T f

MONT.

v e AR.

j JApri1 1987

.. AuvNow, g-

6. DAT E REPORT IStutD j

MONTH

-v8AM q

j

- June

~1987 1

L PlaFORMING ORGAN 12ATION NAME AND ILING ADoRESS (inclusele Casiri 8 PROJECT /T ASKiWORK UNIT NUMSER Division of Rules and ecords Office of Administrati and-Resources Management "o"^"'*"""

U.S. Nuclear Regulator Commission Washington,.D.C. 20555

10. 8PON50 RING ORGANi2ATION NAME AND MAILING DRES$ (inglasve lip cases its T YPE OF REPORT Quarterly Same as 7 aboye q

- January-March 1987L j

q h

12 suPPLeMENTARv Notes i

1

,a A.n, AcT,=

The NRC Regulatory Agenda is a com 'lat' n of all rules on which the'NRC has

-proposed _or.is considering action a petitions.for rulemaking which.hhve, l

been received by.the' Commission and pending disposition by the Commission.

The regulatory agenda is updated and sued each quarter.

1 J

t i

is pocuMENT Analyses -. alvwORosionscRiPTORs is Av A iutv 1

compilation of rules.

Unlimited:

petitions for rulemaking 16 dELu ITVCLASSIFICATION I

IThe sepel

. o NTi..Ruo, N..Noso T RMs '

Unclassified a

<r,,,,.R.,,,-

Unclassified

17. NuM$tR Of PAGES

([

14 PRICE

.ia

eu, s.covtahRcht pathithe orrict,1987-1s1 6st

63135 -

l 4

.....s y

UNITED STATES SPECIAL FOURTH CLASS RATE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION POSTAGE fr FEES PAID l

,g[",o g WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 i

Section 1 - Rules g,y,try,TniniyT,$,,,300

gulB, Ys "s 0)$* @'sk an-PU 20s55 os oS, P D'

e S

Action Completed Rules 0

1 og Proposed Rules Advance Notice - Proposed Rulemaking i

Unpublished Rules 4

i i

Section 11 - Petitluns for Rulemaking Petitions - Final or Denied Petitions - Incorporated into Proposed Rules l

C Petitions - Pending i

D Petitions - Deferred Action