ML20235U738
| ML20235U738 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/01/1989 |
| From: | Dipalo A NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8903090352 | |
| Download: ML20235U738 (60) | |
Text
- "o, o DCD
- ~%, UNITED STATES
[*' g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PI ~ I37 g ;j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\..**/
March 1, 1989 MEMORANDUM FOR: Public Document Room l FROM: Anthony J. DiPalo, Leader Regulatory Analysis Section Regulation Development Branch Division of Regulatory Applications, RES
SUBJECT:
STATUS OF RES RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES--MARCH 1989 Attached is the monthly report on the status of rulen.akings underway in the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. The information contained in this report is current as of February 27, 1989.
- h. f c Anthony J. DiPelo, Leader Regulatory Analysis Section Regulation Development Branch Division of Regulatory Applications, RES
Attachment:
As stated cc: Document Control System, R-2914.03 Off 8903090352 890301 RES SUBJ PDR 2914.03
Page No. 1 PDR REPORT 02/27/09 DNSDINS RES RULEMAKING ACTIVillES PAGE RDB CFR NO. a. Title of Rulesaking Citation Division / Branch Contact Phone No.
1 141. Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants 10 CFR 50 DE/EMEB Millaan,6. 49-23B48 (1986/1987/1989 Addenda) 3 129. Asendsent of the Pressurized Thersal Shock Rule 10 CFR 50 DE/MEB Randall,P. 49-23842 5 68. Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for 10 CFR 50 DE/SSEB Arndt, B. 49-28314 Water-Cooled Power Reactors (Appendix J) 7 136. Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants 10 CFR 50 DE/SSEB Norris,W. 49-23805 (ASME Code,Section XI, Division 1, Subsection IWE) 8 34. Disposal of Radicattive Wastes, Part 61 10 CFR 61 DE/WMB Prichard, C. 49-23884 Asendaents 11 79. Elimination of Inconsistencies Between NRC 10 CFR 60 DE/WMB Prithard,C. 49-23884 Regulations and EPA Standards 13 :00. Criteria for Licensing the Custody and 10 CFR 40 DE/WMB Haisfield, M. 49-23877 Long-Ters Care of Uranius Mill Tailings Sites 15 103. Safety Related and laportant to Safety in 10 10 CFR 50 DRA/ARS!B Wilson,J. 49-23729 CFR Part 50 17 133. Ensuring the Effectiveness of Maintenance 10 CFR 50 DRA/ARSIB Dey,tt. 49-23730 Programs for Nuclear Power Plants 19 77. Personnel Access Authorization Progras 10 CFR 50, DRA/RDB Frattals,S. 49-23773 73 21 95. Basic Cuality Assurante Progras for Medical Use 10 CFR 35 DRA/RDB ise,A. 49-23797 of Byproduct Material 23 98. Transportation Regulations: Compatibility with 10 CFR 71 DRA/RDB Hopkins,D. 49-23784 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) i 25 102. Disposal of Waste oil by Incineration fros 10 CFR 20 DRA/RDB Mattsen,C. 49-23638 Nuclear Power Plants 27 104. Education and Experiente Requirements for 10 CFR 50, DRA/RDB Fleishsan,M. 49-23794 Senior Reactor Operators and Supervisors at 55 Nuclear Power Plants I
29 105. Reasserting NRC's Sole Authority for Approving 10 CFR 150 DRA/RDB Stewart,J. 49-23619 Onsite LLW Disposal in Agreesent States 1
i i
)
Page he. 2 PDR REPORT 02/27/09 DNB0!NS RES RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES PAGE RcB CFR N0. t Title of Rulesaking Citation Division / Branch Contatt Phone No.
.. ... ...._ - - - - -_ -_. =
31 309. Asendment of 50.62(t)(4) to Clarify Equivalent 10 CFR 50 DRA/RDB Pearson,W. 49-23764 Control Capacity for Standby Liquid Control Systess (SLCS) 33 112. Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC ApproYed 10 CFR 72, DRA/RDB Pearson, W. 49-23764 Casks at Civilian Nuclear Power Reactor Sites 73, 74,170 35 116. Amendment to 10 CFR 51.51 and 51.52, Tables S-3 10 CFR 51 DRA/RDB Turel,S. 49-23739 and S-4, Addition of Raden-222 and Technetium-99 Radiation Valces, and Addition of Appendix B 37 119. Twenty-Four Hour Notification of incidents 10 CFR 20 DRA/RDB Mate,J. 49-23795 39 125. Night Firing Qualifications for Security Suards 10 CFR 73 DRA/RDB Frattali,S. 49-23773 at Nuclear Power Plants 41 135. Minor Asendments to Physical Protection 10 CFR 70, DRA/RDB Dolins,S. 49-23745 Requirements 72, 73, 75 43 162. Comprehensive Quality Assurance in Medical !!se 10 CFR 35 DRA/RDB ise, A. 49-23797 and a Standard of Care 44 182. Access to Safeguards Information 10 CFR 73 DRA/RDB Au, M. 49-23749 45 186. Palladius-103 for Interstitial Treatment of 10 CFR 35 DRA/RDB Tse, A. 49-23797 Cancer 46 33. Standards for Protection Against Radietion 10 CFR 20 DRA/RPHEB Peterson,H. 49-23640 l
48 51. Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear 10 CFR 140 DRA/RPHEB Peterson, H. 49-23640 Dtturrence l
50 53. Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic 10 CFR 34 DRA/RPHEB Nellis, D. 49-23628 Equipment 52 128. Licensing and Radiation Safety Requirements for 10 CFR 36 DRA/RPHEB McGuire,S. 49-23757 Large Irradiators 54 148. Nuclear Plant License Renewal 10 CFR 50 DSIR/RPSlb Cleary, D. 49-23936 l l
I 56 24. Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other 10 CFR 30, DSIR/SA!B Jargothian,M. 49-23918 Radioactive Materials Licensees 40, 70 Note: Rulemaking RDB No. 90, Criteria and Procedures for Emergency Access to Non-Federal and Regional Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities, was published in the Federal ,
Register on February 3,1989 (54 FR 5409). l
i RDB NUMBER:' -141 LATEST UPDATE- 02/22/89 TITLE:
Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (ASME Code,'
1986/1987/1988 Addenda)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR'50 i LEGAL AUTHORITY:
'42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON' SMALL' BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Gilbert C. Millman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555-301 492-3848 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would incorporate by reference the 1986 Addenda, the 1987 Addenda, and the 1988 Addenda to-the 1986' Edition of Section III, Divi si on 1, and Section XI, Division 1 of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code). In addition, an editorial revision is proposed that would separate the requirements for inservice testing from those for inservice inspection by placing the requirements for inservice testing in a separate paragraph. The ASME Code provides rules f or the construction of light-water-reactor nuclear power plant components in Section III, Di vi si on 1, and provides rules for the inservice inspection a'nd inservice testing of those components in Section XI, Di vi si on 1.
The proposed rule would update the existing ref erence to the ASME Code and would thereby permit the use of improved I methods for the construction, inservice inspection, and inservice testing of nuclear power plant components.
Incorporating by. reference the latest addenda of the ASME Code would save applicants / licensees and the NRC staff both time and ef f ort by providing unif orm detailed criteria j against which the staff could review any single submission.
l This action will be handled as a routine updating of $50.55a of the NRC regulations. There is no reasonable alternative to rulemaking action. The proposed amendment will be issued for public comment. The task to develop and publish the proposed amendment is scheduled for a period of 7.5 monthr with an estimated staff effort of 400 p-hrs. This is a priority A rulemaking.
1 i 1 l'
\ . .
l l
l CURRENT STATUS:
This rulemaking.was approved-for initiation by the EDO on July 25, 1988. Staff completed the proposed amendment for-the incorporation by reference of the 1986 Addenda and.1987 E Addenda'and the supporting regulatory analysis 1and sent them for Division review, which was completed November 7, 1988.
A memorandum has been received from NRR requesting inclusion of the 1988 Addenda in the. proposed amendment. The proposed amendment and supporting regulatory analysis will be modifiec
! to accommodate this request.
! TIMETABLE:
1 COMPLETED ACTIONS:
.Rulemaking Initiation.Date (EDO Approval) 07/25/88 Proposed' Action to Divisions f or Review 09/27/88 L Division Review of Proposed Action Completed 11/07/88 I
. SCHEDULED ACTIONS:-
Modified Proposed Action to Divisions f or . Review (04/18/89)
Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed-02/10/89 (07/17/89)
Pr oposed Action to ACRS/CRGR--To Be Determined Proposed Action to EDO 04/14/89 (09/19/89)
Proposed Action to Commissi on--Not Applicable Proposed Action Published 05/14/89 (10/20/89)
Final Action Published 12/22/89 (06/20/90)
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates-included in parentheses, if any, represent 1
task leader estimates.
l l
l 2
1 L^ -
L RDB NUMBER: :129 LATEST UPDATE: 02/22/89
-TITLE:
Amendment of the Pressurized Thermal,Sh'ock Rule CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Pryor N. Randall Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3842 ABSTRACT: ,
The Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) Rule, published July 23, 1985, established a screening criterion, a limit on.the degree of. radiation embrittlement of PWR reactor vessel beltline materials beyond which operation cannot continue without additional plant-specific analysis. The rule prescribes how to calculate the degree of embrittlement as a function of the copper and nickel contents of the controlling material and the neutron fluence. The proposed amendment revises the calculative procedure to be consistent with that given in Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.99. The guide provides an updated correlation of embrittlement data, which received CRGR approval for publication in final form on December 9, 1987.
The.need to amend the PTS rule to be consistent with the guide became apparent when it was found that for some medium-copper, high-nickel materials embrittlement is worse than now predicted using the PTS rule. A number of PWRs will reach the screening criterion sooner than previously thought, and three plants will need to make plant-spec'ific analyses in the next 10 years. Therefore, a high priority is being given to this effort.
An unacceptable alternative to this amendment f rom the saf ety standpoint is to leave the present PTS rule in place. The staf f 's plant-by plant analyses f ound f our plants whose reference temperatures are 52 to 68 F higher than previously thought, based on the present rule. This is beyond the uncertainties that were felt to exist when the present rule l was published. Another unacceptable alternative that has ]
been evaluated is to change the calculative procedure for the j reference temperature and also change the screening criterion. Failure pr obabilities f or the most critical 4 accident scenarios in three plants, when recalculated using I the new embrittlement estimates, were somewhat lower, but were quite dependent on the pl ant configuration and the 3
l' n
L scenario chosen.
~
Furthermore,.the screening criterion was based.on a vari ety . of considerations besides the probabilistic analysis. Reopening the question of where to
. set the screening criterion was not considered productive-because of plant-to-plant differences. It is better to have a conservative " trip wire" that triggers plant-specific analyses.
Immediate costs to industry will be those required for each utility to update the January 23, 1986, submittal required by the PTS rule, using. fluence estimates that take account of flux reduction efforts'in the interim and using the.new procedure for. calculating RTPTS. n a n, ree to five plants.will need to make the expenditure of an estimated 2.5
.million dollars for the plant-specific analysis in.the 1990's instead of.1CLto 15. years later.
CURRENT STATUS:
The proposed action was in concurrence for CRGR consideration in February 1989.- At a meeting on February 2, 1989, between OGC, NRR and RES representatives, it was decided that backfit requirements can be bypassed through new exemptions to 10 CFR 50.109, regarding " adequate safety." The package was revised to include the various comments'and placed back into concurrence on February 21.
TIMETADLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 02/17/88 Proposed Action for Division Review 06/02/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to ACRS--To Be Determined Proposed Action to CRGR 01/30/89 (03/31/89)
Proposed Action to EDO 03/31/89 (05/30/89)
Proposed Action to Commission--To Be Determined
' Proposed Action Published 05/15/89 (06/30/89)
Final Action for Division Review 11/15/89 Final Action to ACRS--To Be Determined Final Action to CRGR O2/15/90 Final Action to EDD 04/15/90 Final Action to Commission--To Be Determined l Final Action Published 06/15/90 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDC-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
4
p.
t 2 4 1
' RDB NUMBER: 68 LATEST UPDATE: 02/22/89 L l TITLE:
-Primary, Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50, Appendix J LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 5841' EFFECTS ON SMALL' BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
'E. Gunter Arndt Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3945 ADSTRACT:
The proposed rule would update and revise the 1973 criteria for preoperational and periodic pressure testing for leakage of primary containment boundaries of water-cooled power reactors.- Problems have developed in application and interpretation of the existing rule. There result from changes in. testing' technology, test criteria, and a relevant national' standard that needs to be recognized. It is proposed to revise the rule as noted to make it current and improve its usefulness.
The revision is urgently needed to resolve continuing conflicts between licensees and NRC inspectors over interpretations, current regulatory practice which is no longer being reflected accurately by the existing rule, and endorsement . in the existing regulation of an obsolete national standard that was replaced in 1981.
The benefits anticipated include elimination of inconsistencies and obsolete requirements, and the addition of greater usefulness and a higher confidence in the leak-tight integrity of containment system boundaries under post-loss of cool ant accident conditions. The majority of the effort needed by NRC to issue the rule has already been expended.
A detailed analysis of costs, benefits, and occupational 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 1 percent per year per plant due to increased testing.
l 5
'5 'l l
. CURRENT STATUS:
The extended public comment period Por the proposed rule closed on April 24, 1987. Fifty-two letters were received
, c. ,'
and are being evaluated. EDO concurrence is being sought f or sthe continuation of'this rulemaking based on a qualitative safety analysis of the rule'rather than the usual cost benefit analysis ~ prescribed by the Backfit Rule.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date 02/21/86-Proposed Action to EDO 03/31/86 Proposed Action-Published 10/29/86 51 FR 39538 Proposed Action Comment Period End 01/26/87 Proposed Action Comment Period ~ Extended to O' 24/87 52 FR 2416 SCHEDULEL ACTIONS: '
Final Action f or Division Review Undetermined Final Action to Offices for Concurrence Undetermined Final Action to CRGR/ACRS Undetermined -
Final Action to'EDO Undetermined l Final Action to Commission Undetermined 1 Final Action Published ' Undetermined NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved-due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
l I
1 1
1 J
6 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______.____j
3 RDB NUMBER: 136 LATEST UPDATE: 02/22/89 TITLE:
Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (ASME Code,
-Section'XI, Division'1, Subsection IWE) l CFR CITATION:
~
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201;.42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENDA CONTACT:.
.Wallace E. Norris Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of-Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3805 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would incorporate by reference Subsection.
IWE, " Requirements for Class MC Components of Light-Water
^ Cooled Power Plants," of Section XI (Division 1) of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code). Subsection IWE provides the rules and requirements for inservice inspection, repair, and replacement of Class MC pressure retaining components and their integral attachments, and of metallic shell and penetration liners of Class CC pressure retaining components and their integral attachments in light-water cooled power plants.
Incorporating by reference Subsection IWE will provide systematic examination rules for containment structure for-meeting Criterion 53 of the General Design Criteria (Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50) and Appendix J of 10 CFR Part 50. f.ge-rela ted degradati on of containments has occurred, and additional and potentially more serious degradation mechanisms can be anticipated as nuclear power plants age.
If the NRC did not take action to endorse the Subsection IWE rul es , the NRC position on examination practices for containment structures would have to be established on a case-by-case basis and improved examination practices for steel containment structures might not be implemented. The other alternatives of incorporating these detailed examination requirements into the American National Standard ANSI /ANS 56.8-1981 or into Appendix J are not feasible.
7
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ __)
Incorporating by reference the latest edition and addenda of Subsection IWE'will save applicants / licensees and the NRC staf f both time and ef f ort by providing unif orm detailed ,
' criteria against which the staff can review any single- {
_ submission. . Adoption of the proposed amendment would permit
.the use of improved methods f or containment . inservice inspection.
CURRENT STATUS:
This rulemaking was approved for initiation by the EDO on June 9, 1988. Division review was completed July 1, 1988, and office concurrences completed November 14,.1988.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approva)) 06/09/88 Proposed Action for Division Review 07/01/88 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 11/14/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to CRGR (03/16/89)
Proposed Action to ACRS--Not Applicable Proposed Action to EDO 03/15/89 (04/14/89) J Proposed Action.to Commission--Not Applicable Proposed Action Published 04/15/89-(05/15/89)
Final Action Published 04/15/90 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent tesk leader estimates.
i l
I i
l I e f
RDB NUMBER: 34 LATEST UPDATE: 02/22/89 TITLE:
Disposal of Radi oactive Wastes; Part 61 Amendments CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 61 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No l
AGENCY CONTACT:
l Clark Prichard l
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3884 ABSTRACT:
The Commission instructed the staff to analyze the need to revise the definition of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) in Part 60 to conform with the definition in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). An ANPR was published on February 27, 1987 (52 FR 5992), which recommended a revision based either wholl y or partially on concentrations of radionuclides in the waste. After assessing the public comments on the ANPR, and also taking into account recent information, the staff is ncw recommending against any revision of the definition of HLW. Instead, amendments to Part 61 are being recommended that would require geologic repository disposal of all above Class C low-level radioactive waste (LLW) unless an alternative has been approved by the Commission. This would accomplish the objective of establishing suitable disposal requirements for radioactive waste with a minimal impact on cost burdens.
Alternatives are: (1) revise the definition of HLW so that addi t i onal above Class C LLW is reclassified as HLW; or (2) proceed to develop a waste classification system like that outlined in the ANPR.
The public and industry would benefit from this clarification of waste disposal options for above Class C LLW. NRC staff time for preparing this rulemaking is estimated at 2 staff-years.
CURRENT STATUS:
The proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on May 18, 1988 (53 FR 17709). The public comment period ended July 18, 1988. Thirty-five comments were r ecei ved, and evaluation of public comments has been completed. A draft Feder al Register notice, Commission paper, and regulatory analysis are undergoing effice review and concurrence.
9
. , . .?>
- T.IMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
.Rulemaking' Initiation Datez (Ongoing)- 06/12/85
'ANPRM Action for Division Review 09/86 Office Concurrence on ANPRM Action Completed 10/86 ANPRM-Action to EDO.11/07/86
' ANPRM _ Action to Commission 02/19/87 ANPRM Action Published 02/27/87 ANPRM CommenttPeriod'End -04/29/87 ANPRM' Comment Period Extended to 06/29/87 52 FR 16403 Proposed Action to ACRS 10/87 Proposed Action to CRGR--Not Applicable Proposed Action f or Of fice Review 12/17/87 Prop 6 sed' Action to EDO O2/05/88 Proposed Action to Commissian 02/19/88 SECY-88-51 Proposed Action Published 05/18/88 53 FR 17709 Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 07/18/88 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 01/11/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final' Action to CRGR/ACRS 03/15/89
. Final Action to EDO 04/18/89 Final Action to . Commission 05/15/89 Final Action Published 06/15/89 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect milestones
~
developed by the staff _in response to a Commission directive.
i i
10
lRDBINUMBER: '79 LATEST UPDATES. '02/22/89L TITLE:
El i mi n at'i on of Inconsistencies Between NRC Regulations,and' j EPAJStandards CFR' CITATION:
10 CFR'60'
' LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON-SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Clark Pricherd Nuclear Regulatory Commi ssion Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington,'DC 20555 301.492-3884 ABSTRACT:-
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 directs NRC to promulgate criteria for the licensing of HLW geologic rep osi tori es. Section 121 ' ( c-) of this act states that these criteria must be' consistent with standards to be developed by EPA:for the disposal of HLW in deep-geologic repositories.
The proposed rule is needed in order to eliminate several
-inconsistencies with the EPA standards, thus fulfilling the statutory requirement.
Because the NWPA directs NRC to eliminate inconsistencies '
between Part 60 and the EPA standard, the alternatives to the proposed action are limited by statute.
The public,. industry, and NRC will benefit from eliminating inconsistencies in Federal HLW regulations. NRC resources needed would be several staff years but will not include contract resources.
CURRENT STATUS:
A Commission paper transmitting the final rule was forwarded to the EDO on July 20, 1987. The EDO did not sent it to the Commission f ollowing OGC review of the recent court decision striking down the EPA standard. OGC recommended that the rulemaking be held up pending EPA's development of a revised HLW standard (40 CFR 191). Current EPA plans are to publish a revised proposed standard in 1989. The staff is monitoring EPA progress and plans to publish a proposed rule soon after EPA'does.
11
i ' . ,
s , TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ^ ACTIONS:
~Rulemaking Initiation Date '08/07/85 -
Proposed-Action Published. 06/19/86 51 FR 22288 Proposed Action Comment Period End 08/18/86 Office-Concurrence on Final Action Completed 07/15/87 Final Action to EDO' 07/20/87 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
On Hold .
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if'any, represent i.- task leader estimates.
i l
1 1
l 12
^
L RDB NUMBER: . '100~ ; LATEST UPDATE: 02/22/89-TITLE:
Criteria f orL Licensirrg' the Custody and Long-Term Care of
. Uranium' Mill TailingsLSites-
'CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 40 LEGAL. AUTHORITY: 1 42 USC-5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Mark Haisfield Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3877 ABSTRACT:
lne' proposed rulemaking would amend Title.10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40 (Domestic Licensing of Source Material), to include.a procedure for licensing a custodian-for the post-closure,.long-term control of uranium mill tailings sites required by the Uranium Mill Tailings.
Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). This amendment-would establish'a general license for custody and long-term care of uranium mill tailings by the Department'of Energy, other-designated. Federal agency, or States when applicable. The general license would be formulated so that it would become effective for a particular site when (1) NRC concurs in the
. determination that the site has been properly reclaimed or closed 1and (2) a-Surveillance and Maintenance Plan'that meets the requirements of the general license has been received by l NRC. No significant' impact to the public or industry is J expected as a result of this proposed action.
CURRENT-STATUS:
An advance notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on August 25, 1988 (53 FR 32396). The comment period expired October 24, 1988. A detailed analysis of the comments was completed on January 13, 1989.
13
l a
., I E TIMETABLE:
n COMPLETED ACTIONS: ^
Rulemaking Initiatic'n Date 02/17/87 g' . Proposed Action for' Division and Office Review 11/09/87 Proposed Action to CRGR/ACRS--Not Applicable. g
~
Office Concurrence,on Proposed Action Completed 02/10/88 Proposed. Action to EDO O2/10/88 '
U . Revised Proposed Action to EDO 03/10/88 Propoced Action to Commission 03/17/88 SECY-88-83 Commission l Meeting 05/18/88 ANPRM' Published 08/25/88 53 FR 32396 L ANPRM Public. Comment Period End 10/24/88 Detailed' Analysis of Comments Completed 01/13/89 1 SCHEDULED ACTIONS: l Proposed-Action for Division and Office Review 03/17/89 Proposed Action.to EDO 04/14/89 Proposed Action to Commission 04/28/89 Proposed' Rule Published 06/30/89 Final Rule Published 03/30/90 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
I i
14
~
h)
O l
E o RDB NUMBER: 103. LATEST. UPDATE: 02/16/89 L T'ITLE:
~,
Saf ety Related and! Important to Saf ety in 10' CFR Part 50 -
P l
L CFR UITATION:
'10 CFR 50 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC:5841; 42-USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:-
Jerry N. Wilson Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301'492-3729 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to clarif y its regulations on the use of the terms "important to safety" and "saf ety 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 i n. ,
Commission licensing proceedings. This proposed rule would define these terms and clarify the nature and extent of their effect,on quality assurance requirements, thereby resolving these issues.
Rulemaking was chosen as the method of resolving this issue as a result of the Commission's directive to resolve the issue by rulemaking contained in the Shoreham licensing decision (CLI-84-9, 19 NRC 1323, June 5, 1984).
A position paper requesting approval of the staff proposed definitions and additional guidance from the Commission was ;
signed by the EDO on May 29, 1986. In addition to rulemaking, the position paper discusses the alternative of the Commission issuing a policy statement concernir the definitions and their usage.
Since the proposed rule is only clarif ying existing 1 requirements, there is no impact on the public or the industry as a result of this rulemaking. It is anticipated that the NRC will expend 3.2 to 4.4 staff years in developing the final rule over a 2 year period. The manpower and time frame will depend on Commission guidance received on the extent to which 10 CFR usage of the terms is to be consistent, i.e.,
10 CFR Part 50 only or all of 10 CFR. 15
.i, p'
'CURRENTLSTATUS:-
f'
'Y cA package suggesting an: approach to rulemaking was signed by the EDO and forwarded to the Commission on May 29,'1986-
'(SECY-86-164). - Staff is currently awaiting a Commission' decision; however, in light of higher priority issues, Chairman ' Zech has requested a delay in the vote on l- SECY-86-16'4.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulbmaking Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/05 Proposed Action--Suggested Approach (SECY-86-164) to Commi ssi on 05/29/86 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Commi ssi on Deci si on on SECY-86-164 Undetermined NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent' task leader estimates.
l 16
t ,
, - 1
,s" RDB NUMBER: 1331 . LATEST UPDATE: 02/23/89-TITLE:
Ensuring the Effectiveness of. Maintenance Programs for.
Nuclear Power Plants' CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42'USC 5841; 42'USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes
. AGENCY CONTACT:
Moni Dey Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3730 ABSTRACT:
On March 23, 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published a Final Policy Statement on Maintenance of Nuclear Power Pl ants - (53 FR 9430) . In the policy statement, the Commission stated that it expected to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the near future and has' directed the staff to develop such a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
As directed by the Commission, the staff will develop a general rule that specifies functional requirements for the maintenance of nuclear power plants and allows industry initiatives to develop the details of maintenance programs to meet such requirements. The scope of maintenance activities addressed in the rule will be within the framework of the Commission's Policy Statement on Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants. The rule will apply to all components, systems and structures of nuclear power plants and will be applicable to existing and future plants. The rule will also require each licensee to develop, implement and maintain a maintenance program, and to formally commit to follow the program. 1 Compliance with the rule will be determined by audit by NRC inspectors. A recommended position on whether the rule should include a requirement to report maintenance performance indicators to the NRC will be developed as a part of developing the rulemaking.
In support of the proposed rule, the staff will develop a regulatory guide that will summarize state-of-the-art methods and procedures for nuclear power plant maintenance and reliability assurance programs that the staff considers acceptabla ways to meet the f unctional requirements in the rule. This regulatory guide will provide the guidance to the industry regarding staff views on the content and functions of an acceptable maintenance program. The regulatory guide will also provide the results of a staff evaluation of the 17
\
1 acceptability of industry standards, initiatives and programs against the funct'lonal requirements proposed in the rule.
Ac directed by the Commission, the staff, in developing the rule, will consider' mainten0nce ' practices in other countri es (Jap an , France, and FRG),.and other industries (aviation and chemical) in this country in which human performance, maintenance and equipment reliability play an important role in the safety of operations. These considerations will be documented in a supporting NUREG report along with other factors considered important to document the development of the rule and regulatory guide.
It'is estimated that about 3 etaff-years of effort and $600K for contract services will be required to process the final rule..
CURRENT STATUS:
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on l November 28, 1988 (53 FR 47822). The public comment period L is scheduled to end February 27, 1989. The Commission has requested the final rule and draft regulatory guide by
-April 21, 1989.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rul ema ki ng Initiation Date (Commission Mandate) 02/25/88 Proposed Action to ACRS 08/26/88 Proposed Action for Division Review 08/26/88 Proposed Action to CRGR 09/02/88 Proposed Action to RES Director OS/29/88 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 09/06/08 Proposed Action to EDO 09/26/88 Proposed Action to Commission 09/30/88 SECY-88-277 Proposed Action Published 11/28/88 53 FR 47822 Proposed Action Public Comment Period Extended 12/29/88 53 FR 52716 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 02/27/89 Final Action for Division Review 03/14/89 Final Action to RES Director 03/15/89 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 03/17/89 l
Final Action to CRGR and ACRS 03/17/89 Final Action to EDO 04/14/89 Final Action to Commission 04/21/89 Final Action to Federal Register 06/15/89 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect Commi ssion directives. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent mask lender estimates.
i
- i RDB NUMDER: .77 ' LATEST UPDATE: 02/23/89
' TITLE:
Personnel Access. Authorization Program CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 73 LEGAL AUTHORITY:-
42 USC 2201; 42.USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Dr. Sandra Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington DC 20555 301 492-3773 ABSTRACT:
The Commission has concluded that it is appropriate for each licensee who operates a nuclear power plant to establish an access authorization program to ensure that individuals who require unescorted access to protected areas or vital areas- -
of their f acilities are trustworthy, reliable, emoti onal l y stable, and do not pose a threat to commit radiological sabotage. Accordingly, the NRC published a proposed rule'on August 1, 1984, which would require an access authorization program at nuclear power plants (49 FR 30726).
An alternative proposal by the Nuclear Utility Management and Resource Committee (NUMARC) was submitted as a public comment on this proposed rule. The alternative proposed a voluntary
-industry commitment to implement an access authorization program at nuclear power plants based upon industry guidelines.- Major provi sions of this program include background investigation, psychological evaluation, and behavioral observation.
On June 18, 1986, the Commission approved developing a policy statement endorsing industry guidelines as an alternative to the proposed rulemaking. Commitments to adhere to.these guidelines would be formalized through amendments to the physical security plans and be subject to inspection and enforcement by NRC.
On March 9, 1988, the NRC published a proposed policy statement endorsing the NUMARC guidelines. In the Federal Register notice, the Commission specifically requested public comments as to whether the access authorization program should be a rule or a policy statement.
CURRENT STATUS:
An Options Paper is being developed. NRR requested that RES prepare a Commission Options Paper to f acilitate a Commission decision on whether " access authorizati on" should be in the ,
19 L !
i
l form of a policy statement, a rule, or.a rule endorsing a regulatory guide. A brief analysis of the public-comments, particularly those on the issue of the form " access )
authorization" should take, is to be a part of that Options '
Paper.
l TIMETABLE:
COMFLETED ACTIONS: j Rulemaking Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/85 ;
Froposed Policy Statement / Guidelines'to CRGR 11/10/86 )
f Proposed Policy Statement Ef f ort Transf erred to RES from NMSS 06/05/87 Office Concurrence on-Proposed Policy Statement Completed 10/30/87 l Proposed Policy Statement / Guidelines to ACRS-- i I
Not Applicable ( ACRS reviewed the guidelines as part,of the~ Insider Rule Package 02/13/86)
Proposed Policy Statement / Guidelines to EDO 12/07/87 Proposed Policy Statement / Guidelines to Commission !
12/15/87 SECY-87-306 i Proposed Policy Statement Published )
03/09/88 53 FR.7534 l Proposed Policy Statement Public Comment Period End 05/09/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Options Paper to EDO O2/16/89 (03/31/89)
Final Policy Statement to EDD--To De Determined Final Policy Statement Published--To Be Determined NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved
-due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
20
-RDB" NUMBER: 95 LATEST UPDATE: 02/23/89 y
TITLE:
Basic'Ouality' Assurance Program for Medical Use of Byproduct Material CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 35 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC.2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Anthony Tse Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research ,
Washington, DC 20555
'301'492-3797 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations concerning the medical use of byproduct material.
The proposed amendments would require its medical licensees to implement a written basic quality assurance program that is designed to prevent, detect., and correct the cause of errors in the administration of byproduct material. The proposed action is necessary to provide f or improved patient safety. The proposed amendment, which is intended to reduce the. potential for and severity of therapy misadministration, would primarily affect hospitals, clinics, and i ndividual' physicians. Modification of reporting and recordheeping requirements for diagnostic and therapy events are also proposed in this rulemaking.
CURRENT STATUS:
A workshop on the draft proposed rule and guide was held January 30-31, 1989. The staff is currently analyzing and incorporating comments.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Proposed Rule on Basic DA (Prectr2ptive) Published 10/02/87 52 FR 36942 Options Paper to Commission 06/03/88 SECY-OS-156 SRM Issued Directing Re-Proposal nf Basic DA Rule 07/12/88 OA Subcommittee meeting held on 11/07/88 Proposed Actirn f or Draf t Rule and Guide Sent for Division Review 12/05/88 Workshop on Basic OA Rule and Draft Regulatory Guide 01/30-31/89 21
SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to Offices'for Concurrence 02/21/89 (03/06/99)
' Proposed-Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable-Proposed Action to EDO 04/07/89 Proposed Action to Coinmission 04/21/89 Proposed Action Sent to ARM for Publication 05/30/89 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect Commission-directed due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
l l
22
i RDB NUMBER: 98 LATEST UPDATE: 02/23/89 TITLE:
Transportation Regulations; Compatibility With the !
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (Priority 1)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 71 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5542 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Donald R. Hopkins Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3784 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would, in conjunction with a corresponding t 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 radi oacti ve materi a'. s between countries for medical, research, industrial, and nuclear fuel cycle purposes.
Consistency of transportation regulations throughout the world also contributes to safety by concentrating the efforts of the world's experts on a single set of safety standards and guidance (those of the IAEA) from which individual countries can develop their domestic regulations. Perhaps as important, the accident experience of every country that ases its domestic regulations on those of the IAEA can be applied by every other country with consistent regulations to improve its safety program. The action will be handled as a routine updating of NRC transportation regulations. There is no reasonable alternative to rulemaking action. These changes should result in a mi ni mal increase in costs to affected licenseen. Proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 71, based on current IAEA regulations, has been issued for public comments. The task will be scheduled over a 2 year interval ending June 1989 and will consume 2-3 staff years of effort depending on the number and difficulty of conflicts to be resolved.
23
- _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ 1
i.
s CURRENT STATUS:
The proposed rule was published for public comment on June 8, 1988 (53 FR 21550). In order to afford the public the opportunity.to review the NRC proposed rule at the same time as the DDT proposed rule which supplements it, NRC has extended its public comment period twice,.to March 6, 1989.
Based on the most recent DOT estimate that the DUT proposed rule will be ready for publication in late March 1989, a further extension of the NRC. comment period wi ll be necessary. Accordingly, this task is on hold until DOT publishes its proposed rule for comment.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED. ACTIONS:
L Rul emaki ng Ini tiation Date (EDO Approval) 01/09/87 l Proposed Action for Division Review 09/04/87 l Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 1
02/12/88 Proposed Action to ACRS--Not Applicable Proposed Action to CRGR 03/23/88 Proposed Action to EDO 05/11/88 Proposed Action to Commission--Not Applicable Proposed Action Published 06/08/88 53 FR 21550 Correction Published 06/22/88 53 FR 23484 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 03/06/89 (05/30/89)
Final Action to Divisions for Review Undetermined Final Action to Offices for Review Undetermined Final Action to ACRS--Not Applicable Final Action to CRGR Undetermined Final Action to EDO Undetermined Final Action to Commission--Not Applicable Final Action Published Undetermined NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
24
i
'RDB NUMBER: 102 LATEST UPDATE: 02/23/89 TITLE:
' Disposal of Waste Oil by Incinerati on . f rom Nuclear Power Plants (Priority 1)-
'CFR CITATION:
' LEGAL. AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201;-42 USC 2167; 42 USC 2073 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Catherine R. Mattsen Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3638 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule, which is being initiated in partial response to a petition filed _by Edison Electric Institute and-Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (PRM-20-15, dated July 31, 1984), would amend NRC regulations to allow onsite incineration of waste oil at nuclear power plants subject to specified conditions. Currently, the only generally approved disposal method for low-level, radioactively contaminated waste oil from nuclear power plants involves absorption or solidification, transportation tn, and burial at a licensed disposal site. There is a clear need to allow, for very low activity level wastes, the use of alternative disposal methods which are more cost effective from a radiological health and safety standpoint and which conserve the limited disposal capacity of low-level waste burial sites.
Increased savings to both the public and the industry could thereby be achieved without imposing additional risk to the public health and safety. There would be an estimated industry-wide economic savings of approximately $3 million to
$12 million per year if such a rule were promulgated.
Alternatives to th4.s rulemaking action are to maintain the status quo or to wait until the Environmental Protection Agency develops standards on acceptable level s of radio-activity which may be released to the environment on an unrestricted basis. It is estimated that approximately 1-2 person years of NRC ctaff time will be required to process this rule.
E CURRENT STATUS:
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on l
August 29, 1988 (53 FR 32914). The public comment period I. ended October 28, 1988. Twenty-five comment letters have been received; the analysis is underway.
25 l
s TIMETABLE:-
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 05/19/87 Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable Proposed Action to EDD- 06/21/88 Proposed Action to Commission 07/12/88 SECY-88-198 Proposed Action Published 08/29/88 53 FR 32914 Public Comment Period End 10/28/88
>- SCHEDULED-ACTIONS:
Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 01/27/89 (04/25/89)
Final Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable
' Final Action to EDO 02/10/89 (05/30/89)
Final Action ~to Commission 02/28/89 (06/13/89)
Final Action Published 03/31/89-(07/14/89)
' NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved-due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent
. task leader estimates.
26
- g. -..
1 I
!' RDB NUMBER:~ '104; LATEST UPDATE: 02/23/89 1
TITLE:
Education and Experience Requirements f or Senior Reactor Operators and-Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants CFR: CITATION:
10 CFR:50; 10 CFR 55 LEGAL ~ AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON'SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No i
AGENCY CONTACT:
Morton Fleishman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ;
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington,-DC 20555 301 492-3794 ABSTRACT:
i The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its-regulations regarding educational requirements for operating j personnel at nuclear power plants. The proposed amendments would require additional education and experience requirements for senior operators and supervisors. In promulgating the proposed amendments, the Commission has ;
identified two alternatives. -)
l Under the first alternative, the proposed amendment would ;
apply to senior operators. It would require that each j applicant for a senior operator license to operate a nuclear power reactor have a bachelor's degree in engineering, engineering technology, or the physical sciences from an accredited university or college. The proposed amendment would upgrade the operating, engineering, and accident i management expertise provided on shift by combining ~j engineering expertise and operating experience in the senior I operator position.
Under the second alternative, the proposed amendment would apply to persons who have supervisory responsibilities, such as shift supervisors or senior managers. It would require that they have enhanced educational credentials and experience over that which is normally required < r senior reactor operators. The proposed amendment woul. .pgrade the operating, engineering, and accident management expertise provided on shift by combining engineering expertise and operating experience in the shif t supervisory position.
The Commission believes that adoption of either of the al ternati ves , for senior operators or shift supervisors, would further ensure the protection of the health and safety of the public by enhancing the capability of the operating staff to respond to accidents and restore the reactor to a safe and stable condition. The Commission will also issue a 27
=_________-_____.__. . _ - . _ . i
l-3 g
!. policy' statement concurrently with this rule related to b utility implementation.of an accredited degree program for reactor operators.
CURRENT STATUS:
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on December 29, 1988 (53 FR 52716). The public comment period was scheduled to end February 27, 1989, but. bas been extended to March 29, 1989.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
ANPRM 05/31/86 51 FR 19561 ANPRM Comment Period Extended to 09/29/86 SECY Paper to Commission (SECY-87-101) 04/16/87 Rulemaking Initiation Date (Commission Approval) 06/24/87 Proposed Action for Division Review O2/12/88 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 04/08/88 Proposed Action to CRGR (Request for Need for Review) 05/02/88 ,
Proposed Action to ACRS 07/19/88 Proposed Action to CRGR for Review 06/20/88 CRGR Review Meeting 07/14/88 Proposed Action to EDO 08/29/88 Proposed Action to Commission 08/31/88 SECY-88-245 Proposed Actic?n Published 12/29/88 53 FR 52716 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 02/27/89 Proposed Action Public Comment Period Extended to 1 03/29/89 Final Action to ACRS/CRGR 04/14/89 (04/20/89)
Final Adtion for Division and Of fice Review 05/01/89 (04/20/89)
CRGR Briefing on Final Action 04/26/89 ACRS Briefing on Final Action 05/05/89 Final Action to EDO 05/15/89 Final Action to Commission 05/22/89 Final Action Published 07/19/89 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
d 1
28 4
7-- -
R
'RDB' NUMBER:' '105 LATEST-UPDATE: 02/23/89
. TITLE:
Reasserting NRC's Sole Authority for Approving Onsite LLW Disposal in Agreement States CFR CITATION:
.10 CFR.150 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
' 4 2: USC 2201; 42 USC 2021; 42 USC 5841 l
EFFECTS-ON.SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
l ' John Stewart l' -U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555' 301 492-3618 ABSTRACT:
This rulemaking would establish NRC as the sole authority -f or approving onsite disposal of' low-level waste at all NRC-licensed reactors and at Part 70 facilities. There is a need to amend 10 CFR Part 150.15 to authorize one agency (the NRC) to regulate all such onsite disposal of low-level waste in order to provide a more comprehensive regulatory ' review of all onsite waste management activities and to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. Uniform review by the NRC will provide for greater assurance that the radioactive material will not present a health hazard at a later date after the site is decommissioned.
I CURRENT STATUS:
The final rulemaking package was issued for office concurrence on February 15, 1989. Commente are due on March 8, 1989.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 05/19/87 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 03/31/88 Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable Proposed Action to EDO 06/08/88 Proposed Action to Comminsion 06/14/88 SECY-88-166 Proposed Action Published 08/22/88 53 FR 31880 Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 10/24/88 Analysis of Public Comments Completed 11/30/88 Fi nal Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable Final Action for Division Review--Not Applicable Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 02/15/89 i
L 29 Li__. .
l l
l ,'
l l
l SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Office and Agreement State Comments Due 03/08/89 Final Action to EDO 03/29/89 Final Action to Commi ssion 04/12/89 Final Action Published 06/30/89 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
l l
l 30
't
'RDB NUMBER: 109 -LATE 3T UPDATE: 02/23/89 TITLE Amendment of 50. 62 (c) (4 ) to Clarify Equivalent Control
. Capacity for: Standby Liquid Control. Systems (SLCS)
CFR CITATION:
-10 CFR 50
. LEGAL. AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2136, Section-106 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AG'NCY E CONTACT:
William R. Pearson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC'20555 301 492-3764 ABSTRACT:
Paragraph 50.62 (c) (4) states, in part, that all boiling water reactors must have a standby liquid control system (SLCS) with a minimum flow capacity ~and baron content equivalent in control capacity to 86 gallons per minute (gpm) . of 13. weight percent of sodium pentaborate solution. In January 1985 a generic letter was issued to all appropriate licensees that provided clarification of the phrase " equivalent in control
. capacity" contained in 50.62 (c) (4) . This letter provided the basis f or the flow and weigh percent of sodium pentaborate decahydrate requirements and described how equivalency could be achieved.for smaller plants. The NRC staff considers the contents of this letter to be technically correct and desires that this position be established in the regulations.
This rulemaking action will clarify a Commission regulation; thus, no other procedure is appropriate. The technical proposals in the rule were analyzed for safety as part of.the original rulemaking procedure, although they were not specifically mentioned. The health and safety of the public will not be adversely affected by this rulemaking action.
CURRENT STATUS:
'The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on October 24, 1988 (53 FR 41607). The public comment period
' ended December 23, 1988. One public comment was received and it-agreed with the rulemaking. A draft final rule, which would adopt the proposed rule without modification, was sent for office concurrence on February 15, 1989.
l l ..
31
[- _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ ___ _ - _ _ ___-- _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
e
' TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rul emaki ng Initiation Date--Not Applicable Proposed Action for Division Review 11/30/07 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 08/30/88 Proposed Action to'ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable-Proposed Action to EDD 10/12/88 ~
Proposed Action to Commission--Not Applicable Proposed Action Published 10/24/88 53 FR 41607 Proposed Action Public Comment Period.End 12/23/88 Final Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable Final ~ Action to Offices for Concurrence 02/15/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action to EDO 04/17/89 Final Action to Commission--Not Applicable Final Action Published 05/01/89 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
)
1 1
32
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ O
RDB NUMBER: 112 LATEST UPDATE: 02/23/89.
TITLE:
Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC Approved Casks at Civilian Nuclear Power Reactor Sites CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73;'10 CFR 74; 10.CFR 17.0 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42'USC 10153; 42 USC 10198 EFFECTS'ON'SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
William R. Pearson
. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
'301 492-3764 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule is in response to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) section 218 (a) which states, in part, that the Secretary of DOE shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing cnue or more technologies that the Commission may, by rule, approve for use at sites of civilian nuclear power reactors. The NWPA also requires that the NRC establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under section 218 (a) for use at the site of'any civilian nuclear power reactor.
The staff anticipates a significant increase in the demand for use of dry spent fuel storage casks starting in the early 1990s, thus processing of this proposed rule would be timely.
NRC resource requirements are anticipated to be about two staff years.
CURRENT GTATUS:
The proposed rulemaking was submitted to the EDO on February 14, 1989.
L TIMETABLE:
l COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 12/14/87 Proposed Action for Division Review 03/02/88 Proposed Action to ACNW 06/28/88 Pr oposed Action to Of fices f or Concurrence 07/26/88 Proposed Action to CRGR 11/09/88 and 12/14/88 Proposed Action to EDO O2/14/89 33
SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to Commission 02/28/89 Proposed Action Published 03/30/89 Final Action Published 02/28/90 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates. ,
34
4? o
- q RDB NUMBER: - 1' 16 = LATEST UPDATE: 02/27/89-
. TITLE:
- Amendment;to 10 CFR'Part 51, Sections 51.51 and 51.52, Table
- S-3,and Table'S-4, Addition.of-Radon-222 and Technetium-99 Radiation Values, and. Addition of Appendix B, " Table S-3 Explanatory f aalysis" f CFRLCITATION:
' L.EGAL ; AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2011;142 USC~2201;.42'USC 4321; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No O' AGENCY CONTACT:
Stanl ey: Turel Nuclear. Regulatory. Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington,JDCE20555 301 492-3739 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 proposed rule amends Section 51.52 to modify the enrichment value of U-235 and the maximum level of average ' f uel irradiation. The narrative explanation also addresses important fuel cycle impacts and the cumulative impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle for the whole nuclear power industry so that it may be possible to consider - these impacts generically rather than repeatedly in individual licensing proceedings, thus reducing litigation time and costs for both NRC;and applicants.
The proposed rule revisions of Section 51.51 and addition of Appendix B was published for public review and comment on March 4, 1981 (46 FR 15154). The final rulemaking was deferred pending the outcome of a nuit (Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. NRC, No. 74-1486) in the U.S.
Court of Appeals. The U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) decision of April 27, 1982, invalidated the entire Table S-3 rule, The Supreme Court reversed this decision on June 6, 1983.
The proposed rule to provide an explanatory analysis for Table S-3 has been revised to reflect new developments during the time the rulemaking was def erred. Final action on the Table S-3 rule was held in abeyance until new values for radon-222 and technetium-99 could be added to the table and 35
l covered in the narrativo explanation. The rule ci s being .
reissued as a proposed rule because the scope has.been expanded to include radiation values for raden-222 and j
. technetium-99 and the narrative explantion'has been . i extensively revised from that published.on: March 4,-1981 (46 FR 15154).
~
The staff's estimate is that the completion of a' final Table I S-3 rule covering the new values for radon-222 and. ;
i technetium-99, and the revised. explanatory analysis will be completed in WY 1989. A -Commi ssion Paper presenting the
. final rulemaking plan and schedule was submitted on ;
' August 18, 1986 (SECYL86-242). On September 8, 1986, !
SECY-86-242 was approved by the Commission. j i
CURRENT STATUS:
' Comments received _on draft rule from divisions within RES and j other offices have been reviewed and incorporated whenever possible into the rulemaking. The division review package is
-expected to reach D/RES for signature by June-30, 1989, following corrections in the health effects section-of the appendix.
TIMETABLE: )
COMPLETED ACTIONS: l Rulemaking Initiation Date (Two Rulemakings Integrated) !
07/30/87 i Proposed Action f or Division Review 05/27/88 ;
SCHEDULED ~ ACTIONS: l Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 02/28/89 (06/30/89) jl Proposed Action to ACRS/CR8R--Not Applicable Proposed Action to EDO 03/30/89 (07/31/89) l Proposed Action to Commission 04/28/89-(08/3C/89) l Proposed Action Published 05/31/89 (09/29/89) .i Final Action to Commission 01/26/90 (07/31/90) ;
Final Action Published 02/26/90 (08/30/90) )
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved !
due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent j task leader estimates. l i
i I
l: )
l I l
l l
I 36 I
p '
S RDB NUMBER: 119. LATEST UPDATE: 02/23/89 TITLE:
- Twenty-Four Hour Notification of Incidents CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 20 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No -
AGENCY CONTACT:
Joseph J. Mate Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3795 ABSTRACT:
This rulemaking would amend 10 CFR Part 20.403(a) and (b) to clarify the licensees * -reporting requirements. In addition, a new section in Parts 30, 40, and '70 will be developed.
While Sections 20.403(a)- and (b) are reasonably clear in terms of licensee; reporting requirements for events' involving
" exposures" and " releases" of radioactive materials, these sections are not clear concerning events involving " loss of l operation" and " damage to property." " Loss of operations" should be clarified in terms of loss of use of facilities, devices or equipment. " Damage to property" should be clarified to include contamination clean-up if the corrective action is equal to or greater than a certain cost. In addition, the rulemaking should also define "immediate" in actual time, e.g., within i hour, for reporting requirements.
This rulemaking action will clarif y a current Commission regulation; there is no other appropriate procedure tc accommodate the clarification. This rulemaking activity is considered to be a high priority item by NMSS.
The health and safety of the public will be better protected because improved reporting requirements will reduce the potential risk of exposure to radiation from damaged or contaminated material. Clarifying the reporting requirements will simplify regulatory functions and free the staff from unnecessary additional investigation and, at the same time, protect the industry from unnecessary and unexpected fines.
L The offices of DE, NMSS, and RES are significantly affected l -' by'this' clarification. ARM and the regions are affected, but to,a much lesser degree.
l-37
L *
. CURRENT' ' STATUS :
Since the last reporting period, all of the comments from-the NRC staff except for OGC have been received. OGC comments are due by February 28, 1989. Other staff comments have been-evaluated and the package has been revised accordingly. The-Di vi sion of ' Waste . Management , NMSS,' changed their minds and' their. suggested changes will not be' included in this rul emaking. Final changes'will.be made and the package is L . expected to be placed in the office concurrence. chain by L February 28, 1989.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rul emaki ng Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 02/17/88 Action by DRA Division Director 12/16/88
' SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to RES Director. (03/10/89)
Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 02/06/89 (03/15/89)
Proposed Action to CRGR and ACRS- (04/15/89)
.(If Required)
Proposed Action to EDO 04/02/89 (05/15/S9)
Proposed Action'to Commission--To.Be Determined-Proposed Action Published 05/06/89 (06/15/89)-
Proposed Action'Public1 Comment Period End (08/23/89)
Analysis of Public Comments' Completed (10/15/89)
Final Action for Division Review 10/01/89 (11/15/89)
Final' Action to RES Director (12/15/89)
Final Action to Uffices for Concurrence 12/03/89 (01/15/90)
Final Action to CR8R and ACRS (02/15/90)
(If Required)
Final Action to EDO O2/05/90 (03/15/90)
Final Action to Commission--To Be Determined Final Action' Published 04/08/90 (05/15/90)
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent
't a s k leader estimates.
38
.f RDB NUMBER: 125 LATEST UPDATE: 02/23/89 TITLE:
Night Firing Qualifications for Security Guards at Nuclear Power Plants (Priority 2)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 73 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5S41 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Dr. Sandra D. Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3773 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would ensure that security force effectiveness at nuclear power plants is not dependent on the time of day. Security guards currently are required to perform night firing for familiarization only. There is no requirement for standards to measure their effectiveness.
The proposed rule would change that by requiring that security guards at nuclear power plants qualify for night firing. The only alternative to rulemaking is to retain the current status.
Part 73, Appendix B, Part IV, will be amended to require reactor security guards to qualify annually in an NRC-approved night firing course with their assigned weapons.
The preposed amendsnent will standardize training and qualification in night firing and prepare power reactor guard forces to more effectively respond in the event of an incident occurring in limited lighting conditions. The cost to industry should be relatively modest since licensees already operate daylight firing training and qualificaiton facilities and programs. The costs to NRC will also be minimal because it will only require minor licensing, inspection and other regulatory actions. There is no occupational exposure.
It is estimated that 0.4 staff years of effort over 2 years by the NRC will be required for the rulemaking.
CURRENT STATUS:
The rulemaking package is on hold.
39
[. - ;.
l:
A TIMETABLE:-
COMPLETED-ACTIONS:
Rulemaking' Initiation Date'(EDO Approval). 05/18/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
1 Proposed-Action to Divisions for-Review 03/08/89 (Undetermined)
Proposed Action to Of fices f or Review 04/26/89-(Undetermined)
Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR--To Be. Determined Proposed Action to EDO 06/07/89 (Undetermined)
Proposed Action to Commission--Not Applicable Proposed Action Published 07/12/89 (Undetermined)-
Final Action Published 05/18/90 (Undetermined)
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due-dates. Dates included in parentheses, if-any,' represent task' leader estimates.
1 40
l l
l
. 3RDB' NUMBER: ~ 135' LATEST UPDATE: 02/23/89
. TITLE: J Minor Amendments to Physical Protection Requirements i
.(Priority 2)
CFR' CITATION:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841. ,
EFFECTS ON.SMALL BUSINESS'AND'OTHER ENTITIES: No
- ! AGENCY. CONTACT
y Stan Dolins Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of. Nuclear Regulatory Research
-Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3745 ABSTRACT:
The Safeguards Interoffice Review Group (SIRG) of the NRC has been' conducting a systematic review of the agency's.
safeguards regulations and guidance documents. This review has identified areas in the regulations that are out of date, susceptible to differing interpretations, or in need of clarification. In addition, the staff has identified other areas in the regulations where minor changen are warranted.
In response to these efforts, specific amendments to the regulations are being proposed. The proposed changes will:
(1) limit the use of the 100 rems per hour at 3 feet dose exemption to a reduction of no more than one physical protection category and not allow a drop below the lowest category, (2) add definitions for common terms not currently defined by frequent use, (3) delete action dates that no longer apply, (4) correct outdated terms and cross references, (5) clarify wording that is susceptible to differing interpretations, (6) correct typographical errors, and (7) make other minor changes.
The alternative to rulemaking would be to allow the status quo to continue. Except for the change in the impact of a high radiation field on physical protection requirements, ;
these minor amendments affect the public, industry and the NRC only.in so far as they make the regulations easier to understand, implement, and enforce. Limiting the use of the 100 rem per hour at 3 feet dose exemption to a reduction of no more than one physical protection category, and not allowing a drop below the lowest category, could affect two non power reactor licensees. It is estimated that O.4 staff years of NRC effort over 2 years will be required for the rulemaking. This is a low priority rulemaking.
l l CURRENT STATUS:
The rulemaking package is bei ng reviewed f or of fice concurrence.
< 41
. . ,a 4 '
t-TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 04/04/88 Proposed Action-to DRA' Division Director 12/29/88 Proposed Action to RES Director 01/04/89 Proposed Action to' Office Directors 01/24/89 Proposed Action to CRGR and ACRS--Not Applicable SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to EDO 03/30/09 Proposed Action to Commission--Not Applicable Proposed Action Published 05/30/89-Final Action to Federal Register 04/04/90 NOTE: -Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any., represent
-task leader estimates.
1 42
, - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ = - . .
-e RDB NUMBER: 162 LATEST UPDATE: 02/23/89 l l TITLE: i Comprehensive Quality' Assurance in Medical Use and.a Standard of Care 4 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 35 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841
. EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: HNo
, AGENCY CONTACT:
Anthony Tse Nuclear Regulatory Commissi on .
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington,-DC 20555 301 492-3797 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering whether to-amend its. regulations to require a comprehensive quality assurance program for medical licensees using byproduct materials. The purpose of this rulemaking action is to address each source of error that can load to a misadministration. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking was published to request public comment on the extent to which, in addition to the basic quality assurance procedures (see " Basic Quality Assurance in Radiation Therapy"), a more comprehensive nuality assurance requirement is needed and invites advice and recommendations on about 20 questions that will have to be addressed in the rulemaking process.
CURRENT STATUS: ,
In responding to SECY-88-156, Medical Quality Assurance Rulemaking Options and Related Topics, the Commission approved the staff recommendation that a draft proposed rule on comprehensive quality assurance, if needed, would be submitted to the Commission for consideration 12 months after completion of the final rule on basic QA requirements (for basic CA rule, see RDB NUMBER: 95).
1 TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
ANPRM Published 10/02/87 52 FR 36949 ANPRM Public Comment Period End 12/31/87 Options Paper Completed 06/03/88 SECY-88-156 Staff Require:nents Memorandum Issued 07/12/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Scheduled actions currently on hold.
l Work on proposed rule will start 04/90 Proposed rule (if needed) will be submitted to the Commission 04/91 l
43 l.
t- , .a:
h.
r
-RDB NUMBER: L182 LATEST UPDATES. 02/23/89 TITLE:
Access to Safeguards.Informat' ion'
, CFR ' CIT'ATION:
r .1 CP CFR 73 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
To Be Determined EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY-CONTACT:
M. L. Au Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington', DC 20555 301'492-3749 ABSTRACT:
This final . rule. would amend the Commission's requirements f or access to Safeguards Information to conform with a provision of Pub. L.99-399, "The Omnibus. Diplomatic Security and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1986." The provision of the. law
[' requires nuclear power reactor licensees and applicants to conduct Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal history checks of certain individuals with access to information protected as Safeguards Information. This technical amendment conforms 10 CFR 73.21 tof10 CFR 73.57 with. respect to individuals authorized access to Safeguards Information by power reactor app 12 cants and licensees.
CURRENT STATUS:
The final rulemaking package has been prepared and submitted for office concurrence.
TIMETABLE: 1 COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (Staff) 01/13/89 Final Action for Division Review 01/30/89 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 02/17/89 Final Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action to EDO 03/17/89 f Final Action to Commission--Not Applicable !
Final Action Published 05/08/89 !
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent ;
task leader estimates.
1 1
44
~
l
$ 'RDB; NUMBER: 186 LATEST UPDATE: 02/23/89 TITLE:
Palladium-103 for Intersti ti al Treatment of Cancer
'CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 35 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
To Be Determined EFFECTS ON'SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Dr. Anthony N. Tse Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3797 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations governing the medical uses of byproduct material.
The proposed regulation would add Palladium-103 sealed source as seeds'to the list of sources permitted in 10 CFR Part 35 for use in cancer treatment. Under current NRC regulations, users must have their licenses amended before they may use Palladium seeds in brachytherapy. The proposed rule, developed in response to a petition for rulemaking (PRM-35-7), would allow the use of Palladium-103 seeds by each potential user (about 700 licenseen) with either a simplified amendment or no amendment, depending upon the
-individual' license. An evaluation of potential radiation hazards to hospital personnel and the public showed a minimal risk if the seeds are used in accordance with the manufacturer's radiation safety and handling instructions.
CURRENT STATUS:
The proposed rulemaking package has been submitted for offico concurrence. i TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (PRM-35-7 Docketed) 12/09/88 Fast-track Processing Determination Made 01/12/89 Draft FRN to Cognizant Individuals for Review 01/19/89 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 02/14/89 Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to EDO (03/09/89)
Proposed Action to . Commi ssi on--Not Appl i cabl e Proposed Action Published (04/09/89)
Final Action Published (04/09/90)
NOTE: Timetabl e scheduled acti on dates refl ect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
45
____--_-__-____-________-___-__-_=_____-_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - - _ _ _ -
I
'E RDB NUMBER: 33 LATEST UPDATE: 02/16/89
. TITLE:
Standards for. Protection Against Radiation (Priority 1)
CFR CITATION:
l LEGAL AUTHORITY:
! 42 USC 2073; 42-USC 2093; 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2133; /C2 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2273; 42'USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Harold Peterson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3640 ABSTRACT:
l Radiation protection philosophy and technology have change'd
. markedly since the present Part 20 was promulgated nearly 30 years ago. Since Part 20 contains the NRC standards f or 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, l because the present Part 20 has become outdated, most L radiation protection. actions occur through licensing actions independent of Part 20. A complete revision is necessary to provide better assurance of protection against radiation; establish a clear health protection basis for the limits; reflect current information on health risk,' dosimetry, and radiation protection practices and experience; provide NRC
^
with a health protection base from which it may consider other regulatory actions taken to protect public health; be consistent with recommendations of world authorities (ICRP);
and apply to all licencees in a consistent manner.
Alternatives to the complete revision considered were no action; delay for further guidance; and parti al revision of l the. standards. They were rejected as ignoring scientific advancements; being unresponsive to international and national guidance; and correcting only some pf the recognized L problems with the present Part 20. Benefits would include updating the regulations to reflect contemporary scientific knowledge and radiation protection philosophy; implementing l
l l
46
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ . J
a regulations which reflect the ICRP risk-based rationale; reducing. lifetime doses to individuals receiving the highest exposures; implementing provisions for summation of' doses from internal and external exposures; providing clearly identified dose limits f or the public; and providing an
-understandable health-risk base for protection.
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 l
subsequent year. This cost does not include any savings which might also be realized by the revision.
CURRENT STATUS:
The final rulemaking was submitted to EDO on September 27, 1988. An EDO briefing was held on October 27, 1988, and a Commission briefing was held on November 11, 1988. An ACNW briefing was held on December 21, 1988, and a Commissioner's Assistants' briefing was held on December 22, 1988.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
ANPRM 03/20/80 45 FR 18023 ANPRM Comment Period End 06/18/80 45 FR 18023 Rul emaki ng Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/85 Proposed Action Published 12/20/85 50 FR 51992
- Proposed Action Comment Period End 05/12/86 51 FR 1092 l Proposed Action Comment Period Extended to 10/31/86 l Schedule for Development of Final Rule to Commission 1 10/C8/87 Preliminary Report / State Meeting 11/16-17/87 Division and Regional Review Completed 02/15/88 ACRS Subcommittee Meeting 05/31/88 ACRS Full Committee Meeting 06/03/88 Final Action to CR8R 06/07/88 CR8R Meeting 06/22/88 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 06/30/88 l
I Final Action to EDO 09/27/88 Final Action to Commission 11/04/88 SECY-88-315 l
Commission Briefing 11/11/88 l SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
i Meeting with NUMARC (02/22/89) 1 Final Action Published 02/15/89 (04/30/89)
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
l w 1 l
i 47
! 'RDB NUMBERr 51- LATEST. UPDATE: ~ 02/16/89 TITLE:
Cri teri a . f or an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (Priority 2)
CFR CITATION:
- LEGAL AUTHORITY
42 USC 2201;E42 USC 2210; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS.AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY' CONTACT:
' Harold'Peterson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3640 ABSTRACT:
The" final rule will revise the END criteria to eliminate the problems that were encountered in the Three Mile Island ENO determi nati on. It is desirable to get revised criteria in place in the event they are needed.
There are no alternatives to this rulemaking, as the current
-ENO critoria are already embodied in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 140. The only way to modif y them, as this rule seeks to do, is through rulemaking.
There is no safety impact on public health or safety. The ENO criteria provide legal waivers of defenses. Industry (insurers and utilities) claims that a reduction in the ENO criteria could cause increases in insurance premiums. The final rule woul d al so be responsi ve to PRM-140-1.
It is estimated that approximately 1.0 af f years of NRC staff time will be required to process ti.e final rule.
CURRENT STATUS: ;
This action is being placed on hold. The final rule package has been concurred on by NMSS, NRR, and ARM. A potential difficulty in the impact of the revised criteria has arisen which requires detailed reanalysis. This reanalysis by a contractor has been delayed due to problemc with the MACCS Code and higher priority work relating to the revision of 10 CFR Part 20. In addition, recent personnel changes at the contractor have added to the delay. Also, there are addi ti onal time demands on the task leader due to the revision of 10 CFR 20 (see RDB No. 33), multiple briefings on Part 20, and preparatory work for r evi si ng a large number of regulatory guides.
E 48
l' 7
1-TIMETABLE:
. COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action Published 04/09/85 50 FR 13978 Rulemaking-Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/85 Proposed Action Comment Period End 09/06/85
,. Final Action For Division Revi ew O2/17/87 Final Action to ACRS 10/08/87
-Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 11/25/87 Final Action to CRGR--Not Applicable SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action to.EDO 03/28/89 (Undetermined)
Final Action to Commission 04/25/89 (Undetermined)
Final Action Published 05/30/89 (Undetermined)
NOTE: _ Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates . included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader. estimates, 1
i
, 49
x n ;, , O r
~. , :
v u, - '
.y'
- RDB NUMBER: 53 LATEST UPDATE: 02/27/89 iTITLE:
Safetyx Requirements f or . Industrial Radiographic Equipment )
.(Priority 1)-
CFR CITATIONt-10 CFR 34 .
i I
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
q 42-USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233 l
. EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes .
1 AGENCY CONTACT:
Donald O. Nellis.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 ;
301.492-3628
.i ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend the present regulations to establish performance standards for industrial radiography exposure devices. Overexposure of radiographer (and occasionally the general public) are more than double that of.
other radiation workers and have been a concern to the NRC for some. time. .Approximately 40 percent of the radiography I overexposure are associated with equipment malf unction. The
.i' s sue of. safety ~ requirements f or these' devices 'is a primary l concern' since the devices use relatively high intensity, high j
. energy gamma-ray emitting sources with the potential for serious overexposure. Although a consensus standard for ;
I radiographic exposure devices was published in 1981 (American National Standard N432), it is.not clear that all j manufacturers are adopting the standard. 1 The alternatives considered were to take no action at this j time; amend the regulations to require perf ormance standards for radiographic devices plus a requirement f or radiographer to wear alarm dosimeters and simultaneously issue a regulatory guide endorsing the consensus standard, supplemented by such other performance standards deemed I 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 radiographer 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 $1,625 per licensee to purchase alarm dosimeters and $830 annually for replacement of devices and 50
_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - . a
3 alarm dosimeters, annual calibration of dosimeters and annual-maintenance costs. Determination of the benefits to be derived from the proposed' rule are difficult to determine on
- a monetary basis but the potential- hazards that might be .
averted include radiation sickness, injury, and even death.
NRC resources required for processing this rule to final publication are estimated to be 0.4 percon-years.
CURRENT STATUS:
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on March 15, 1988 (53 FR 8460). The public comment period was scheduled to expire May 16, 1988. However, several groups in the industry, including the Nondestructive Testing Association, requested long extennions to the public comment period (upLto 120 days). NMSS agreed to a 90-day extension and the public comment period was extended until August 16, 1988 (53 FR 18096). To date, 88 comment letters have been received plus 399 responses to an ASNT survey that was circulated by the ASNT to poll their membership on various aspects of the proposed rule.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date 12/31/85 Proposed Action for Division Review 12/22/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 12/23/87
.Froposed Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable Proposed Action to EDO 12/30/87 Proposed Action to Commission 01/13/88 SECV-88-10 Commission Approval on Proposed Action 02/22/88
' Proposed Action Published 03/15/88 53 FR 8460 Proposed. Action Public Comment Period End 05/16/88 Proposed Action Public Comment Period Extended to 08/16/88 53 FR 18096 Final Action for Division Review 12/28/88 Final Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action to Offices for Concurrence (02/27/89)
Final Action to EDO O2/15/89 (03/24/89)
Final Action to Commission 03/15/89 '04/25/89)
Final Action Published 04/17/89 (05/24/89)
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
l 51
<. J l '
'RDB NUMBER: 128 LATEST UPDATE:. 02/16/89 TITLE:
Licensing and Radiation Saf ety Requirements f or Large
_Irradiators (Priority 1)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 36 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:
Stephen'A. McGuire
. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research <
. Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3757 ABSTRACT:
Die Nucl ear- Regul atory Commi ssi on is developing regulations to specify radiation safety requirements and-license requirements for the use of licensed radioactive materials in large irradiators. Irradiators use gamma radiation to irradi ate products to change their characteristics in some way. The requirements would apply to large panoramic irradiators (those in which the radioactive sources and the material being irradiated are in a room that is' accessible to personnel while the source is shielded) and certain large self-contained irradiators in which the source always remains under water. The rule would not cover small self-contained irradiators, instrument calibrators, medical uses of sealed 2curces (such as teletherapy), or non-destructive testing (such as industrial radiography).
The alternative to a regulation is continuing to license irradiators on a case-by-case basis using license conditions.
The formalization would make the NRC's requirements better understood and possibly speed the licensing of irradiators.
Development of the rule will require 2 staff-years of NRC effort.
CURRENT STATUS:
- A rulemaking package was forwarded for office concurrence on l January 18, 1989. Responses have been received from all l
- offices except OGC. The package is being revi sed to accommodate the responses. The rule is on schedule.
l l
52
-TIMETABLE:
.[ COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 05/05/88 Proposed Action.for RES Director Review 01/11/89 Proposed Action f or Of fice Review- 01/18/89
. Proposed Action to ACRS '01/18/89 Proposed Action to CRGR--Not Applicable SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 03/06/89 Proposed Action to EDO 04/05/89
- Proposed Action to Commission 05/05/89 Proposed Action Published 06/05/89 Final Action Published 05/05/90 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
i i
i 1
l L
53
1RDB NUMBER:' 148 LATEST UPDATE: 02/22/09
' TITLE:
Nuclear. Plant License' Renewal
- CFR' CITATIONS.
~ LEGAL' AUTHORITY:'
42 USC.2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Donald P. Cleary Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of. Nuclear' Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3936 ABSTRACT:
License renewal.rulemaking'to provide. regulatory requirements for extending' nuclear power plant licenses beyond 40 years was initiated in response to the Commission's 1986;and 1987-policy and planning guidance. Current regulatory provisions permit license renewal but-do not provide requirements for the form and content of a license renewal application nor'the standards of acceptability against which the application will be reviewed. This rulemaking is scheduled for completion prior to the anticipated submittal of license renewal applications for Yankee Rowe and Monticello,in.1991. The rule will provide the basis f or development and review of these two " lead plant" applicants and the concurrent development of implementing regulatory guidance. Ti mel y completion of the rule is critical for establishing standards for continued. safe operation of power reactors during the license. renewal term and providing the regulatory stability decired by utilities in determining whether to prepare for license renewal or. pursue alternative sources of generating capacity. This rulemaking has been identified by the Chairman as a major topic to be monitored.
I CURRENT STATUS:
l An advance notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on August 29, 1988 (53 FR 32919). A summary L ,
of comments has been prepared and will be publiched as NUREG/CR-5332 in early March 1989.
t 54
J
- TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
ANPRM Published 08/29/88. 53 FR 32919 ANPRM Public Comment Period'End 10/28/88 SCHEDULED' ACTIONS:
Proposed ~ Action to Offices for Concurrence (05/02/89)
Proposed Action to.ACRS/CRGR 05/31/89 Proposed Action to EDO 06/16/89 Proposed Action to Commission 06/30/89-
. Proposed Action Published- 09/29/89 Final Action Published (12/31/90)
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect' EDO-approved.
due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
I 55
t 1
RDB NUMBER: 24 LATEST UPDATE: 02/22/89
~
i LTITLE:
Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive
- Materials Licensees CFR CITATION:-
10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70 LEGAL AUTHORITY:-
' 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 l
EFFECTS ON SMALLfBUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 1
AGENCY CONTACT:
Michael Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Of fice of -Nuclear Regulatory Research ,
Washington, DC'20555 l 301 492-3918 ABSTRACT: . _ !
The proposed rule would require about 30 fuel cycle and other j 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 i
licensee recommend protective actions f or 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 L exceeding 1 rem effective dose equivalent or 5 rems to the j thyroid or could cause a soluble uranium inhalation of 2 )
milligrams (a chemical toxicity hazard). l Currently the proposed requirements are, for the most part, )
required by order. However, the Commission decided that.they 1 wanted a regulation for the long term. The cost to licensees j of the rule was estimated to be between $26,000 and $73,000 l per year per licensee. The cost to NRC was estimated to be j'
$4,000 per year per licensee. The NRC will expend about 2 man years of effort to promulgate the rule. ,
j CURRENT STATUS:
The final rulemaking action was f orwarded to the Commission on July 15, 1988 (SECY-88-204).
l t
f L___-------- --- i
" TIMETABLE:
' COMPLETED-ACTIONS:
ANPRM' 06/03/81 -46 FR 29712 ANPRM Comment Period End 08/03/81 46 FR 29712 Proposed Action for Division Review O2/08/85
-Rulemaking Initiation Date _ (Ongoing) 06/t?/85 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 09/25/85 Proposed" Action Package to EDO. 10/30/85 Proposed Action Package to Commission 03/25/86 Commission Directs: Revision of Proposed Action 10/2C/86 Revised, Proposed Action to EDO 01/23/87 Revised- Proposed Action to Commi ssion 02/02/87 Proposed Action Published -4/20/87 52 FR.12921 Proposed Action Comment Period.End 07/20/87 52 FR 12921 Final Action for Office Concurrence 10/16/87 Final Action to EDO 03/02/88.
Final Action to CRGR 03/16/88-ACRS Meeting 06/02/88 Final Action to Commission 07/15/88 SECY-88-204 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action Published 01/30/89 (03/15/89) ,
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included.in parentheses, if any,-represent task leader estimates.
b7
_______1____._______ _ _ _ _ _ _