ML20237J096
| ML20237J096 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/31/1987 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0936, NUREG-0936-V06-N02, NUREG-936, NUREG-936-V6-N2, NUDOCS 8708260001 | |
| Download: ML20237J096 (128) | |
Text
- --_- -
a=
0-
's NUREG-0936 Vol. 6, No. 2 m
NRC Regulatory Agenda Quarterly Report April - June 1987 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration and Resources Management je" "' c,y o
i %
l.'.
}
Q&.tj DR I
0936 R PDR
.o i
.l A
NOTICE Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following source"
- 1. The NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20555
- 2. The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Post Office Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082
- 3. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications, it is not intended to be exhaustive.
Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Docu.
ment Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation notices; Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and licensee documents and correspondence.
The following documents in the NUREG sernes are available for purchase from the GPO Sales Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceedings, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission issuances.
Documents available from the National Technical information Service include NUREG series reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federal and state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.
Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited.
Single copies of NRC draft reports are available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request to the Division of information Support Services, Distribution Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cemmission, Washington, DC 20555.
Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library,7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, and are available there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the American National Standards institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.
NUREG-0936 Vol. 6, No. 2 NRC Regulatory Agenda s
1 1
Quarterly Report April - June 1987
~
Manuscript Completed: July 1987 Date Published: July 1987 Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration and Resources Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
,s ~ m.
i 5
- ...../
I i
l TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I
. RULES l
(A) Rules on which final action has been taken Pm since March 31, 1987 j
Restrictions Against Ownership of Certain Security Interests by Commissioners, Certain Staff Members, and Other Related Personnel: Vested Pension Interests (Part 0).......................
1 Functions of Atomic Safety and Licenisng Appeal Board (Part 2)..........
2 Adjudications -- Special Procedures for Resolving Conflicts Concerning the Disclosure or Nondisclosure of Information (Part 2)............
3 Financial Responsibility of Non-Reactor Licensees for Cleanup After Accidental and Unexpected Releases (Parts 30,40,61,70,72)......
4 l
Training and Experience Criteria for the Medical Use of Byproduct Material (Part35).................................................
5 Timing Requirements for Full Participation Emergency Preparedness i
Exercises for Power Reactors Prior to Receipt of an Operating i
License (Part 50, Appendix E)......................................
6 Radon 222 Estimate for Table S-3 (Parts 50, 51).........................
7 ChangestoSafeguardsReportingRequirements(Parts 70,72,73,74).....
8 Reporting of Special Nuclear Material Physical Inventory Summary Results (Parts 70, 74).............................................
9 l
i 1
\\
(B) Praposed Rules l
Revision to Ex Parte and Separation of Functions Rules Applicable i
to Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings (Parts 0, 2)....................
11 Procedures Involving (Parts 1, 2)........................................
the Equal Access to Justice Act:
Implementation 12 Modifications to the NRC Hearing Process (Limited Interrogatories and Factual Basis for Contentions) (Part 2)........................
13 Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings-- Procedural Changes in Hearing Process (Part 2)................................
14 iii
Page Issuance or Amendment of Power Reactor License or Permit Following Initial Decision (Part 2)..............................
15 Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste (Parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 51, 70, 72, 73, 75, 150).............................................................
16 Nondiscrimination on Basis of Age in Federally Assisted Commission P ro g ra ms ( P a rt 4 )................................................
18 StandardsforProtectionAgainstRadiation(Part20)..................
19 IN istration of Sources and Devices (Parts 30, 32)....................
21 Informal Hearing Procedures for Materials Licenses Proceedings (Parts 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 50, 61, 70, 71, 72)...............
22 Completeness and Accuracy of Information Provided to the Commission (Parts 30, 40, 50, 55, 60, 61, 70, 71, 72, 150)...................
23 General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities (Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, 72)....................................
24 Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive Materials Licensees (Parts 30,40,70),..........,................
26 Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Ground Water Protection and Other Issues (Part 40)..................................................
27 Changes in Property Insurance Requirements for NRC Licensed Nuclear Power Plants (Part 50)............................................
28 StationBlackout(Part50).............................................
30 Broad Scope Modification of General Design Criterion 4 Requirements For Protection Against Dynamic Effects of Postulated Pi Rup tu res ( Pa rt 50)..................................... pe 32 Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors (Part 50, Appendix J).............................
33 Acceptance Criterie for Emergency Core Coolong Systems (ECCS) for Light Wa ter Nuclear Power Reactors ( Part 50)......................
35 iv
Page Consideration of Emergency Planning Rule Changes to Deal With Lack of Governmental Cooperation in Offsite Emergency Planning (Part 50)..............
37 Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (Part 50)................
38 Personnel Access Authorization Program (Part of Insider Package)
(Parts 50, 73)...................................................
39 Table S-3, Addition of Radon-222 and Technetium-99 Radiation Values and Appendi x B Explanatory Na rrative (Part 51)...................
41 Elimination of Inconsistencies Between Part 60 and -EPA HLW Standard (Part 60)........................................................
43 Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (Part 140)...........
44 i
(C) - Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern: Generic Rulemakin
( Pa r t s 2, 2 0 )........................................... g 45 Degree Requirement for Scnior Operators at Nuclear Power Plants (Parts 50, 55)...................................................
46 Definition of High-Level Radioactive Waste (HLW) in 10 CFR Part 60 (Part 60)........................................................
47 (D) - Unpublished Rules Standards and Procedures for Case-by-Case Exemptions for De Minimis Interests from Prohibitions against Employee's Participation in a Particular Matter Affecting Employee's Financial Interests (Part 0)...............................................
49 Revised Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings (Parts 0, 1, 2, 9, 50)...........................................
50 Statement of Organization and General Information (Part 1)............
51 v
Page Availability of Official Records (Part 2)...............................
52 Negotiated Rulemaking on the Submission and Management of Records and Documents Related to the Licensing of a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of High-Level P.adioactive Waste (Parts 2, 60).........
53 Retention Periods for Records (Parts 4, 11, 21, 25, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35,40,50,60,61,70,71)........................................
54 Update of Freedom of Information Act Procedures and Other Minor Amendments (Part 9)................................................
56 Charges for Production of Records (Part 9)..............................
57 Deletion of Part 11 Requirement for Renewal of "R" Clearances (Part11).........................................................
58 Residual Radioactive Contamination Limits for Decommissioning (Part 20)..........................................................
59 i
Disposal of Low-Level Rddioactivel Con'taminated Waste Oil from Nuclear Power Plants (Part 20.....................................
60 Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the ReportingofDefectsandNoncompliance(Parts 21,50)..............
61 Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Exposure Devices Safety (Part34)..............................
63 Misadministration (Part35)...........................................
65 Criteria for Licesing the Long-Term Custody and Maintenance of Uranium Mill Tailings Sites (Part 40).............................
66 Safety Related and Inportant to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 (Part50)..........................................................
67 Part 51; Conforming Amendments (Parts 51, 60)...........................
69 Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licensees for Nuclear Power Reactors (Part 52).....................
70 l
l I
1 I
vi
Page Criteria and Procedures for Evaluating Requests for Emergency Access to Low-Level Waste Disposal Sites (Part 62)..................
71 Transportation Regulations: Com Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)patibility With the International-(Part71)............................
72 Amendment to Assign NRC Sole Authority for Approving Onsite LLW Disposal (Part 150).................................................
73 l
vii
SECTION II - PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING Page (A) - Petitions incorporated into final rules or petitions denied since March 31, 1987 Intervals Between Required Dosimetry System Calibrations (PRM-35-2).....................................................
75 (B) - Petitions incorporated into proposed rules l
Administration of Aerosols and Gases (PRM-35-6).....................
77 l
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium fuel Cycle (PRM-51-1)..........
78 Exemption of " Low Specific Activity Material" from the RequirementsofPart71(PRM-71-1,PRM-7*-2,andPRM-71-4).....
80 (C) - Petitions pending staff review Regulations Governing Unimportant Quantities of Source Material (PRM-40-25)....................................................
83 Fire Protection Standards for Graphite Reactors (PRM-50-44).........
84 Extending the Emergency Planning Zone (PRM-50-45)...................
85 Emergency Planning (PRM-50-46)......................................
86 Implementation of Certain Environmental Standards Which Have Been Proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (PRM-60-2andPRM-60-2A).......................................
87 Modification of Qualifications for Security Personnel of Nuclear Power Plants and Other Special Nuclear Material Licensees (PRM-73-6)...........................................
89 ix
Page (D) - Petitions with deferred action Disposal of Very Low Concentrations of Short-Lived Radionuclides (PRM-20-14)....................................................
91 New Methods of Disposal of Waste Oil Contaminated by(Low-Level Radioactive Material from Nuclear Power Plants PRM-20-15).....
92 Licensing the Possession of Uranium Mill Tailings at Inactive Storage Sites (PRM-40-23)......................................
93 Revised Criteria for Operation of Uranium Mills and Disposition ofTailingsorWastes(PRM-40-24)..............................
95 Reactor Safety Measures (PRM-50-20).................................
96 Extension of Construction Completion Date (PRM-50-25 and PRM-50-25A)....................................................
98 Emergency Preparedness (PRM-50-31)..................................
99 Establishing an Employee Concerns Program and Resolution of Employee-ldentified Concerns at Nuclear Facilities (PRM-50-47)....................................................
100 Population Density Criteria Near Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-100-2)....................................................
101 X
Preface The Regulatory Agenoa is a quarterly compilation of all rules on which the NRC has proposed, or is considering action as well as those on which it has recently completed action, and all petitions for rulemaking which have been received and are pending disposition by the Commission.
,0 organization of the Agenda The agenda consists of two sections.
Both sections have been updated through June 30, 1987.Section I, " Rules" incluces:
(A) Rules on which final action has been taken since March 31, 1987, the closing date of the last which the Commission has not taken final action, (C)y as proposed rules on NRC Regulatory Agenda, (B) Rules published previousl Rules publishea as advance notices of proposed rulemaking for which neither a proposed nor final rule has been issued; and (D) Unpublished rules on which the NRC expects to take action.
Section II, " Petitions for Rulemaking" includes: (A) Petitions denied or incor-porated into final rules since March 31, 1987, (B) Petitions incorporated into proposed rules, (C) Petitions pending staff review, and (D) Petitions with ceferred action.
In Section 1 of the agenda, the rules are ordered from lowest to highest part within Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR).
If more than one rule appears under the same part, the rules are arranged within the part by date of most recent publication.
If a rule amends multiple parts, the rule is listed under the lowest affected part.
In Section 11 of the agenda, the petitions are ordered from lowest to highest part of 10 CFR and are identified with a petition for rulemaking (PRM) number.
If more than one petition appears under the same CFR part, the petitions are arranged by PRM numbers in consecutive order within the part of 10 CFR.
The cates listed under the heading " Timetable" for scheduled action by the Commission or the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) on particular rules or petitions are considered tentative ano are not binding on the Commission or its staff. They are included for planning purposes only. This Regulatory Agenda is published to provide increased notice and public participation in the rule-making proceedings included on the agenda. The NRC may, however, consider or act on any rulemaking proceeding even if it is not included in this Regulatory Agenda.
Rulemakings Approved by the Executive Director for Operations (EDO)
The Executive Director for Operations (ED0) initiated a proceoure for the review of the regulations being prepared by staff offices that report to him to ensure that staff resources were being allocated to achieve most effectively NRC's regulatory priorities. This procedure requires EDO approval before staff resources may be expended on the development of any new rulemaking.
Furthermore, all existing rules must receive ED0 approval prior to the commitment of additional resources.
xi
I-RdLES Rules that have receivea E00 approval to date are identified as indicated below. As aaditional rules receive ED0 approval, they will be identified in subsequent editions of this agenda. Those unpublished rules whose further development has been terminated will be noted in this edition of the agenda and deletea from subsequent editions.
Rules whose termination was directed subsequent to publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking will be removed l
from the agenda af ter publication of a notice of withdrawal.
Symbols Rules that appear on the agenda for the first time are identified by an asterisk "*". Rules that have been approved by the EDO are identified by the symbol (+).
This agenda contains no major rules as defined in Section 1(b) of Executive Order 12291.
Public Participation in Rulemaking Comments on any rule in the agenda may be sent to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. huclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing ana Service Branch.
Coments may also be hand delivered to Room 1131, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC between 8:15 a.m. and 5:15 p.m.
Comments received on rules for which the comment period has closed will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before the closure dates specified in the agenda.
The agenda and any comments received on any rule listed on the agenda are available for public inspection, and copying at a cost of five cents per page, at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Single copies of this agenda may be purchased from the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO).
Customers may call (202) 275-2060 or (202)275-2171 or write to the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Post Office Box 37082, Washington, D.C. 20013-7082.
Additional Rulemaking Information for further information concerning NRC rulemaking procedures or the status of any rule listed in this agenda, contact Alzonia Shepard, Rules and Procedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555, Telephone (301) 492-7086, persons outside the Washington, DC metropolitan area may call toll-free:
800-368-5642.
For further information on the substantive content of any rule listed in the agenda, contact the individual listed unaer the heading " contact" for that rule.
xii
(A) Rules on which final action has been taken since March 31, 1987
A -
TITLE:
Restriction Against Ownership of Certain Security Interests by Commissioners, Certain Statt Members, and Other Related Personnel:
Vested Pension Interests CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 0 ABSTRACT:
The final rule amends the regulations governing the ownership by hRC employees of stocks, bonds, and other security interests in companies engaged in activities relating to the nuclear fuel cycle.
The final rule also addresses the treatment of vested pension interests held by NRC employees.
Present NRC regulations require that employees not own security interests in companies engaged in fuel l
cycle activities, regardless of whether the company derived significant l
gross revenues or a significant percentage of its revenues from those activities. Under the revised regulation, the NRC's Executive Director for Operations, after consultations with the Office of the General Counsel, will designate the major fuel cycle applicants and licensees whose security interests are subject to the agency's stock ownership restrictions and thus may not be owned by NRC employees. With regard to vested pension interests, the amendment to the regulations codifies existing agency practice to provide explicitly that no employee is to provice advice to the NRC on matters affecting a company in which he or she has a vested pension interest from prior employment.
Because these amendments relate solely to matters of agency management or personnel, they would have no impact upon the public or the nuclear industry. Acoption of the amencments regerding the prohibitec securities list would benefit NRC employees, since it would result in the deletion of several companies from the prohibited securities list, thereby allowing hRC employees to own security interests in those companies.
The acoption of the amendment on vested pensions would have no effect upon NRC employees, since it merely codifies existing agency practice.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Publisheo 04/07/67 52 FR 11026 Final Action Effective 04/07/87 52 FR 11026 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER EhTITIES: N/A AGENCY CONTACT:
Paul Bollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-3224 TITLE:
Functions of Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2 ABSlRACT:
The final rule amends the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulations to provide for Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board review of all decisions rendered by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in formal agency adjudications. This amendment changes the agency's rules of practice to allow routine referral of requests for certain hearings from a lices. sing board to an appeal board.
TIMETABLE Final Action Published 01/30/87 52 FR 2993 Final Action Effective 01/30/87 52 FR 2993 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2021; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 224); 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Trip Rothschild Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-1465 _.... _.
TITLE:
Adjudications -- Special Procedures for Resolving Conflicts Concerning the Disclosure or Nondisclosure of Information CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2 ABS 1kACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has withdrawn this proposed rule.
A notice of withdrawal was published in the Federal Register on May 22, 1985 (50 FR 21072).
In this rule, the Commission proposed amending its rules of 1ractice l
to provide special procedures for resolving conflicts concerning l
the disclosure or nondisclosure of information relating to ari l
NRC investigation or inspection not yet concluded or which would reveal the identity of a confidential informant and deemed relevant and material to an adjudication.
The Corm 11ssion decided that in view of the few remaining licensing proceedings and the consequent limited number of occasions in which the proposed procedures might be use in those proceedings, an existing policy statement is an adequate means of resolving these conflicts and thus there is no need at this time to codify the proposed procedures.
TlHETABLE:
Withdrawal Notice Published 04/15/87 Withorowal Notice Effective 04/15/87 (52 FR 12192)
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 220h 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENilTIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Jane R. Mapes Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8695 TITLE:
Financial Responsibility of Non-Reactor Licensees for Cleanup
+
After Accidental and Unexpected Releases CFR CITAT10h:
10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72 ABSTRACT:
The Commission issued an advance notice of proposeo rulemaking (ANPRM) in June 1985, which sought comments on the advisability of having NRC require a mechanism to assure financial capability on the part of certain NRC materials licensees (e.g., fuel f abricators and users of sealed radiation sources) to undertake prompt cleanup of accidental releases or contamination, both on and off. site.
Estimates for cleanup costs in the recent past have ranged up to $2 million for a single event. To date, cleanup has been conducted only by the State or Federal government; however, public monies are frequently used only after lengthy oelays.
This rulemaking was terminated by the EDO on May 29, 1987. This rule may be re-initiated upon completion and staff analysis of ongoing contractor studies.
TIMETABLE:
Terminated by ED0 05/29/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Undetermined AGLhCY CONTACT:
Mary Jo Seeman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4647 _ - - _ _ _ _ _.
TITLE:
+ Training and Experience Criteria for the Medical Use of Byproduct Material CFR CITATICN:
10 CFR Part 35 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would have revised the training ano experience criteria that apply to physicians who desire to use radioactive byproduct material in the practice of medicine. The proposed rule l
would have established requirerrents for physician training and l
experience that are appropriate to the type of use for which a a physician seeks to be authorized.
l The proposed rule was terminated by a Commission decision on April 30, 1987.
TIMETABLE:
Terminated 04/30/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BbSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Norman L. McElroy Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear heterial Safety and Safeguards Washir.gton, DC 20555 (301)427-4108 _
-_________________--_____-__--__----__-----_--a
TITLE:
+ Timing Requirements for Full Participation Emergency Preparedness Exercises for Power Reactors Prior to Receipt of an Operating License CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50, Appendix E ABSTRACT:
The ruleraaking relaxes the timing requirements for a full participation preparedness exercise for power reactors prior to receipt of an operating license. The Commission believes that the rule will more effectively focus available resources on the pertinent issues and problems in establishing and maintaining an upgraded and effective day-to-cay status of emergency preparedness.
The rule provides consistency to the regulations governing the frequency and timing of emergency preparedness exercises between the preliminary and post licensing stages, and also provides more flexibility in the timing of the full participation exercises to accommodate the needs of State and local governments prior to the issuance of an operating license.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 05/06/87 52 FR 16823 Final Action Effective 05/06/87 52 FR 16823 LEGAL AUTHORITY 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Michael Jamgochian huclear Regulatory Conrnission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7657 - _ _ _
TITLE:
+ Radon 222 Estimate for Table S-3 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 51 ABSTRACT:
In a feceral Register notice published cn April 14, 1978, the Conmission deleted the racon-222 value from Table S-3 because it was recognized to be underestimated. Pending rulemaking action to provide a new estimate for radon-222 in Table S-3, the environmental effects of radon are subject to litigation in indivioual nuclear power plant licensing proceedings. The proposed rule was to deal with this question generically for all nuclear power plants; however, the NRC does not expect to receive applications for new nuclear power plant licenses within the near future, and certain regulatory issues related to radon have not yet been resolved.
This rule was terminatea by the ED0 on 11/29/86. The issues in this proposed rule are being combined with the proposed rule entitled,
" Table S-3, Addition of Radon-222 and Technetium-99 Radiation Values ana Appendix B Explanatory Narrative".
TIMETABLE:
Action Completed 11/29/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
William Pearson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7682
-7
TITLE:
+ Changes to Safeguards Reporting Requirements CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 74 ABSTRACT:
The final rule amends reporting requirements of section 73.71 for reports of unaccounted for shipments, suspected thefts, unlawful diversion, and other safeguards events.
(Conforming amendments are included for 10 CFR Parts 70, 72, and 74). The staff has found the present requirements confusing to licensees and, therefore, difficult for licensees to implement properly.
These difficulties have contributed to reports of safeguards events that lack uniformity and contain insufficient't data to permit analysis of these events.
The final amendments redefine, in clearer terms, the events to be reported and classify certain of these events into different reporting categories. The current 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> notification by telephone is deleteo. All events will be either reported by telephone within one hour or logged in licensee records to be submitted to the NRC quarterly. Concurrent with the rule revision, a revised regulatory guide is being issued which provides a format for reporting to the NRC and gives examples of what types of events should be reported.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 06/09/87 52 FR 21651 Final Action Effective 11/08/87 52 FR 21651 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGEhCY CONTACT:
Priscilla A. Dwyer Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4773 - - _ _ _ _
i TITLE.
+ Reporting of Special Nuclear Material Physical Inventory Summary Results CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 74 ABSTRACT:
Prior to this rule becoming final, NRC's regulations required fuel facility licensees to conduct periodic physical inventories of the special nuclear material (SNM) which they possessed.. Although the affected licensees have been voluntarily reporting sunmary data of their physical inventories to the NRC since 1975,'a requirement fur this routine reporting has never been incorporated into the regulations.
This final rule corrects the forner reporting deficiency by requiring the affected fuel f acility licensees to provide the necessary summary data of their physical inventories on NRC Form 327. Since these licensees are already supplying this information voluntarily and the NRC.is j
already routinely using it, there are no' additional costs or other
-j impacts associated with the rulemaking, j
i TIMETABLE:
l Final Action Published 05/22/87 52 FR 19303 Final Action Effective 06/22/87 52 FR 19303 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
1 42 USC 5841 l
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No I
i AGENCY CONTACT:
l Darrell Huft Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7077 l
l l
j.
h
i l
t, -
a s
s
'h
\\
t i
- )
(B) Proposed Rules I
I vs 1
k I
J l
I I
r t
i l
s
(
' \\.
\\
h.
9
'1
'k y
es i
8i%.,
1.
k.
v d
h-N n,
Sj b
' 1 h
t a
1' yu n' %
P t-s e
6-J
' \\,
l l
l l
l l
t 6
r
l i
L TITLE:
I Revision to Ex Parte and Separation of Functions Rules Applicable 1
to Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings CFR CITATION:
ABSTRACT:
J The proposed rule would' amend the Commission's regulations dealing with ex parte communications and separation of adjudicatory ano nonadjudicatory functions in formal adjudicatory proceedings by updating the agency's rules of practice and incorporating requirements imposed by the Government in the Sunshine Act. Changes are proposed in bot.h the form and the substance of the existing rules to clarify their meaning and to aid agency adjudicatory officials in maintaining effective communication with NRC staff personnel and persons outside the agency while at the same time ensuring that proceedings will be conducted f airly and impartially.
This proposed rule supersedes a prior proposed rule entitied, "Ex Parte Communications and Separation of Adjudicatory and hon Adjudicatory Functions," (3150-AA00) published March 7, 1979 (44 FR 12428).
TIMETABLE:
NPRM 03/26/86 51 FR 10393 i
NPRM Comment Period End 06/26/86 51 FR 19067 Final Action 09/00/87 i
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
5 USC 554(d); 5 USC 557(d)
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Paul Bollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Comission i
Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-3224 l !
TITLE:Procedures Involving the Equal Access to Justice Act:
Implementation CFR CITATION:
The proposed rule woulo in,plement the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) by providing for the payment of fees and expenses to certain eligible individuals and businesses that prevail in in agency adjudications when the agency's position is determined i
l not to have been substantially justifieo. This proposed regulation is modelled after rules issued by the Administrative Conference 1
of the United States (ACUS) and have beer, mooified to conform to hRC's established rules of practice.
The proposed rule would l
further the EAJA's intent to develop government-wide, " uniform" agency regulations and would describe NRC procedures and requirements for the filing and disposition of EAJA applications.
A araft final rule was sent to the Commission in June 1982, but Commission action was suspended pending a decision by the t
Comptroller General on the availability of funds to pay I
owards to intervenor pcrties.
This issue was also the subject l
of litigation in Bustness and Professional People for the i
Public Interest v. NRC, 793 r.2d 1366 (D.C. Cir. 1986). This
{
litigation is being evaluateo to determine whht if any changes my be necessary in the proposed rule.
Additionally, in August 1985, the President signed into law an enactment renewing the EAJA after its expiration under a statutory sunset requirement. This legislation, Pub. L. No. 99-80, revises the EAJA and these revisions are being evaluated to j
detennine whether further conforming changes may be necessary in g
the proposed rule.
TIMETABLE:
NPRM 10/28/81 46 FR 53189 NPRM Connent Period End 11/28/61 46 FR 53189 Next Action Undetermined f
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
5 USC 504 l
1 EFFECTS Oh SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No l
l AGENCY CONTACT:
Paul Bollwerk huclear Regulatory Commission l
Of fice of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-3224 j
i i
)
1
TITLE:
I Modifications to the NRC Hearing Process (Limited I
l Interrogatories and Factual Basis for Contentions)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2 l
ABSTRACT:
l The proposed rule would expedite conduct of NRC adjudicatory proceedings by requiring interveners in formal NRC hearings to set forth the facts on which contentions are based and the sources or documents used to establish those facts and limit the l
number of interrogatories that a party may file in an NRC proceeding. The proposed rule would expedite the hearing process l
by, among other things, requiring interveners to set forth at the outset the facts upon which their contention is based and the a
supporting documentation to give other parties early notice of intervenor's case so as to afford opportunity for early dismissal l
of contentions where there is no f actual dispute. Expediting the hearir;g process should ultimately provide cost savings to all i
participants in the process. The content of this rule is being l
considered es part of the regulatory reform rulemaking package.
TIMETABLE:
NPRM 06/08/81 46 FR 30349 ANPRM Regulatory Reform Rule 04/12/84 49 FR 14698 Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2239 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Trip kothschild Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-1465 -
k TITLE:Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings-- Procedural Changes in Hearing Process CFR CITATION:
i 10 CFD 2 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory. Commission (NRC) is considering amendments to its rules of practice which address the following aspects of j
the hearing process: admission of contentions, discovery against 1
NRC staff, use of cross examination plans, timing of motions for summary disposition and limitations on matters and issues that may be included in proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law, or in an appellate brief submitted by a person who does not have the burden of proof or who has only a limited interest in the proceeding. These proposals were initially developeo by the Regulatory Reform Task Force ar.o published for public comment, together with a number of other proposals, as suggestions for procedural changes in the licensing of nuclear power plants (49 FR 14698; April 12, 1984). The Commission has decided not to proceed with the April 1984 proposals, except to the extent that they were included in this proposed rule.
Therefore, the April 1984 proposals have been deleted from the regulatory agenda.
The NRC is also considering related amendments on the process of intervention that were developed by Commissioner Asselstine.
The staff is analyzing pubic comments received on the proposals and expects to forward a recommendation for the Commission's consideration in September 1987.
TIMETABLE:
i
^
NPRM 07/03/86 51 FR 24365 NPRM Comment Period Extended to 10/17/86 51 FR 31340 Final Rule 10/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Linda Gilbert Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7678 _
TITLE:
Issuance or Amendmenc of Power Reactor License or Permit Following Initial Decision CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend the Commission's "immediate effectiveness" regulation that specifies when an initial adjudicatory decision authorizing the issuance or amendment of a license or permit becomes effective.
The proposed rule would (1) remove the existing prevision governing the effectiveness of initial decisions regarding power reactor construction permits and (2) revise the Commission's l
existing practice regarding " effectiveness ' eviews" for full-power r
)
operating licenses. The proposed rule also would delete language in the existing regulation emanating from Three Mile Island-related regulstory policies, action upon which has now been completed.
The proposed rule supersedes two prior proposed rules entitled "Possible Amendments to 'Immediate Effectiveness' Gules," publisheo l
May 22, 1980 (45 FR 43279), and " Commission Revicw Procedures for Power Reactor Construction Permits; Immediate Effectiveness Rule," published October 25, 1982 (47 FR 47260).
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 02/04/87 52 FR 3442 NPRM Comment Period End 05/06/87 52 FR 11475 Final Action 09/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Paul Bollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 i
202 634-3224 i
. _ _ _ _ - _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I TITLE:
+ Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste-CFR CITAT10h:
l 10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 19; 10 CFR 20;-10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 75;-10 CFR 150 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would revise existing regulations to establish specific licensing requirements for the storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a monitored retrievable storage installation (MRS).. This revision is'intenced to ensure that the Commission has.in place the appropriate regulations to fulfill 4
the requirements contained in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of.
1982 concerning the licensing ~ of facilities which could be part ~
of the MRS program.
Paragraph (d) of Section-141 of the NWPA requires' that'any monitored retrievable storage installation pursuant to Section 141 be licensed by the Conmission. The Connission could await further development of the MRS option before' proposing its MRS-rules. However, this approach could result in unnecessary delay in reviewing a license application if Congress authorizes construction of an MRS.
The current requirements in Part 72 for storage of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) would be unaffected by this proposed rule.
TIMLTABLE:
NPRN 05/27/86 51 FR 19106 NPRM Coninent Period End 08/25/86 Final Action to EDO 07/30/87 Final Action to Comission 08/15/87 Final Action Published 09/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2021; 42 USC 2071; 42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2077; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2099; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42-USC 2232;-
42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2234; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2237; 42 USC 2282 LFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No l
l
TITLE:
+ Licensing Requirements for the Storege of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste I
t AGENCY CONTACT:
Keith Steyer/ Charles Nilsen Nuclear Regulatory Consission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7739/7917
}
l l
1 -
TITLE:
+ Nondiscrimination on Basis of Age in Federally Assisted Commission Programs CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 4 ABSTRACT:
The final rule would implement the provisions of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended. The final amendment'would muke it unlawful for any recipient of Federal financial assistance to discriminate on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the NRC.
The Act also contains certain exceptions that permit, under-limited circumstances, continued use of age distinctions or factors other than age that may have a disproportionate effect on the basis of age. The Act applies to persons of all ages. The final rule is necessary to comply with the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, which directs that all Federal agencies empowered to provide Federal financial assistance issue rules, regulatior.s.
and directives consistent with standards and procedures established by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).
TIMETABLE:
NPRM 09/21/81 46 FR 46582 NPRM Comment Period End 11/21/81 46 FR 45682 Final Action Published 07/07/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 6101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No A6ENCY CONTACT:
Edward E. Tucker Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization / Civil Rights, Washington, DC 301 492-7697 l
1 _____ _
I TITLE:
+ Standards for Protection Against Radiation -
CFR CITATION:
ABSTRACT:
Radiation protection philosophy and technology have changed markedly since the present Part 20 was promulgated nearly 30 years ago. Since Part 20.contains the NRC standards for protection against radiation that are used by all licensees and affects exposures of workers and members of the public, it should be the most basic of the NRC regulations. However, because the present Part 20 has become outdated, most radiation protection actions occur through licensing actions independent of Part 20. A complete revision is necessary to: (1) provide'better assurance of protection against radiation, (2) establish a clear health protection basis for the limits. (3) reflect current information on health risk, dosimetry, and radiation protection practices and experience, (4) provide NRC with a health protection base from which it may consider other regulatory actions taken to protect public health,
)
(5) be consistent with recommendations of world authorities (ICRP),
i and (6) apply these standards to all licensees in a consistent manner.
j Alternatives to the complete revision of Part 20 include: (1)no action, (2) delay for further guidance, and (3) partial revision of the standards. These were rejected because they ignore scientific advancements, are unresponsive to international and national guidance, and correct only some of the recognized problems I
with the present Part 20. The benefits of revising Part.20 include:
(1) updated regulations which reflect contemporary scientific knowledge and radiation protection philosophy, (2) implementing regulations which reflect the ICRP risk-based rationale, (3) reducing lifetime doses to individuals receiving highest exposures, (4) implementing provisions for sumation of doses from internal and external exposures, (5) providing clearly identified dose limits for the public.
(6) providing understandable health-risk base for protection, and (7) placing constraints on collective dose evaluations at levels where risks are trifles.
Initial estimates of the cost of implementing the revision is about $33 million for all NRC and Agreement State licensees in the the initial year and about $8 million in each subsequent year.
This cost does not include any savings which might also be realized by the revision. -
1 TITLE:
+ Standaros for Protection Against Radiation TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 03/20/80 45 FR 18023 ANPRM Comment Perica End 06/18/80 45 FR 18023 hPRM 12/20/85 50 FR 51992 NPRM comment Period End 05/12/86 51 FR 1092 NPRM Comment Period Extended to 10/31/86 Final Action for Division Review 09/30/88 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 11/30/88 Final Action Package to EDO 12/06/88 Final Action Published 01/31/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGEhCY CONTACT:
Harold Peterson Nuclear Regulatory Conniission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7691 ;
i
l TITLE:
+ Registration of Sources and Devices CFR CITATION:
ABSTRACT:
NRC regulations clearly provide for pre-marketing approval of certain sealed sources and devices, such as smoke detectors and gauges.. The regulations are less clear with respect to pre-marketing approval 'of other products, such as' industrial radiographic and'in-plant gauging devices. The proposed rule would clearly state the procedures for manufacturers and distributors of sources and devices to obtain pre-marketing approval of products to be used under specific license.
Consistent with'present practice, the rule would require the applicant
.l to submit for approval specified radiation safety information about the product.
The proposed rule would also assure that all manufacturers / distributors (vendors) are informed of NRC's program for pre-marketing approval of-sources and devices under specific license. The rule, by improving communication with the vendors, would assure timely and efficient consideration of radiation safety features of products and thus reduce administrative costs for vendors, users and NRC.
The rulemaking action is important because it will substantially-improve the licensing process and reduce the administrative-burden on NRC and licensees. The alternative is to continue in the present status which involves duplication of effort through repetitive submittals and reviews.
TIME ABLE:
l Proposed Action Published 01/23/87 (52 FR 2540) l NPRM Comment Period End 03/24/87 (52 FR 2540).
l Final Action for Division Review 09/00/87 l
Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 10/00/87 l
Final Action to ED0 11/00/87 Final Action Published 12/00/87 l'
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2071; 42 USC 2092 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Steven L. Baggett Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-9005, _ _
TITLE:
Informel Hearing Procedures for Materials Licenses Proceedings CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 32; 10 CFR 33; 10 CFR 34; 10 CFR 35; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 71; i
10 CFR 72 ABSTRACT:
This proposed rule, being prep'ared at' Commission direction, would provide comprehensive treatment of hearing procedures to be implemented by the Commission for materials. licensing proceedings.
In addition, the proposed rule would encompass the objective of the proposed rule, " Jurisdiction of Adjudicatory Boards," identified as 3150-AA53, which has been deleted from OMB's Unified Agenda. There are no reasonable alternatives to i
rulemaking for implementing these informal hearing procedures.
The procedures are expected to reduce the economic burden imposed j
on a participant in a proceeding.
l l
TIMETABLE:
hPRM 05/29/87 52 FR 20089 NPRM Comment Period End 07/28/87 52 FR 20089 Final Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2111 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUS 1hESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Paui Do11werk Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-3224 l
1 I
l TITLE:
l Completeness and Accuracy of Information Provided to the Comission CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 55; 10 CFR 60; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 71; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 150 l
l ABSTRACT:
i The proposed rule would require all licensees and applicants for licenses to provide the Commission with complete and accurate information, to provide for disclosure of information identified by licensees as significant for licensed activities and to define those circumstances when inaccurate or incomplete information will be considered by the Comission as material false statements.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 03/11/87 52 FR 7432 NPRM Coment Period End 04/10/87 Next Action Undetermined l
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2021a; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5851; 42 USC 10141; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 2201(o)
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Mary Wagner Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8659 l
L TITLE:
+ General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72 ABSTRACT:
The proposeo rule would provide assurance that licensees fulfill their responsibility to dispose of licensed material including any associated contamination when they cease licensed activity. The proposed rule would also provide the applicant or licensee with appropriate regulatory-guidance to decommission a nuclear. f acility. This issue is addressed through rulemaking to assure that funds for decommissioning will be available and the decommissioning will be carried out in an i
orderly manner.
The Comission has indicated a need for this rulemaking in other previous rulemakings.
The major cost impact of the proposeo rule would involve proper planning at all stages of nuclear iacility operation. Proper planning includes providing for (1) financial assurance that funding will be available for decommissioning, (2) maintenance of records that coulo affect decommissioning, and (3) careful planning of procedures at the time of decommissioning. For l
non-reactor facilities affected by financial assurance requirements, it is estimated that the major impact will result in an aggregdte expenditure of 21 staff-years ($1.6 million) spread over 5 years (or $320,000 peryear).
For the approximately 110 power reactors estimated to be affected (i.e., those with operating licenses and those under construction which are at least two-thirds complete) plus 75 research and test reactors, it is estimated that the major impact will result in an aggregate expenditure of 3.8 staff-years ($288,000) spread over 3 years. These expenditures will ensure that adequate measures have been taken to protect the health and safety of occupational workers, j
the public, and the environment within the confines of optimum cost j
benefit consideration.
]
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 03/13/78 43 FR 10370 hPRM 02/11/85 50 FR 5600 hPRM Coment Period End 07/12/85 50 FR 23025 Final Action for Division Review 11/15/86 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 03/27/87 Final Action to EDO 07/15/87 Final Action Published 10/30/87 ;
___--_ D
TITLE:
+ General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities LEGAL AUTHORITY:
1
'42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Keith G..Steyer/ Frank Cardile
'{
Nuclear Regulatory.Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
'l Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7739/7784' l
1 l
4 4
i
-2s-l
TITLE:
+ Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive Materials Licensees CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would require about 30 fuel cycle and other radioactive materials licensees to submit an emergency plan that would, among other actions, require the notification of local authorities in case of en accident ano that the licensee recommeno protective actions for the public. The proposed rule is intended to further prttect the public from accidental exposure to radiation. The affected licensees are those whose possession limits indicate the potential for an accident that could deliver a radiation dose offsite exceeding one rem effective dose equivalent or 5 rems to the thyroid or could cause a soluble uranium inhalation of 2 milligrams (a chemical toxicity hazard).
Currently the proposed requirements are, for the most part, required by order.
The Commission has decided that these requirements should be uddressed by a rule. The cost of the rule for licensees is estimated to be between $26,000 and 573,000 per year per licensee. The cost to hRC is estimated to be $4,000 per year per licensee. The NRC will expend about 2 man-years of effort to promulgate the rule.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 06/03/81 46 FR 29712 ANPRM Comment Period End 08/03/81 46 FR 29712 Proposed Action Published 04/20/87 52 FR 12921 Proposed Action Comnent Period End 07/20/87 52 FR 12921 Final Action Published 03/15/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Nu AGENCY CONTACT:
Stephen A. McGuire Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7900 - _ _ _ _
TITLE:
+ Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Ground Water Protection and Other issues l
CFR CITATION:
l 10 CFR 40 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rulemaking is intended to incorporate groundwater standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency for uranium mill tailings into NRC regulations. This ection is necessary to make NRC regulations conform to EPA standards as required by the Uranium Mill Tailing Radiation Control Act.
Comments on the ANPRM helped cefine the nature and scope of this rule. EPA has estimated that compliance with their l
groundwater standards and with the stability, radon release, and other requirements recently promulgated will cost the industry from about $310 million to $540 million for all tailings generated by the year 2000. The actual cost will depend on the eventual cost of groundwater protection for future tailings. The EPA regulations are binding on NRC licensees until this proposed rule becomes effective.
The coment perica was extended in response to a request from the American Mining Congress.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 11/26/84 49 FR 46425 ANPRM Comment Period End 03/01/85 50 FR 2293 l
hPRM 07/08/86 51 FR 24697 l
NPRM Coment Period Extended 11/07/86 l
Final Action Published 10/00/87 LEGAL AUTHOR]TY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 7901 Note EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Kitty S. Dragonette Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear haterial Safety and Safeguards l
Washington, D.C. 20555 301 427-4300 l
1 l
TITLE:
+ Changes in Property Insurance Requirements for hRC Licensed Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:
ABSTRACT:
The proposeo rule would require nuclear power plant licensees to obtain I
an increased amount of on-site ;eoperty damage insurance from the current minimum of $585 million to $1.06 billion. The NRC believes
]
l that such insurance should be required so that the financing and pacing of cleanup following an accident does not become a public health and safety problem. Recent studies indicate that as much as $1.06 billion may be required to cover on-site cleanup of the worst reactor accidents if inflation and other factors are included. Other issues addressed in the proposed rule are (1) wFether the Federal government can preempt State law that prohibits certain public utilities from buying insurance offered by either mutual companies or requiring payment of a retrospective premium and (2) whether a priority of payment of insurance proceeds for decontamination and cleanup can l
be imposed. Action in these areas is required for the same reason j
as imposition of general insurance requirements, i.e. to remove the t
financial aspects of recovery after an accident from having an adverse impact on public health and safety.
Alternatives to the proposed rule that were considered included (1) requiring a lower dollar amount ano (2) not explicitly requiring insurance above that currently required but rather allowing the necessity for additional insurance to be determined by economic regulators at the State level.
l The impact of the proposed rule on licensees would probably not be large. Most licensees currently purchase insurance in excess of $1.06 billion. Approximately 10 licensees would be required to carry more insurance than they otherwise would for an annual incremental premium cost of roughly $1 million per year. Thus the i
total impact of the rule would be approximately $10 million per year. The impact on the public would generally be positive in that public health and safety would be better protected. The impact on the NRC would be minimal with respect to increasing the amount of insurance. A decontamination priority, if it were invoked, could require additional hearings with attendant costs.
One-half of a staff-year is required by OSP to continue the rulemaking, with minimal impact on other offices expected.
I i
TITLE:
+ Changes in Property Insurance Requirements for NRC Licensed Nuclear Power Plants TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 06/24/82. 47 FR 27371 ANPRM Comment Period End 09/22/82 47 FR 27371 NPRM 11/08/84 49 FR 44645 NPRM Comment Period End 02/07/85 49 FR 44645 Final Action for Division Review 05/17/85..
Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 03/18/86 Initial Action Package to EDO 03/18/86 Final Action Package Approved by CRGR 03/17/87 Final Action Package to Commission 04/13/87 Final Action Published 07/15/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201
]
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: ho AGENCY CONTACT:
Robert S. Wood Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20b55
)
301 492-8425
.I
)
1 l
5 l
1 l
1 l
l l
.I l
TITLE:
+ Station Blackout CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
This proposed rule would require licensees of light water nuclear power plants to ensure these plants are capable of withstanding a total loss of alternating current (AC) electrical power (called station blackout) to the essential and nonessential switchgear buses for a specified duration. A craft regulatory guide was. issued at the same time as the proposed rule to provide guiodnce on how to determine the duration.
u The proposed requirements were developed in response to information i
generated by the Commission's study of Unresolved Safety Issue A-44, Station Blackout. The proposed rule is intenced to provide further l
assurance that a loss of both off-site, and emergency on-site ciectric l
Al power systems will not adversely affect the public health and safety.
A regulatory analysis has been prepared for the proposed rule. The estimated public risk reduction is 145,000 person-rem over 25 years, and the estimated total cost for industry to comply with the proposed rule is
$60 million. This results in an overall cost benefit ratio of'about 2,400 person-rem per million collars.
The alternatives to this proposed rulemaking are to take no action cr to provide only guidance for plants to be able to cope with a station blockout period for a specified period. To take no action would not yield any reduction in public risk from station blackout events. To.
1 provice guidance only, since there is presently no requirement for nuclear power plants to be able to cope with a total loss of AC power, would not result in any basis for enforcement. The proposed rule is the recomended alternative based on its enforceability and, in part, on the favorable cost / benefit ratio.
TIMETABLE:
kPRM 03/21/86 51 FR 9829 NPRM Comment Period End 06/19/86 51 FR 9892 Final Action for Division Review 03/05/87 Office Concurrene on Final Action Completed 04/06/87 Final Action to EDO 08/30/87 Final Action Published 10/31/87 LEGAL AUTh0RITY:
42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841-1 i 1
i
7-I TITLE:
+ Station Blackout EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER EhllTIES N/A AGEhCY CONTACT:
Alan Rubin /A. W. Serkiz Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of fluclear Regulatory Research l
Washington, DC 20555 i
301 492-8303/7487 l
\\
l 1
l i
?
i:
TITLE:
+ Broad Scope Modification of General Design Criterion 4 Requirements For Protection Against Dynamic Effects of Postulated Pipe Ruptures CFR CITATION:
ABSTRACT:
The proposed broad scope modification of General Design Criterion 4 (GDC 4) would allow demonstration of piping integrity by analyses to serve as a basis for excluding consideration of dynamic effects associated with pipe ruptures. A final rule published April 11, 1986 (51 FR 12502) was limited to the primary loops of pressurized water reactors (PWRs), whereas this proposed-rule would cover all high energy piping in all light water reactors (LWRs). The modification woulo permit the general but selective removal of pipe whip restraints and jet impingement shields and other related changes.in operating plants, plants under construction, and future plant designs, but will not impact other design requirements for containment design or ECCS performance. Alternative equipment qualification requirements developed by industry based on leak-before-break may be submitted to the hRC for review and dpproval in a limitea number of applications.
The only alternatives to rulemaking would be the granting of exemptions to GDC 4 or reinterpretation of the text of the existing rule. The staff has, however, indicated that extensive use of exemptions to authorize the elimination of pipe j
whip restraints is inappropriate and that long prececence prohibits reinterpretation. Therefore, it appears appropriate to undertake rulemaking at this time.
TIMETABLE:
l NPRM 07/23/86 51 FR 26393 NPRM Comment Period Begin 07/23/86 NPRM Comment Period End 09/22/86 51 FR 26393 Office Concurrence on-Fina'l Action Completed 06/08/87 Final Action to CRGR and ACRS 06/15/87 Final Action to EDO 08/10/87 Final Action to Commission 08/17/87 Final Action Published 11/16/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5846 l
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSIhESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
John A. O'Brien i
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7854. _ - -
TITLE:
+ Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50; Appendix J ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would update and revise the 1973 criteria for preoperational and periodic pressure testing for leakage of primary containment boundaries of water-cooled power reactors. Problems have developed in application and interpretation of the existing rule. These result from changes in testing technology, test criteria, and a relevant j
national standard that needs to be recognized.
l The revision is urgently needed to resolve coatinuing conflicts between licensees and NRC inspectors over interpretations. Current regulatory practice is no longer being reflected accurately by incorporation in the existing regulation of an obsolete national standare that was replaced in 1981.
The benefits anticipated include elimination of inconsistencies and obsolete requirements, and the addition of greater usefulness ano a higher confidence in the leak-tight integrity of containment system boundaries under post-loss of coolant accident conditions. The majority of the effort needed by hRC to issue the rule has already been expended.
A cetailed 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.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 10/29/86 (51 FR 39536) 14PRM Comment Period Extended to 04/24/87 (52 FR 2416)
Final Action for Division Review 11/15/87 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 03/16/88 Final Action to EDO 05/15/88 Final Action Published 06/15/86 I
I l
l l
l TITLE:
+ Primary Reactor Cont.aintnent Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors
]
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
l 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENT111ES: No
]
GENCY CONTACT:
Gunter Arndt i
Nuclear Regulatory Conrnission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301-443-7893 l
l I
f I
l l l
TITLE:
+ Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) for Light Water Nuclear Power Reactors CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
Tne proposed rule would amend regulations concerning acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems (ECCS) by allowing the use of realistic methods to demonstrate that an ECCS would protect the nuclear reactor ccre during a loss-of-coolant accident.
This action is proposed because research has shown that calculations performee under current requirements greatly underestimate the ability of the ECCS to protect the core. This restricts the operation l
l of some nuclear reactors unnecessarily and increases the costs of generating electricity. The proposed rule would allow use of the -
best information currently available to demonstrate that the ECCS would protect the reactor core during a loss-of-coolant accident.
Use of the proposed acceptance criteria could result in a 5 percent power upgrade for affected plants. The present value of energy replacement cost savings resulting from a potential upgrade would range from $13 to $147 million depending on the location and age of a specific plant.
The proposed rule would apply to all applicants for and holders of construction permits for light water reactors.
Because the proposed rule represents a significant change in a regulatory requirement, the staff prepared and issued on May 15, 1987, a summary of ECCS research performed over the last 10 years which identifies the technical basis for the proposed rule. A regulatory guide was also prepared and issued on April 2, 1987.
This guide provides a definition of what constitutes an acceptable best estimate model and acceptable methods of performing the uncertainty evaluation.
The estimated cost to the NRC of this rulemaking is 2-3 staff-years ano $200,000 of contractor support.
The only option to rulemaking considered by the staff was the continued use of the current licensing approach. At best, this is viewed as an interim solution because two separate calculations are required to l
meet the requirements of the current regulation and staff conditions for i
use of the licensing approach and continued use of the approach risks l
case-by-case litigation.
TITLE:
+ Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) for Light Water Nuclear Power Reactors TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 12/06/78 43 FR 57157 ANPRM Coment' Period Begin 12/06/78 43 FR 57157 ANPRM Comment Period End 02/05/79 Proposed Action Published 03/03/87 52 FR 6334 l
Proposed Action Coment Period Expired 07/01/87 52 FR 6334 Final Action for Division Review 09/00/87-Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 10/00/87 Final Action to EDO 01/00/88 Final Action Published 01/30/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2132; 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; i
42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2239; 42 USC 2282; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Jose N. Reyes, Jr.
Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 (301)443-7890 l
1
y j
n s
)
TITLE:
. [~
Consideration of Emergency Planning Rule Changes to Deal With Lack of Governmental Cooperation in Offsite EmergencyPlantiing CFR CITATION:
1 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule woula,~1n limited circumstances, allow a full power nuclear plant operation to begin when there is a lack of State or j
local government cooperation in offsite emergency planning.
In earlier regulations, the Connission published revised emergency planning regulations which required that emergency plans be developed by licensees in cooperation with State and local governments.
Although the Commission acknowledged the possibility that some governments might not cooperate, the Connission premised the new rules on a coordinated effort among all parties. Because this coordination has proved impossible to achieve in a few isolated cases, this proposed rulemaking is intended to cover those cases not contemplated by th?
3 1980 amendments. The amendments will probably not impact on NRC resources.
Industry may experience a positive financial effect in 1
s the earlier operation of nuclear power plants alraady completed j
but currently non-operational due to local and/or state goverrwJnt
'1 non-cooperation. The public may be affected in that there muy be less coordinated offsite emergency planning as compared to sites where full coordination has been achievec.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 03/06/87 52 FR 6980 Proposed Action Comment Period Extended 06/04/87 52 FR 6980 l
Final Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No t
l l
AGEHCY CONTACT:
Peter Crane Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 634-1465 l
l TITLE:
+ Codes anc Standards for Nuclear Power Plants l
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The Commission proposes to amend its regulations to incorporate by reference the Winter 1984 Addenda, Summer 1985 Addenda, Winter 1985 i
Addenda, and 1986 Edition of Section III, Division 1, of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code), anc the Winter 1983 Addend 6, Summer 1984 Addenda, Winter 1984 Addenda, Summer 1985 Addenda. Winter 1985 Addenda, and 1986 Edition of Section X1, Division 1 of the ASME Code. A limitation is placed on the use of paragraph IWB-3640 as contained in the Winter 1983 Addenda and Winter 1984 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1.
This limitation requires that for certain types of welds, IWB-3640 be used as modified by the Winter 1985 Addenda. The sections of the ASME Code being incorporated provice rules for the construction of light-water-cooled nuclear power plant components and specify requirements for inservice inspection of those components. Adoption of these amendments woulo permit the use of l
improved methods for construction and inservice inspection of nuclear
)
power plants.
l TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 06/26/87 52 FR 24015 NPRM Coment Period End 08/25/87
{
Final Action to EDO 12/01/87 i
Final Action Published 12/25/87 l
l LEGAL AUTHOR 11Y:
42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5642; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER EN11 TIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Gilbert C. Millman Nucleor Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Weshington, DC 20555 301 443-7713 I. _ _
l l
l J
i TITLE:
+ Personnel Access Authorization Program (Part of Insider Package) l CFR CITATION:
ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would establish a personnel screening program for individuals requiring unescorted reactor facility access, thus providing increased assurance of the trustworthiness and emotional stability of a reactor site population. Study has indicated that disoriented or disgruntled employees (especially ones who might also be psychotic) at nuclear reactors are of primary safegueros concern because of their,inside position.
While the Comission has stated that at present it is satisfiec with the level of safeguards in place at reactors, it epproved publication of the proposed rule for public comnient (49 FR 30726) as one means of further assuring protection of public health and safety. The public conrnent period concluded March 7,1985.
Extensive comments were received and analyzed.
Alternatives to rulemaking that were investigated included endorsing an ANSI standaro through a regulatory guide, issuing a j
policy statement that endorses incustry developeo guidelines, using staff position papers, and implementing license conditions.
The proposed regulation would protect against the " insider" threat at reactors through the use of three components: (1)a backgrouno investigation to determine past history, (2) a psychological assessment to determine current emotional stability, and (3) a continual behavioral observation program to detect behavioral changes in an individual once granted unescorted access.
Primary benefit to the public and licensees would be an increased assurance of the trustworthiness and emotional suitability of l
individuals working in a nuclear reactor environnient. Benefits to the NRC woulo result from the use of a codified program that assures that a uniform approach, meeting minimum requirements, will be dpplied in screening reactor personnel.
The net increase in cost per licensee site for all existing or planned power stations over their remaining useful lives is $2 million per i
site. The net increase in cost to the NRC due to estimatec time in I
reviewing proposed plans and enforcement activities is $822,700.
This is a one-time implementation cost; yearly operational costs are l
judged to be negligible.
l l l
TITLE:
+ Personnel Access Authorization Program (Part of Insider Package)
ABSTRACT CONT:
By affirmation vote on June 18, 1986, the Commission approved, as an-f alternative to rulemaking, the issuance of a policy statement endorsing the industry-developed guidelines for access authorization. This i
policy statement is under development. The proposed rule will be withdrawn upon issuance of the policy statement.
TIMETABLE:
l Policy Statement / Guidelines to CRGR 11/10/86 Policy Statement / Guidelines to EDO 04/00/87 Policy Statement / Guidelines to Comission 05/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Sandra Frata111
]
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington DC 20555 1
301 443-7746 q
I i
1
- [- - -.
TITLE:
Table S-3 Addition of Radon-222 and Technetium-99 Radietion Values and Appendix B Explanatory Narrative CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 51 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule provides a narrative explanation of the numerical values established in Table S-3, " Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data." that appears in the Commission's environmental protection regulations. The proposed rule describt.s
{
the basis for the values contained in Table S-3, the significance of the uranium fuel cycle data in the table, and the conditions governing the use of the table. The narrative explanation also addresses important fuel cycle impacts and the cumulative impacts of the nuclear fuel cycic for the whole nuclear pcwer industry so that it may be possible to consider these impacts generically rather than repeatedly in individual licensing proceedings, thus l
reducing litigation time and costs for both NRC and. applicants.
l The proposed rule was published for public review and comment (46 FR 15154, March 4,1981), but the final rulemaking was deferred pending the outcome of a suit (Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v NRC, No. 74-1486) in the U.S. Court of Appeals.
The U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) cecision of April 27, 1982, invalidated the entire Table S-3 rule. The Supreme Court reversed this decision on June 6, 1983, i
I The proposed rule to provide a narrative explanation for Table S-3 was revised to reflect new developments and the passage of time while the rulemaking was deferred. Final action on the Table S-3 rule was held in abeyance until new values for radon-222 and technetium-99 could be adoed to the table and covereo in the narrative er.planation. The rule is being reissued as a proposed rule because the scope has been extended'to include radiation values for radon-222 and technetium-99 and the narrative explanation has been extensively revised from the rule published on j
March 4, 1981 (46 FR 15154).
i The staff's estimate is that the completion of a final Table S-3 rule covering the new values for radon-222 and technetium-99, and the reviseo narrative explanation will be completed in FY 1989.
A Commission paper presenting the final rulemaking plan and schedule was submitted on August 18, 1986 (SECY 86-242). On September 8, 1986, SECY 86-242 was approved by the Commission.
TITLE:
+ Table S-3, Addition of Raden-222 and Technetium-99 Radiation Values and Appendix B Explanatory Narrative TIMETABLE:
hPRM 03/04/81. 46 FR 15154 NPRM Comment Period End 05/04/81 Proposed Action for Division Review 09/00/87 Office Concurrence of Proposed Action 10/00/87 Proposed Action to ED0/ Commission 04/00/88 Proposed Action Published 05/00/88 Final Action Published 12/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2011; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 4321; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
William Pearson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7682 l
l t
l l l
J 1
TITLE-
+ Elimination of Inconsistencies Between NRC Regulations and EPA Standards CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:
j The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982~ directs NRC to promulgate l
criteria for the licensing of HLW geologic repositories.
Section 121 (c) of this act states that these criteria must be consistent with standards to be developed by EPA for the disposal of HLW in aeep geologic repositories. The proposed rule is needed in order to eliminate several inconsistencies with the EPA standarcs, l
thus fulfilling the statutory requirement.
Because the NWPA directs NRC to eliminate inconsistencies between 1
Part 60 ano 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 woula be several staff years but will not include contract resources.
TIMETABLE:
NPRM 06/19/86 51 FR 22288 NPRM Comment Period End 08/18/86 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 06/30/87 Final Action to EDO 07/20/87 Final Action to Cournission 07/30/87 Final Action Published 10/30/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
ho AGENCY CONTACT:
Frank Costanzi/ Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Coraission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7910/443-7668 TITLE:
+ Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 140 ABSTRACT:
The final rule will revise the EN0 criteria to eliminate the problems that were encountered in the Three Mile Island EN0 determination.
It is desirable to get revised criteria in place in the event they are needed.
There are no alternatives to this rulemaking, as the current EN0 criteria are already embodied in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 140. The only way to modify these criteria, as this rule seeks to do, is through rulemaking.
The EN0 criteria There is no impact on public health or safety (. insurers and utilities)_
provide legal waivers of defenses.
Industry claims that a reduction in the EN0 criteria could cause increases in insurance premiums. The final rule would also be responsive to PRM-140-1.
It is estimated that approximately 1.0 man year of NRC staff time will be required to process the final rule.
No contract funding is anticipated.
TIMETABLE:
1 Proposed Action Published 04/09/85 50 FR 13978 i
Proposed Action Comment Period End 09/06/85 i
Final Action For Division Review 02/17/87 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 07/30/87 Final Action Package to ED0 08/30/87 1
Final Action to Commission 09/30/87 Final Action Published 11/30/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2210; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 1
l EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No i
AGENCY CONTACT:
Harold Peterson i
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7691 1
l l
I _
I 4
l l
(C) - Advance Notices of' Proposed Rulemaking I
l 1
l
i l
l 4
)
t TITLE:
Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern; Generic Rulemaking i
CFR CITATION:
ABSTRACT-l The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeks comments on a proposal to amend NRC regulations to address disposal of radioactive wastes that contain sufficiently low quantities of i
radionuclides that their disposal does not need to be regulated.
The NRC has already published a policy statement providing guidance for filing petitions for rulemaking to exempt individual waste streams (August 29, 1986; 51 FR 30839).
It is believed that generic rulemaking could provide a more efficient and effective means of dealing with disposal of wastes below regulatory concern.
Generic rulemaking would supplement the policy statement which was a i
response to Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240).
The public will be asked to connent on 14 questions. The ANPRM requests public comment on several citernative appraches the NRC could take.
Public comment will help to determine whether and how NRC should proceed on the matter.
TIMETABLE:
ANPkM 12/02/86 51 FR 43367 ANPRM Comment Period End 03/02/87 51 FR 43367 1
i Final Action: Undetermined j
LEGAL AUTh0RITY Pub. L.99-240 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Undetermined AGEhCY CONTACT:
J Kitty S. Dragonette Nuclear Regulatory Comnmission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards l
Washington, DC 20555 l
301 427-4300 i
l l
l l
l l !
TITLE:
Degree Requirement for Senior Operators at Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 55 ABSTRACT:
The Commission is considering an amendment to its regulations to require that, after ilanuary 1,1991, applicants for a senior operator license of a nuclear power plant hold a baccalaureate degree in engineering or a related science from an accredited institution.
Other baccalaureate degrees from an accredited institution may be accepted on a case-by-case basis.
This contemplated rulemaking action is due to a Commission decision to enhance the levels of engineering and accident management expertise on shift.
The current requirement, for candidates with a baccalaureate degree, of two years of responsible nuclear power plant operating experience, would be amended to require one year of operating experience on a like commercial nuclear reactor operating at greater than twenty percent power.
The Commission is also considering issuing a policy statement concurrently with this rule related to utility implementation of the rule.
The staff analysis of comments on the ANPRM has been completed and options for rulemaking and/or policy statements to address degree requirements and training for accident management have been developed. This rule was transmitted to the Commission on 04/16/87 as SECY-87-107.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 05/31/86 51 FR 19561 ANPRM Comment Period Extended to 09/29/86 SECY Paper to Commission 04/16/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Morton Fleishman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Reseas uh Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7975 - _ _ _ _.
1 4
(
TITLE:
+ Definition of High-Level Radioactive Waste (HLW) in 10 CFR Part 60 CFR CITATION:
l 10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:
This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeks to revise the definition of HLW in Part 60 to reflect certain l
changes in the legal definition of HLW containeo in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Because of the complex issues involved in revising the definition of HLW, which affects virtually the l
entire radioactive waste management system, the staff is proposing an ANPRM rather than a proposed rule. A revision of the 1
l definition of HLW would effect DOE's plans for a geologic repository, l
costs of waste disposal for certain waste generators, and i
the development of new technologies and facilities to dispose of l
certain types of wastes. A definition of HLW which clearly identifies these highly radioactive wastes needing permanent isolation would benefit the radioactive waste management system. NRC staff time for processing this rule is estimated to be 4 staff years.
l Alternatives to rulemaking would be to take no action or request Congress to amend the NWPA. The rulemaking would eliminate j
uncertainty and reduce costs for the public, industry, and hRC.
TIMETABLE:
i i
ANPRM Action Published 02/27/87 52 FR 5992 ANPRM Comment Perico End 04/29/87 ANPRM Comment Period Extended to 06/29/87(52FR16403)
Proposea Action to ED0 03/15/88 Proposed Action to Commission 03/30/88 Proposed Action Published 04/30/88 Final Action Published 12/30/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON ShALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
ho AGENCY CONTACT:
Frank Costanzi/ Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7910/7668.
l l
1 i
l l
(D)-UnpublisheaRules l
l I
4
ew---
.m i
l
TITLE:
Standards and Procedures for Case-by-Case Exemptions for De Minimis Interests from Prohibition against Employee's Participation in a Particular Matter Affecting Employee's Financial Interests CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 0 ABSTRACT:
The final rule would revise NRC regulations governing the granting of statutorily authorized case-by-case exemptions for insubstantial interests from the prohibition against an employee's personal and substantial participation in a particular matter in which the employee, or certain persons or organizations relateo to the empicyee, has a financial interest.
The final rule, which pertains 1
to all NRC employees, sets out revised procedures for granting case-by-case exemptions in instances where the interest involved is not so substantial as to be deemed likely to affect the integrity of the services which the Government may expect from the employee.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 07/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2035; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 18 USC 207 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Steven Crockett Nuclear Reguletory Commission Office of the General Counsel 202 634-1465 -
TITLE:
Revised Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings
'CFR CITATION:
.10 CFR 0; 10 CFR 1;.10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 9; 10 CFR 50' ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has deferred further consideration of this proposal which would have revised the Comission's procedural; rules' governing the conduct of all adjudicatory proceedings, with the exception-of export licensing' proceedings. The proposed rule would. comprehensively.
restate current practice, retitle-the hearing office, and revise ~ and, reorganize the Comission's procedural rules. The changes in this proposed rule would enable the Commission to render. decisions
-in. a more' timely fashion an_d reduce the burden and expense to the
. parties participating in the proceedings.
TIMETABLE:
t NPRM Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
)
42 USC 2201; 42.USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841; 5 USC 552 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
.j B.
Paul Cotter, Jr.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel l
l Washington, DC 20555 i
l 301 492-7787 l
I l
l I l l
1 I
TITLE:
+ Statement of Organization and General Information CFR CITATICN:
10 CFR 1 ABSTRACT:
The final would rule revise 10 CFR Part I which was promulgated on July 18, 1977(42FR36797). Except for a few revisions, such as address changes, the addition of a Commission-level office, and other minor revisions, most of the remaining descriptions of the Commission's organizational structure have remained unaltered since 1977.
During the interim, there have been numerous reorganizations in the structure and functions of many of the Commission's offices. The final rule will reflect the current functional descriptions of these offices.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action for Division Review 04/30/87 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 06/02/87 Final Action to ED0 06/19/87 Final Action Published 07/31/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2033; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2039; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5843; 42 USC 5844; 42 USC 5845; 42 USC 5849 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Donnie H. Grimsley Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration and Resources Management Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7211. _ _ _ _ _ _ _
L TITLE:Availability of Official Records l
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:
The proposed amendment would conform the NRC's regulations pertaining to the availability of official records-to existing case law and agency practice. The amendment would reaffirm that-the terms of 10 CFR 2.790-(c) provide submitters of information a qualified right to have their information-returned upon request..
This amendment informs the public of three exceptions to the-the right to withdraw pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(c) of the~NRC's-regulations, i.e., information submitted in'a rulemaking proceeding that subsequently forms the basis' for the-final rule, information which has been made available to an aavisory connittee or was received at an advisory committee meeting, and'information that is subject to a pending Freedom of Information Act request.
TIMETABLE:
I Next Action Undetermined t
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841-EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No I
AGENCY CONTACT:
Paul Bollwerl.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Office of the General Counsel i
Washington, DC 20555 l
202 634-3224 l
l
~ l
. ~.
TITLE:
Negotiated Rulemaking on the Submission and Managenent of Records and i
Docunents Related to the Licensing of a Geologic Repository for the i
Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste CFR CITATION:
lo 10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) provides three years for the NRC to reach a decision on construction authorization for a high-level waste l
repository.
In order for the NRC to be cble to make its decision within 1
the allotted time, ready access to all pertinent records'must be assured to all parties in the licensing proceeding. The DOE has committed to develop an electronic information management system to be used for the-licensing proceeding. The hRC staff' intends to use the process.of-negotiated rulemaking to develop a proposed rule that would revise the Commission's discovery procedure and motion practice in 10 CFR Part 2 for.
j the high-level waste licensing proceeding. This rule would require the y
DOE license application anc. all supporting records to be provided in a-standardized electronic format. All parties to the licensing proceeding woulo be required to submit all. relevant data to this system.- In turn, all parties woulo have access to the data base.
Resource estimates currently under development.
TIMETABLE:
g,j (NoticeOfIntent) Published 12/18/86 51 FR 45338 Notice of Intent /Consnent Period Expires 02/18/86 Proposed Action to ED0 10/20/87 Proposed Action Published 07/08/88 Final Action to Commission 09/19/88 Final Action Published 10/14/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
NWPA, AEA, EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: To be determined AGEhCY CONTACT:
Francis X. Cameron Nuclear Regulatory Commission Of fice of General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8689 _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
TITLE:
Retention Periods for Records CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 4; 10 CFR 11; 10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 25; 10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 31; 10 CFR 32; 10 CFR 34; 10 CFR 35; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 60; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 71...
ABSTRACT:
This proposeo rule would establish a specific retention period for certain NRC-required records. It would also provide a uniform standard acceptable to the NRC for the condition of a record t,hroughout a specified retention period. Further, the rule would establish throughout NRC regulations, with some exceptions, uniform retention periods of three years, five years, ten years, and the life of a license. This rule would bring NRC regulations into compliance with the Office of Management and Budget's (0MB) regulation (5 CFR 1320.6) that requires a specified retention period for each required record. It also implements NRC's 1982 commitment to OMB to establish a record retention period of determinable length for each required record.
Aniending twenty one parts of NRC regulations to specify clearly what records to retain, how long to retain them, and the conoition of a record useful for NRC inspection, will be mutually beneficial to applicants and licensees and to the NRC.
Recordkeeping labor for NRC's approximately 6,700 licensees who would be affected by the rule can be divided into four functions: (1) files, ano (4) preparing the report, (2) storing the report, (3) retrieving the report information.
The principal savings to the licensee, dispersed over the period licensed, would be in physical storage space and associated storage equipment ano materials. The burden of recordkeeping woulo be reduced approximately 10 percent annually for these licensees by the proposed rule. An estimated 466,323 hours0.00374 days <br />0.0897 hours <br />5.340608e-4 weeks <br />1.229015e-4 months <br /> associated with recordkeeping or $28,000,000 annually would be saved. Preparing and publishing this rule would cost NRC approximately 3000 hours0.0347 days <br />0.833 hours <br />0.00496 weeks <br />0.00114 months <br /> of staff time at $60 per hour for an estimated total of $180,000.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action for Division Review 01/00/86 Office Concurrence on Proposco Action Completed 08/00/86 Proposed Action Package to EDO 08/31/87 Proposed Action Published 09/30/87 Final Action Published 04/30/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201 -
i II TITLE:
Retention Periods for Records EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No
' AGENCY CONTACT:
Brenda Shelton Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Administration and Resources Management-Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8132 7
I i
l l
TITLE
+ Upoate of Freedom of Information Act Procedures uno Other Minor Amendments CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 9 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would revise Part 9 to reflect changes in the Freedom ot Information Act. This action is being taken to comply with Pub. L.99-570, " Freedom of Information Reform Act of 1985," signed into law by the President on October 1986. These amendments will also reflect recent case. law, current hRC organizational _ structure, and current agency practice and delegation. The revision will also reduce the repetition of statutory requirements.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Publishec 07/00/87 Final Action Published 08/31/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
i 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 5 USC 552; 31 USC 9701; 5 USC 552a; 5 USC 552b
]
l EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: ho AGEhCY CONTACT:
Donnie H. Grimsley l
Nuclear Regulatory Comission l
i Office of Administration and Resources Management Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7211 i
l
)
l I 'l
TITLE:
Charges for Production of Records CFR CITIATION:
10 CFR 9 ABSTRACT:
The final rule will revise the charges for copying records publicly dVailable at the NRC Public Document Room in Washington, DC. The amendment is necessary in order to inform the public of these changes resulting from the NRC's award of a new contract for the l-copying of records.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 07/00/87 Final Action Effective 07/09/87 LEGAL AUlHORITY 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
David L. Meyer Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Office of Administration and Resources Management Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7086 l.
TITLE:
i
+ Deletion of Part 11 Requirement for Renewal of "R" Clearances CFR CITAT10N:
ABSTRACT:
The current regulations require licensees to renew "R" clearances every 5 years. This-level of clearance corresponds to the "L" clearances used by NRC and DOE which do not require renewal.
Because of this equivalence, the renewal requirement for the "R" level licensee clearance is deemed unnecessary. This rulemaking I
woulo delete that requirement from Part 11.
TIMETABLE:
y Proposed Action for Division Review 05/31/87 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Complete 07/31/87 Proposed Action to ED0 09/30/87
~
Proposeo Action Published 12/31/87 Final-Action Published 12/31/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201(1), 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY C0hTACT:
Sandra D. Frattali i
Nuclear Regulatory Commission f
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l
Washington, DC 20556 (301) 443-7746
l i
TITLE:
+ Resicual Radioactive Contamination Limits for Decommissioning 1
CFR CITAT10h:
10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would establish residual radioactive contamination limits (including induced and other volumetric radioactivity as well as removable ano fixed surface contamination) which must be met before structures and lands can l
be released on an unrestricted, unregulated basis. Structures and j
ihnds with residual radioactive contamination below these limits l
l would be eligible for unrestricted release without regulatory l
restrictions from a radioactivity standpoint.
i The proposed amendments are necessary to provide licensees with l
quantitative criteria to use during decommissioning relative to l
cleanup of structures and lands intenced to ensure that structures and lands used in NRC-licensed facilities and activities will be accontaminated in a manner that adequately protects public health before being released on an unrestricted, unregulated basis.
Alternatives to rulemaking would be continued reliance on the issuance of criteria as guidance. However, the criteria are currently incomplete, decisions on implementation and compliance are often required on a case-by-case basis, and criteria issued by guidance may not be enforced in the manner of legally binding regulations.
The proposed rule would relieve the administrative burden on NRC and licensees while providing a consistent and enforceable basis for agency action. NRC resource requirements are approximately 2 statf-years and a $237,000 research contract. Sthf t is participating in an EPA organized interagency working group developing Feoeral guidance on this subject.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action for Division Review 06/15/87 Office Concurrence on Proposta Action Completed 11/15/87 Proposed Action to ED0 03/15/88 Proposed Action Published 05/1S/88 Final Action 08/15/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AhD OTHER ENTITIES: Undetermined AGENCY CONTACT:
Catherine R. Mattsen Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7689 - - -
l l
l TITLE:
I
+ Disposal of Low-Level Radioactively Contaminated Waste Oil from l
Nuclear Power Plants l
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:
l The proposed rule, which is being initiated in partial response to a l
petition fileo by Edison Electric Institute and Utility Nuclear Waste Manamgement Group (PRM-20-15, cated July 31,1984), woula amend NRC regulations to allow onsite incineration of waste oil at nuclear power plants subject to specified conditions. Currently, the cnly approved disposal method for low-level, ra01oactively contaminated waste oil f rom nuclear power plants involves absorption or solidification, transportation to, and burial at a licensed disposal site. There is a clear need to allow, for very low activity level wastes, the use of i
alternative disposal methods which are more cost effective from a radiological health and safety standpoint and which conserve the lin.ited 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 I
and safety. There would be, in a mature reactor economy, an estimated industry-wide economic savings of approximately $5 million to $18 million per year if such a rule were promulgated.
Alternatives to this rulemaking action are to maintain the status quo l
or to wait until the Environmental Protection Agency develops standards on acceptable levels of radioactivity which may be released to the environment on an unrestricted basis.
It is estimated that approximately 1-2 person-years of NRC staff time will be required to process this i
i
- rule, TIMETABLE:
l Proposed Action Puolished 02/01/88 Otfice Concurrence on Final Action Completed 07/15/88 Final Action Published 12/30/B8 l
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 301 443-7689 _
TITLE:
+ Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
This proposed rule woula ameno Part 21 and sec. 50.55(e), both of which require the reporting of safety defects by licensees.
In addition, Part 21 requires reporting by non-licensees. This proposed amendment was prompted by TMI Action Plan Task II, J.4, and hRC staff experience with Part 21 and section 50.55(e) reporting.
l The main objectives of the rulemaking effort are: (1) elimination of duplicate evaluation and reporting of safety defects; (2) consistent threshold for safety defect reporting in Part 21 and section 50.55(e);
(3) establishment of consistent and uniform content of reporting under Part 21 and section 50.55(e) and (4) establishment of time limits within which a defect must be evaluated and reported.
Approximately 500 reports are submitted to the Commission annually under Part 21. Approximately 1500 reports are submitted to the l
Comission annually under section 50.55(e). These reports identify i
both plant-specific and generic safety for further NRC regulatory action.
Under current rules, these reports have formed the basis for hRC issuance of numerous hRC information notices and bulletins.
This proposed rulemaking will reduce the potential for duplicate l
reporting and evaluation of safety defects which now exist. The rulemaking will establish a more coherent regulatory framework l
that is expected to reduce industry reporting anc evaluation burden significantly without reducing safety effectiveness.
Alternatives to this rulemaking approach which were considered, varied from establishment of a single rule for all reporting of safety aefects and operating reactor events to maintaining the status quo for oefect reporting. All alternatives were
{
rejected since they would not substantially improve the current i
safety defect reporting situation.
Current costs of reporting under Part 21 and section 50.55 (e) 3 are estimated at $10.08 million annually for industry and $1.74 million annually for NRC evaluations.
It is anticipated that the industry reporting burden should be reduced by $1.93 million; whild NRC burden should remain the same. Additional industry Durden, though minimal, is anticipated in the area of reissuing procedures for reporting and record keeping.
The Commission disapproved this proposed rule on 10/10/86 and provideo direction to the statf to revise the proposed rule.
The subsequent effort has proceeded base on this direction.
' TITLE:
+ Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the
~
Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to Commission 12/M'i.,
Commission Rejected Proposed Action 10/20/86 Revised Proposed-Action.for Division Review '04/00/87 l
Office Concurrence on Revised Action Completed- 07/24/87 l
Revised Proposed Action.to EDO. 08/03/87 Revised Proposed Action to Comission '. 08/24/67 Revised Proposed Action Published 09/28/87 Final Action Published 12/21/87 l
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2282; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:.No AGENCY CONTACT:
William R. Jones Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Analysis and Evaluation of i
Operational Data Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7613 1
i l !
TITLE:
+ Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Exposure Devices CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 34 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend the present regulations to establish performance standards for industrial radiography exposure devices. Overexposure of radiographer (and occasionally the general public) are more than double that of other radiation workers and have been a concern to the hRC for some time. Approximately 25-35% of the radiography overexposure are associated with equipment malfunction. The issue of safety requirements for these devices is a primary concern since the devices use relatively high intensity, high energy gamma-ray emitting sources with the potential for serious overexposure.
Although a consensus standard for radiographic exposure devices was published in 1981, (American National Standard. N432) it is l
not clear that all manufacturers are adopting the standard.
The alternatives considered were to (1) take no action at this time, (2) amend the regulations to require performance standards for radiographic devices plus a requirement for radiographer to wear alarm dosimeters and simultaneously issue a regulatory guide endorsing the consensus standard, supplemented by such other performance standards deemed necessary, and (3) to incorporate the consensus standard by reference in the regulations supplemented by such other perfonnance standards as oeemed 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 $1,600 per licensee to purchase alarm dosimeters and
$250 per year per licensee to replace existing devices with devices that meet the requirements of the consensus standard.
Determination of the berafits to be derived from the proposed rule are difficult to determine on a monetary basis but the potential hazards thet might be averted include radiation sickness, injury, and even death.
NRC resources required for processing this rule to final publication are estimated to be 0.4 person-years.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action for Division Review 12/22/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 08/01/87 Proposed Action to ED0 08/21/87 Proposed Action Published 09/25/87 Final Action Published 03/31/88 _
.. TITLE:
+ Safety Requirements for Inciustrial Radiographic Exposure Devices LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111;-42 USC-2201;'42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSlfiESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
1 Donalo 0. Nellis-
' Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear. Regulatory Research Washington,.DC 20555 '
301 443-7989 _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _.
.l
Ti1LE:
+ Misadministration CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering amendments to its regulations governing the use of byproouct material for radiation therapy. In addition to current requirements, the contemplated amendments would require that licensees offering patient care services implement a quality assurance program. The contemplated amendments would also clarify plans for respunding to misadministration.
The alternatives to rulemaking considered by the staff were to take no action or to provide cuality assurance guidance and request voluntary compliance. The Commission directed the staff to take the rulemaking alternative. Although data on potential cost impacts is incomplete, initial cost estimates indicated that the potential cost to each of the 1200 affected licensees woulo be ebout $1000.00 per year.
TIMETABLE:
AhPRM Action for Division Review 08/01/86 Office Concurrence on ANPRM Completed 12/10/86 ANPRM Action to EDO 02/03/87 AhPRM Action to Commission 02/05/87 ANPRM Action Published 07/00/87 Final Action Published 03/00/88 Comprehensive Proposed Action Published 10/88 Comprehensive Final Action Published 10/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Norman L. McElroy Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4108 - -
TITLE:
- + Criteria for Licensing the Long-Term Custody and Maintenance of Uranium Mill Tailings Sites CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 40 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would provide procedures to license a custodita for the post-closure, long-term control of uranium mill tailing.
sites required by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). This amendment woula establish a general license for long-term possession and control of uranium mill tailings by the Department of Energy, other designated Federal agencies, or states at their option for active sites now under license. The general license would be formulated so that it would become effective for a particular site upon written NRC approval of a site specific surveillance and maintenance plan.
No impact to the public or industry is expected as a result of this proposed action.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action for Division Review 12/04/87 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 03/04/88 Proposed Action to ED0 03/15/88
)
4 Proposed Action Published 05/30/88 Final Action Published 12/30/88 LEGAL AUTHCRITY:
42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS Oh SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Richard P. Grill l
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 (301) 443-7670 4 - _ _ -
TITLE:
Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Port 50 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to clarify its regulations on the use of the terTns "important to safety" and
" safety related" by adding definitions of these two terms uno ot " facility. licensing accuments" to 10 CFR Part 50 and by discussing how these definitions will be applied in NRC licensing reviews. Significant issues concerning the meaning of these terms as they are used in this part have arisen in Coninission licensing proceedings. This proposed rule would acfine these terms and clarify the nature and extent of their effect on quality assurance requirements, thereby resolving these issues.
Rulemaking was chtsen as the method of resolving this issue as a result of the Conn.ission's directive to resolve the issue by rulemaking contained in the Shoreham licensing decision (CLI-84-9, 19 hkC 1323, June 5, 1984).
A position paper requesting approval of the staff proposed def1nitions arc coditional guidance from the Consission was signed by the ED0 on May 29, 1966.
In addition to rulemaking, the position paper discusses the alternative of the Conrnission issuing a policy statenient concerning the definitions and their usage.
Since the proposed rule is only clarifying existing requirements, there is no impact on the public or the industry as a result of this rulemaking.
It is anticipated thet the NRC will expend 3.2 to 4.4 staff years in developing the final rule over a two year period. The nldnpower and time frame will depend on Conn.ission 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 ali of 10 CFR.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to Commission 05/29/87 Connission Cecision on SECY 86-164 09/30/87 Proposed Action for Division Review 01/15/68 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 01/29/88 Proposed Action Package to ED0 02/29/88 LEGAL AU1h0RITY:
42 llSC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 l
TITLE:
Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Jerry N. Wilson Nucle &r Regulatory Comission Office of hucledr Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4727 l
1 1
i l
l 1
i l
l 4
l TITLE:
+ Part 51; Conforming Amendments l
CFR C11ATION:
ABSTRACT:
i The proposeo rule would provide procedures for performing an l
environmental review of High Level Waste geologic repositories, l
Part 51 contains no provisions for the environmental review of a license application for a HLW repository. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established requirements for environmental
)
l reviews which are at variance with the environmental reviews which l
the NRC performs in licensing other types of nuclear facilities. This i
l issue must be addressed in order to avoid delay in the U.S. HLW I
Program. The proposed rule would benefit the public, industry, i
and NRC by clarifying licensing proceoures, thus avoiding case determinations and possible litigation during HLW geologic repository licensing. Minor revisions to Part 60 will be q
necessary to conform to the environmental requirements of the NWPA.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Publisheo 9/30/87 Final Action Published 9/30/88 I
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
I 4' USC 10101 l
c d
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSIhESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
ho AGENCY C0hTACT:
James R. Wolf 1
huclear Regulatory Commission 01fice of the General Counsel hashington, DC 20555 301 492-8694 i
l l
1
TITLE:
Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for huclear Power Reactors CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 52 ADSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Consission is considering. adding a new part to its regulations to improve the. reactor licensing process. The-proposed rule would provide for the issuance'of early site permits, standard design certifications, and combined construction permits and conditional _ operating licenses for nuclear power reactors..These procedural reforms are intended to improve the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of nuclear power plant licensing without detracting from protection of the public health.and safety or the public's ability to participate in the licensing process. They are designed to implement as much of the Commissions's proposed " Nuclear Power Plant Standardization and. Licensing Act of 1987" as is permissible-under its existing statutory authority. The proposed legislation is based on an earlier proposal that was ceveloped by the Commission's Regulatory Reform Task Force.
If licensing reform legislation is i
ultimately enacted, the rules can be modifico to implement that legislation fully.
TIMETABLE:
3 Proposed Action to Corraission 10/00/87 l
Proposed Action Published 12/00/87 l
Final Action to Commission 10/00/88 I
Final Action Published 12/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
l 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2236; l
42 USC 2239; 42 USC 2282; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 4842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: ho I
AGENCY CONTACT:
Linda Gilbert Nuclear Regulatory Connission Office of the General Courisel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7678 l
l
TITLE:
+ Criteria and Procedures for Evaluating Requests for Emergency Access to Low-Level Waste Disposal Sites CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 62 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would establish criteria and procedures that will be used in the execution of the NRC responsibilities under Section 6 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Procedures. Amendments Act (LLRWPAA). Section J
6 of the LLRWPAA authorizes the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to grant emergency access to any non-Feoeral low-level waste disposal.
i facility, if necessary, to eliminate an immediate and serious threat to the public health and safety or the common defense and security which cannot be mitigated by other means. The proposed rule may have a i
significant impact on the generators of low-level waste, in that.it will i
establish high standards for qualifying for emergency access, and will j
require them to provide convincing information to the FRC that their being i
denied access to low-level waste disposal facilities has resulted in' an j
immediate and serious threat to the public health'and safety or the common defense anc security.
TIMETABLE:
Office Concurrence on Proposed Action 05/00/87 Proposed Action to EDO 07/00/67 Proposeo Action Published 10/00/87 Final Action Published 08/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2021 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Janet Lambert Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards huclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4009 l
1 1..
TITLE:
+ Transportation Regulations: Compatibility With the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 71 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would, in conjunction with a corresponding rule change by the U.S. Department of Transportation, make the United States Federal regulations for the safe transportation of radioactive material consistent with those of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA regulations can be found in IAEA Safety Series No. 6, " Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material," 1985 Edition.
Consistency in transportation regulations throughout the world facilitates the free movement of radioactive materials between countries for medical, research, industrial, and nuclear fuel cycle purposes.
Consistency of transportation regulations throughout the world also contributes to safety by concentrating the efforts of the world's experts on a single set of safety standaros and guidance (those of the IAEA) from which individual countries can develop their domestic regulations.
Perhaps as important, the favorable and accident experience of every country that bases it domestic regulations on those of the IAEA can i
be applied by every other country with consistent regulations to improve its safety program, lhe action will be handled as a routine i
updating of NRC transportation regulations. There is no reasonable l
alternative to rulemaking action.
These changes should result in a l
minimal increase in costs to affected licensees.
Proposed changes to l
10 CFR Part 71, based on current IAEA regulations, will be issued for public comments. The task will be scheduled over a 2-year interval ending January 1989 and will consume 2-3 staff-years of effort depending on the number and cifficulty of conflicts to be resolveci.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action for Division Review 06/30/87 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 10/30/87 l
Proposed Action Package to EDO 01/30/88 i
Final Action Published 01/30/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AhD OTHER ENTITIES:
Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Donald R. Hopkins Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research j
Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7690 f
TITLE:
- + Amendment to Assign NRC Sole Authority for Approving Onsite l
LLW Disposal CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 150 ABSTRACT:
This rulemaking would establish hRC's sole authority for approving onsite disposal of low-level waste at all NRC licensed reactors and at Part 70 fuel cycle facilities. There is a need to amend Part 150.15 to authorize j
one agency (the NRC) to regulate all onsite disposal of low-level I
waste in order to provide a more comprehensive. regulatory review procedure i
of all onsite waste management activites and to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. Uniform review procedures by the hRC will provide for greater health hazard at a later date after the site is decommissioned.
Il TIMETABLE:
J Proposed Action to ED0 11/30/87
]
Proposed Action Published 12/30/87 l
Final Action Published 12/30/88
.j LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2021; 42 USC 5841 i
EFFECTS'ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 1
I AGENCY CONTACT:
l John Stewart
.i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l
Washington, DC 20555 l
301 443-7980 L
i I
- l
e w
.n--._
l l
l
- Il e
.t l
l 1
.1 I
i l
4 i
,i i
(A)- Petitions incorporated into final rules or l
petitions denied since March 31, 1987 l
l 1
]
1 i
i l
l I
l q
l l
I t
I I
i PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-35-2 PETITIONER: The American Association of Physicists in Medicine PART: 35 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: January 29, 1982 (47 FR 4311) i l
SUBJECT:
Intervals between Required Dosimetry System Calibrations
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioner proposed that the Commission amend its regulations to permit a longer interval between required calibrations of teletherapy dosimetry systems.
Prior to this petition being granted, NRC regulations requireo calibration by the National Bureau of Standards or an accredited Regional Calibration Laboratory every two years.
The petitioner indicated that the waiting period for instrument calibration is currently about six months and is expected to increase, and that cosimetry systems do not have to be calibrated that frequently.
Objective.
To allow a longer interval between calibrations while providing for suitable dosimetry system constancy checks in order to reduce the six-month waiting period for instrument calibration without adversely affecting dosimetry system reliability.
Background. The comment period closed March 30, 1982. The staff met with representatives of the National Bureau of Standards on January 21, 1982, to discuss the extent of and l
reasons for the instrument calibration backlog.
Prior to the petition's final resolution, affected licensees received relief in the form of case-by-case variances. Medical licensees will benefit from the new rule by not having to have dosimetry equipment calibrated so frequently.
In response to the petition, a proposed rule, similar to that suggested in the petition, was incorporated into a proposeo revision of 10 CFR Part 35,
" Medical Use of Byproduct Material," which was published for public comment on July 26, 1985 (50 FR 30616); NRC resources are noted there. The comment period for this proposed rule closeo November 18, 1985.. -
l TIMETABLE: Complete.. This petition was. granted in a final rule, " Medical Use of Byproduct Materi61" (Parts 30, 31, 32,.35, and 40)-
published in the Federal Register October 16,1986(51FR36932).
CONTACT: Norman L. McElroy l.
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-427-4108
l l
l l
l l
)
3 4i (B) - Petitions incorporated into proposed rules f
4 i
i 1
I f
l
\\
l l
l l
I
s 1
1 1
l l
B s
1 s
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-35-6 PETITIONER: Mallinkrodt, Inc.
l PART: 35 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
None i
l FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Not Yet Published
SUBJECT:
Administration of Aerosols and Gases
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission remove the requirement in the revision to Part 35, effective April 1, 1987, 1
that radioactive aerosols be administered in rooms that are at l
l negative pressure from surrounding rooms. The petitioner states l
that although the NRC imposes identical regulatory requirements l
on radioactive aerosols and gases, the safety measures necessary to assure public health and safety are different for aerosols and gases, Becaues the imposition of the negative room pressure requirement and radioactive aerosols could have and adverse impact on the delivery of health care to patients with pulmonary disease, and because the petitioner believes that such a.
requirement is unnecessary to protect public health and safety, q
the petitioner requests that the negative room pressure i
requirement be removed.
TIMETABLE: Complete. The staff has developed a proposed rule to respond to the issue in this petition.
The title of the rule is " Control 1
of Aerosols and Gases (Part 35).
l CONTACT: Judy Foulke Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7681 1
i i
L 1
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-51-1 PETITIONER:
New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution PART:
51 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: January 16, 1976 (41 FR 2448)
SUBJECT:
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle
SUMMARY
Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission initiate a rulemaking to amend its summary of environmental considerations in the uranium fuel cycle presented in Table S-3 of Part 51. The petitioner declares that (1) the l
current Table S-3 seriously underestimates the impact on l
human health and safety by disregarding the long-term effects of certain radionuclides, particularly thorium-230 i
which decays into radon gas, (2) the health effects of kryptun-85 and tritium releases from fuel reprocessing plants are underestimated, (3) releases of carbon-14 from the fuel cycle should be included, (4) the term " man-rems" does not provide a meaningful representation of health j
effects, at least in terms of radionuclides involved in this petition, and that human deaths from man-rem exposures provide a more comprehensible consequence of fuel cycle activities, and (5) the magnitude of the potential death toll from mill tailings alone alters previous judgments and requires a reassessment of previous conclusions to authorize construction ana operation of nuclear reactors and the post-ponement of all pending applications for construction or operating authority until final resolution of the issue by the Comission.
Objective. The petitioner proposes action to amend Table S-3 in ways that they claim will more accurately reflect the impact of the long-term effects of certain long-lived radionuclides on human health and safety. The petitioner also proposes to suspend all activities related to nuclear power plant construction and operation until the Commission reassesses the health and safety effects of mine toilings.
Background.
The Commission acteo on all items of the petition on April 14, 19 4 (46 FR 15613) except for a future rulemaking proceeding to amend the Table S-3 value for radon.
The Federal Register notice of April 14, 1978, 4
removeo the radon value from Table S-3 and made it subject 1 !
I I
1 to litigation in individual licensing proceedings.
l Litigation on the radon environmental impacts in cases pending before the Comission's Atomic Safety and Licensing l
Appeal Board was heard in a combined hearing in February 1980. The Appeal Board's initial decision-(ALAB-640 May 13,1981) upheld the staff's estimates of radon releases from the nuclear fuel cycle, and the final decision (ALAB-701, November 19,1982) affirmed the staff's conclusion that radon releases would not cause significant health effects. This decision was appealed to the Commissioners for review, and the Commissioners deferred their review until the new EPA standards for radon have been analyzed and the NRC's milling regulations revised as necessary to i
conform to them, j
Rulemaking to add the new value for radon-222 in Table S-3 i
will be affected by the new EPA standards for radon. On 1
October 7, 1984, EPA promulgated new radon standards for inactive uranium mill sites, and, in. October 1985, NRC j
published revised uranium milling regulations conforming to the new EPA standards. However, the matter is not yet I
completely settled, because EPA received, in August 1985, a court order requiring them to establish radon standards for active uranium mills. These standards were issued on September 24, 1986.
The Comission plans a single rulemaking to cover the narrative explanation of Table S-3 and the new values for radon-222 and technetium-99. The staff sent to the Commission a paper suggesting a schedule on which this rulemaking can be accomplished.
TIMETABLE: Complete. This petition addressed three issues. The Comission acted on two issues in a Federal Register Notice published 4/14/78(43FR15613). The third issue will be addressed in the rule (Table S-3, Addition'of Raden-222 and Technetium 99).
CONTACT: William Pearson Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7682 u
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-71-1, PRM-71-2, PRM-71-4 PETITIONER:
Energy Research ~and Development Administration (ERDA)/ DOE (PRM-71-1).
American National Standards Inst. CommitteeN14(PRM-71-2)
Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. (PRM-71-4)-
PART:
71 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION:
PRM-71-1, September 22,.1975(40FR43517);
PRM-71-2, April 15, 1976 (41 FR 15921); and PRM-71-4, January 27,-1977(42FR5149).
SUBJECT:
Exemption of " Low Specific Activity Material" from the Requirements of.Part 71
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioners requested that the Commission 4
amend its regulations at-66 71.7 and 71.10 to exempt ' flow specific activity' material," as defined in 6 71.4(g), from the requirements of Part 71.
This action was requested to correct an inconsistency between NRC regulations and those of D0T and IAEA. The petitioners claim that duplicate, rather than inadequate, control exists in this area, but'do not provide economic loss data. Therefore the necessity and urgency for addressing this issue is minimal. The issue:is a generic one, effecting a large segment of the licensee' population including all nuclear reactor' licensees, so rulemaking is the only reasonable alternative.
If the exemption requested in the petitions were granted,.NRC would no longer regulate in the area of transportation of larger quantities of low specific activity radioactive material. Since a relatively large number (40) of NRC approved package designs are used for transporting larger quantities of low specific activity materials, NRC could eliminate a sizeable workload by approving the exemption.
Industry would likewise benefit economically by not having-to obtain approval of special packages for this type of material, and by not having to build or use the special packages.
Unless DOT chose to counter.the NRC. exemption with regulatory j
controls of its own in this area, larger quantities of. low
^
specific activity materials would likely be shipped in lesser packages at greater public risk. However, since the petitions are being processed together with an amendment to NRC rules which would limit the definition of " low specific activity materials" to an extent not yet determined, it is-not yet possible to determine the effects on the public.
d Objective.
To exempt " low specific activity material" from the packaging requirements of 10 CFR Part 71 to achieve compatibility among the regulations of the NRC, DOT,'ano IAEA.
q 1
1.
- A t
Background. Comments were received on these petitions over d period of one and one-half years. Altogether, five favorable comments were received.
In Jul Commission approved a proposed revision (y 1979, theSECY-79-192) the NRC transportation regulations in 10 CFR Part 71 to make them more compatible with those of the IAEA, including the requested revision to s 71.7 to exempt " low specific activity material" from the requirements of Part 71. The proposed rule change was published in the Federal Register on August 17, 1979 (44 FR 48234).
During the development of the final rule, however, the transportation program office (NMSS) reversed its earlier decision to exempt " low l
specific activity material" from Part 71 until a deficiency in the rule is corrected and directed that action on the petitions be delayed until a new rulemaking action is initiated to correct the deficiency. Work on that rulemaking action has been temporarily terminated pending completion of a study being conducted under the control of D0T.
TIMETABLE: Canplete. Resolution of PRM-71-1, PRM-71-2, and PRM-71-4 will be addressed in the Part 71 proposed rule, " Transportation Regulations: Compatibility With the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)" which is scheduled to be published early 1988. To follow action on these petitions in future regulatory agendas, see the timetable for the rulemaking entry.
CONTACT:
Donald R. Hopkins Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7690 i,
7 (C) - Petitions. pending staff review I
l 1
i i
1 l
1 1
i
)
i
E l
i m9
f l
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-40-25 PETITIONER: State of Alabama PART: 40 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
NONE FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: December 31,1985(50FR53335)
SUBJECT:
Regulations Governing Unimportant Quantities of Source Material l
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations governing unimportant quantities of' source
[
material. The petitioner suggests that the NRC examine the 1
l exemption from licensing for products or parts of products I
fabricated of or containing tungsten or magnesium-thorium alloys whose thorium content is less than 4 percent by weight and either remove the restriction on this exemption or set out the restriction as part of a general license.
The petitioner believes that, in placing a restriction on an exemption, the NRC has created a structurally deficient l
regulation that may lead to unintentional violations by persons who may receive products covered by the exemption and be unaware of any further restrictions.
Objective. To ensure that a person who obtains an exempt product covered by the exemption is aware of any l
limitations placed on the use of the product.
Background. The comment period for this action closed March 3, 1986. Only one comment was received, and it opposed the petition.
TIMETABLE:
Staff action on the petition is scheduled to be completed August 1987.
CONTACT:
Sterling Bell Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-427-9026 l
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-50-44 PETITIONER:
Committee to Bridge the Gap PART:
50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: September 3,1986(51FR31341)
SUBJECT:
Fire Protection Standards for Graphite Redctors
SUMMARY
- Description.
The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to require operators of reactors that use graphite as a moderator or reflector te (1) prepare end submit for NRC approvel fire response plans for a graphite fire and (2) measure the energy stored in their graphite, ano revise their safety analyses to consider the risks and consequences of a graphite fire in their facilities.
During the comment period, the staff is administering a technical assistance contract with a national laboratory to evaluate independently the technical issues related to this petition.
The schedules are timed so that the contractor can also assist l
l the staff with the evaluation of comments received. Technical I
issues under' study include: the necessary and sufficient conditions to cause graphite ignition and to lead to self-sustaining, rapid oxidation reactions; the build-up, storage, and release of "Wigner" energy resulting from fast neutron irradiation of graphite; actual involvement of graphite burning in the Windscale and Chernobyl reactor accidents; and implications of these issues to the safety of operation of hRC-licenses non-power reactors.
This issue has not previously been explicitly addressed in depth by NRC, although some reactors have been evaluated case-by-case. The issue does not appear to be one requiring urgent rulemaking action by NRC, hence the route of requesting comments was selected.
Objective. To adequately protect the public in the event of a tire at a reactor that uses graphite.
Background. The comment period expired on February 3, 1987.
Twenty-eight comments were received in response to the petition.
The staff and its contractor are evaluating these comments.
TIMETABLE: Staff action on the petition is scheduled to be completed September 1987.
CONTACT:
Theodore S. Michaels Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 301-492-8251 _ - _ _ _ _ _ _.
PETITION DOCAEl NUMBER:
PRM-50-45 PETITIONER:
Kenneth G. Sexton
{
(
PART:
50 L
OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION:
October 6,1986(51FR35518)
SUBJECT:
Extending the Emergency Planning Zone
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioner requests that the Co'amission amend,its regulations to require that current methodologies and analytical techniques be used to reevaluate the established Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) for nuclear power plants..The petitioner is concerned that emergency planning for areas within and beyond the 10-mile distance provided in the Commission's regulations is inadequate because the current 10-mile EPZ was determined'with what the petitioner considers outdated methodologies and data The petitioner points out that advanced techniques and new information obtained through research in the last j
10 years have produced improved calculaticas for determining the size of an EPZ.
Obj ective. The petitoner believes that there is overwhelming justification to request that the size of the EPZ be reevaluated on a site-specific basis, after allowing for review of the determination report by any interesteo parties.
Background. The comment period for this l
petition, originally to expire on December 5, t
1986 has been extended to April 15, 1987.
1 i
TIMETABLE: Staff action on the. petition is scheduled to be completed November 1987, CONTACT:
Stephen A. McGuire Office of Nuclear Regulatory' Research 301-443-7900 l
i n
f s
q a(
\\
L l
li
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-46 PETITIONER: State of Maine-PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION :
December 30, 1986 (51 FR 47025)
SUBJECT:
Emergency Planning
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioner requests thet the Commission amend its emergency planning regulations to (1) expana the emergency planning zone for the plume exposure pathway and for the ingestion pathway; (2) require that emergency planning be o,one before any construction of a nuclear facility is permitted and that the Governor of each dffected State approve the emergency plans as a precondition to construction; and (3) require that offsite emergency preparedness findings be made before any fuel loading and/or low power operations are permitted.
Objective.
To expand the emergency planning zone around nuclear power plants to ensure the protection of the public.
Background. The comment period expired March 2, 1987.
TIMETABLE: Staff action on the petition is scheduled to be completed in November 1987, but depends on the Commission policy decision in the emergency planning area.
CONTACT: Stephen A. McGuire.
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Researcb 301-443-7900
! F
l l
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-60-2 and PRM-60-2A PETITIONER: States of Nevada and Minnesota 4
1 PART: 60 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER C11AT10N: April 30, 1985 (50 FR 18267)
December 19,1985(50FR51701)
SUBJECT:
Implementation of Certain Environmental Standards Which Have Been Proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency I
SUMMARY
Description.
The original petition (PRM-60-2) asked the Commission to revise 10 CFR Part 60 by adopting certain " assurance requirements" previously included in proposed standards published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The NRC had objected to EPA's " assurance requirements" as being outside the scope of EPA's environmental' standard-setting authority. Since.the NRC's objection to these requirements was principally jurisdictional, the petitioners sought to expedite promulgation of the' final EPA standards by petitioning the Commission to incorporate EPA's wording within the NRC's own regulations.
Later, following publication of EPA's final standards, the petition (PRM-60-20A) petitioners filed an amended which revised the text of the requested changes consistent with the wording published by EPA. The amended petition continues to seek adoption of EPA's " assurance requirements," which the petitioners believe would lead to a safer high-level waste (HLW) repository, and also proposes requirements and considerations for Commission adoption of DOE's Environmental Impact Statement as required by section 114(f) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
Objective. To amend 10 CFR Part 60 to be consistent l
with final EPA HLW standards to enhance HLW repository safety.
Backgrourid. - The original petition (PRM-60-2) was cocketed by the Commission on January 28, 1985, receipt was noticed in the Federal Register on April 30, 1985, and public comments were received until July 1, 1985..The amenced petition (PRM-60-2A) was docketed by the Commission on October 3, 1985. On June 19, 1986, the NRC published proposed revisions to 10 CFR Part 60 intended to conform Part 60 to the final EPA HLW standards. The comment period ended August 18, 1966.
TIME 1ABLE: The staff plans to finalize its conforming revisions to Port 60 by September 1987.
These revisions will respond to the portions of this petition which request acoption of EPA's "essurance requirements."
The staff will separately address adoption of the Department of Energy's Environmental Impact Statement in conforming amendments to 10 CFR Part 51.
\\
two rulemakings. prepared following completion of these A response to the petition will be CONTACT: Dan Fehringer Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-427-4533 s
1 I
s s '
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-73-6 i
PETITIONER: Wisconsin Electric Power Company, et al.
{
i PART: 73 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION:
February 16, 1982 (47 FR 6659)
SUBJECT:
Modification of Qualifications for Security Personnel of Nuclear Power Plants and Other Special Nuclear Material i
Licensees
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioners request that the Commission eliminate the requirement that armed security personnel at
.1 nuclear power plants or other facilities licensed to handle special nuclear material (1) carry an extra pair of eye-glasses and (2) undergo an annual medical examination within the preceding 30 days of an annual physical fitness test.
The petitioners contend that these-requirements are
" excessive and unreasonable" when compared'to similar 1
requirements for security personnel in other government agencies or in operations with security requirements comparable to those of nuclear power plants. The petition includes proposed amendatory text which would achieve these modified requirements.
Objective. To eliminate requirements for security personnel that the petitioner contends are " excessive and i
unreasonable."
Background. The comment period closed April 19, 1982.
Nine comments on the petition were received and are being evaluated.
TIMETABLE: Commission action on this petition is scheduled for August 1987.
1 CONTACT: Sandra Frattali Office of Fuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7746 i
l l [--
4 i
i l
l (D)-Petitionswithdeferredaction I
1 I
l
-._..m l
l l
l l
l D
t
9 1
PETITION DOCKET NUM51R:
PRM-20-14 l
PETITIONER:
The University of Utah
{
PART: 20
.{
OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: January 30, 1984 (49 FR 3667) l
SUBJECT:
Disposal of Very Low Concentrations of Short-Lived Radionuclides
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioner proposed an amendment of 6 20.306 and the acdition of a new 9 20.307 to alleviate a number of problems that many licensees are experiencing unoer current regulations with tne disposal of experimental animal waste material and certain radionuclides components. The petitioner states that the changes would substantially reduce nonradiological risks
]
related to the collection, storage, packaging, and shipping i
of certain biological and chemical wastes without compromising j
or reducing radiation protection.
q Objective. To obtain additional options for the disposal of very low concentrations of short-lived radionuclides.
Background. A request for information was published with
'the notice of receipt of the petition.
Forty-five comment lg, comment period The closed March 30, 1984.
tters were received, including one from the petitioner that revised the initial petition and offered a second version that was based on the petitioner's analysis of the comment letters.
Most of the comment letters favored the petition. Approxi-mately one-fourth of the comment letters contained data that were solicited when the notice of receipt of the petition was published. These data will be used to help evaluate the merit of the petition. The staff is in the process of analyzing the data, the petition, the revised petition, and other comment letters and has requested guidance on appropriate methodology from the Environmental Protection Agency. The Commission published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on December 2, 1987 (51 FR 43367) regarding criteria for radioactive waste below regulatory concern. About 1 staff year will be required to complete action on this petition.
TIMETABLE:
Resolution of this petition is scheduled to be published November 1987.
CONTACT: Catherine Mattsen Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7689 _.
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-20-15 PETITIONER:
Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (UNWMG)
PART:
20 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
NONE FEDtRAL REGISTER CITATION:
September 19, 1984 (49 FR 36653)
SuuodCT: New Methods of Disposal of Waste Oil Contaminated by Lw-Level Radioactive Material from Nuclear Power Plants
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioners request that the Commission issue a regulation governing the disposal of waste oil contaminated by low-level radioactive material from nuclear power plants by establishing radionuclides concentrations in 1
waste oil at which disposal may be carried out without regard to the radioactive material content of the waste.
Each year, a
the petitioners state, quantities of waste oil containing very low levels of radioactive contamination are produced at nuclear power plants. The petitioners maintain that the currently used method of disposal (which is absorption or solidification, transportation to, and burial at a licensed disposal facility) is costly, inconsistent with NRC's policy in favor of volume reduction, and represents an inefficient use of resourcas.
In order to provide efficient, environ-mentally acceptable, and cost beneficial methods, the petitioners propose six disposal methods with specific gross activity limits for itemized radionuclides to be included in a new Appendix E to Part 20.
Objective.
To develop a "below regulatory concerns" value of 1 mrem /yr for disposal of waste oil generated in nuclear power plants, which is consistent with Conmission and ACRS philosophies and policies.
The provisions of 40 CFR Part 190 would be met, Background. The comment period closed November 19, 1984.
The Commission has initiated a rulemaking which would grant the petition in part, permitting, and establishing requirements for, incineration of waste oil on site. This appears to be the most expeditious way of responding to the petition and leaves decisions concerning "below regulatory concern criteria for consideration separately; an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-making was published on December 2, 1987 (51 FR 43367) on the subject of below regulatory concern waste and a generic rule-making is being considered.
TIMETABLE:
Resolution of this petition is scheduled for August 1987.
CONTACT:
Catherine Mattsen 4
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research i
301-443-7689 _ - _
j PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-40-23 j
PETITIONER:
Sierra Club PART: 40 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 25, 1981 (46 FR 14021);
i l
May 2, 1983 (48 FR 19722) l i
SUBJECT:
Licensing the Possession of Uranium Mill Tailings at Inactive Storage Sites.
j
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to license the possession of uranium mill tailings of inactive storage sites. The petitioner proposes the following regulatory action to ensure that the 1
public health and safety is adequately protected: (1) repeal the licensing exemption for inactive uranium mill tailings sites subject to the Department of Energy's remedial programs; (2) require a license for the possession of. byproduct material on any other property in the vicinity of an inactive mill tailings site if the byproduct materials are derived from the sites; or, in the alternative, (3) conduct a rulemaking to determine whether a licensing exemption of these sites or byproduct materials constitutes an unreasonable risk to public health and safety. On March 23, 1983, the petitioner filed an amen? ment to the original petition. In the amendment, I
the petitioner requests that, in the event that NRC denies the earlier requests, NRC take further action to ensure that the management of byproduct material located on or derived from inactive uranium processing sites is conducted in a manner that protects the public health and safety and the environment. The petitioner also requests that the NRC take action to govern the management of byproduct material not subject to licensing under section 81 of the Atomic Energy Act.
I Objective. To license the protection of uranium mill tailings at inactive storage sites or take other regulatory action to protect the public health and safety and.the environment from the radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with the tailings. The petitioner believes that this action is necessary if NRC is to adequately fulfill its statutory responsibilities under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act.
J Background The comment period closeo April 27, 1981. Three comments were received, all stating the petition shoulo be denied. The comment period on the amenoment to the petition closed June 30, 1983. Uranium mill tailings are regulatea under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (Pub. L.95-604, 42 U.S.C. 7901, et seq.). Title I of the Act directs that the Department of Energy, in consul-tation with NRC, conduct a remedial action program at certain inactive uranium mill tailings sites. Title V of the Act authorizes NRC to regulate disposal of the tailings at active sites. The staff is preparing a response to the petition.
TIMETABLE: Resolution of this petition is scheduled for March 1988, following publication of the revision to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40, scheduled for September 1987.
CONTACT: Frank Swanberg Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7815 - _ _ _ _.
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-40-24 l
l PETITIONER:
Union Carbice Corporation PART: 40 j
OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
None FEDERAL kEGISTER CITATION:
November 30, 1982 (47 FR 53889)
SUBJECT:
Revised Criteria for Operation of Uranium Mills and Disposition of Tailings or Westes
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioner proposes that the Commission ameno its regulations setting out criteria for the operation of uranium mills ano the disposition of tailings or wastes resulting from uranium milling activities. The petitioner suggests specific amendments to the criteria governing the selection of new tailings disposal sites or the adequacy of existing tailings disposal sites, the seepage of toxic materials into the groundwater, the earth cover to be placed over tailings or wastes to prevent the l
surface exhalation of radon, and the charge imposed on each mill operator to cover the cost of long-tenn surveillance.
The petitioner supports its suggested amendments with l
information it says was not available to the Consnission at the time the regulations were issued.
Objective. To significantly reduce the compliance costs incurred by the petitioner in the operation of its uranium milling facilities while continuing to adequately protect public health, safety, and the environment.
Background. The comment period that originally closed January 31, 1983, was extended until May 2, 1983. The petitioner is a New York-based corporation engaged in uranium exploration, milling, and mining. The regulations the petitioner seeks to amend were issued as part of NRC's i
regulations implementing the Uranium Mill Tailings l
Radiation Control Act of 1978 (Pub. L.95-604, 42 U.S.C.
7901,etseq.). These regulations were published in the Federal Register on October 3, 1980 (45 FR 65531).
TIMETABLE: Resolution of this petition is scheduled for March 1988, following publication of the revision to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40, scheduled for September 1987.
CONTACT:
Frank Swanberg Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7815,
k.
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-50-20 PETITIDNER:
Free Environment, Inc., et al.
PART: 50 l
OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
100 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: May 19, 1977 (42 FR 25785) l
SUBJECT:
Reactor Safety Measures l
SUMMARY
Description.
The petition requested that the Commission amend > art 50 before proceeoing with the processing of license applications for the Central Iowa huclear Project to require that (1) all nuclear reactors be located below ground level; (2) all nuclear reactors be housed in sealed buildings within which permanent heavy vacuums are maintained; (3) a full-time Federal employee, with full authority to order the plant to be shut down in case of any operational abnormality, alwan)be present in all nuclear generating stations; and (4 the Central Iowa Nuclear Project and all other reactors be sited at least 4
40 miles from major population centers.
l Objective. To ensure that additional safety measures I
are employed in the construction and siting of nuclear power plants. The petitioner seeks to have recommendations and procedures practiced or encouraged by various organizations and some current NRC guidelines adopted as mandatory requirements in the Comission's regulations.
Background. The comment period closed July 18, 1977.
Three coments were received. The first three parts of the petition (see Description section above) were incorporated with PRM-50-19 for staff action purposes.
A notice of denial for the third part of the petition was published in the Federal Register on February 2, 1978 (43FR4466). A notice of denial for the first two parts of the petition was publisheo April 19, 1978 (43 FR 16556).
NRC staff work on the fourth part of the petition will be carried out in connection with the ongoing Part 100 rulemaking on demographic criteria.
i i
I l - _ _ _ _ -
Recent events, including the reactor accident at Chernobyl in the USSR, continued uncertainty over certain aspects of the accident source term work, and the lack of projected j
Construction Permit Applications have led the Commission's Executive Director for Operations to conclude that this rulemaking should be terminateo. When the Commission l
decides that further rulemaking on demographic criteria should be undertaken, the unresolved portions of the petition will be considered in the context of that rulemaking.
TIMETABLE: Resolution scheduled for completion in December 1987.
CONTACT: John Stewart Office of Nucisar Regulatory Research 301-443-7980 l
I l
l PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-25, PRM-50-25A PETITIONER: State of Illinois and the Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Walten League of America, Inc., et al.
PART:
50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION:
February 4, 1580 (45 FR 7653)
SUBJECT:
Extension of Construction Completion Date
SUMMARY
Description. The petitioners filed essentially identical petitions which request that the Comission amend its regulations in Part 50, 5 50.55, to require that a " good cause" proceeding concerning a requested amendment of a construction permit to exceed the latest construction completion date must consider whether a permittee has shown good cause for the continued construction of a nuclear power plant in light of all the circumstances at the time the application is considered. The petitioners further request that the Commission determine that " good cause" is not limited to the reasons why construction was not completed by the latest completion date in the construc-tion permit.
Objective. To prevent frustration of the statutory purposes of Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, which permits the extension of the completion date for construction of a nuclear power plant only for good cause shown.
Backgrouno. The comment period closed April 4, 1980. Six comments were received, including two from the petitioners on jurisdictional issues.
Comments filed by parties other than the petitioners opposed the petition. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) and the Commission have ruled on the " good cause" issue which is the subject of this petition.
The matter was alluded to in the Bailly case before the U.S.
Court of Appeals. The staff has prepared a draft proposal for the Commission. The State of Illinois has formally withdrawn its petition. The other petitioners have not yet formally withdrawn their petition.
TIMETABLE:
Resolution of this petition is delayed until a decision is reached by the DC Circuit Court on extension of the construction permit in the Comanche Peak case. Publication of -
the resolution is scheduled for August 1987.
CONTACT: Ronald M. Smith Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301-492-4396 _ _ _ _ _ _
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-31 PETITIONER: Citizens' Task Force PART:
50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
70.
FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: March 24, 1982 (47 FR 12639)
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
- Description.
The petitioner requests that the Comission amend its regulations to require that (1) the present j
ten-mile emergency planning zone radius be extended to 1
twenty miles and include any(towns bordering on or2) all communities w l
partially within this zone; population in excess of 5,000 persons be provided by the '
respective utility with the funding to purchase, install, and operate radiological monitoring equipment to reach and maintain the level of preparedness deemed necessary by the affected municipalities; and (3) utilities be required to i
finance the emergency planning efforts of municipalities i
located near nuclear reactors.-
J Objective. To establish an effective notification and evacuation system in comunities located near nuclear I
reactors.
l Background. The coment period closed May 24, 1982.
TIMETABLE: Comission action on the response to the petitioner is l
scheduled for November 1987.(to be coordinated with the severe accident research program and publication of NUREG-1150);however,thisisdependentuponthe Comission's policy decision in the emergency planning area.
CONTACT: Stephen A. McGuire Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research i
301-443-7900 PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-50-47 PETITIONER:
Quality Technology Company PART:
50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: January 12, 1987 (52 FR 1200)
SUBJECT:
Establishing an Employee Concerns Program and Resolution of Employee-Identified Concerns at Nuclear Facilities
SUBJECT:
Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission add to its regulations requirements that all utilities involved in a nuclear program establish and maintain an employee concerns program and report to the NRC's Office of Investigation all employee-identified concerns related to " wrongdoing activities." Based on the petitioner's experience with employee concerns programs, the petitioner contends that more than half of employee-identified concerns are substantiated and that adding these requirements to the NRC's regulations may ensure resolution of the issues related to these concerns.
Objective. To require that all utilities involved in a nuclear program (1) establish and maintain an employee concerns program and (2) report to the NRC's Office of Investigation all employee-identified concerns related to " wrongdoing activities."
Background. The petitioner conducted or participated in employee concerns programs at several utilities and thinks that such a program is an effective vehicle for obtaining accurate and insightful information about nuclear safety-related issues f rom employees involved in the construction or operation of a nuclear facility. The comment period closed March 13, 1987.
TIMETABLE: The resolution of this petition is scheduled for November 1987.
CONTACT: Markley L. Au Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7743 l
1 1
-100-i
1 PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-100-2 I
PETITIONER: Public Interest Research Group, et al.
PART:
100 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: July 1, 1976 (41 FR 27141) l
SUBJECT:
Population Density Criteria Near Nuclear Power Plants
SUMMARY
- Description.
The petitioners request that the Commission amend its regulations to prohibit the construction of nuclear reactors where the population in the surrounding area exceeds or will exceed specified numerical limits.
The petitioners' proposed criteria would limit permissible 1
population density to 400 people per square mile within a i
40-mile perimeter.
The petitioners state that they regard these proposed criteria as interim standards to be used until the Commission is able to generate its own numerical l
standards on population density.
Objective. To restrict utilities from building nuclear i
reactors too close to metropolitan areas.
Background. The comment period closed August 30, 1976.
l Twelve comments were received. An NRC staff paper (SECY-78-624) was submitted to the Commission on December 4,
- 1978, in a memorandum to the Executive Director for Operations dated February 15, 1979, the Commission deferred action on the population density siting criteria issue pending submission of the Siting Policy Task Force report. The petitioners were notified of this deferral by letter dated March 9, 1979. The petitioners were notified by letter (in July 1980) that the petition would be considered in the context of the rulemaking on siting criteria.
Petitioners were notified by letter on January 26, 1982, that the proposed rule on siting criteria would be delayed until sumer 1983 to await safety goal implementation and source term reevaluation.
Recent events, including the reactor accident at Chernobyl in the USSR, continued uncertainty over certain aspects of the accident source term work, and the lack of projected Construction Permit Applications have led the Commission's Executive Director for Operations to conclude that this rulemaking should be terminated. When the Commission 4
-101-
decides that further.rulemaking on' demographic criteria-should be underteien, the unresolved portions of the-petition,will be considered in the' context of that:-
rulemaking.
TIMETABLE:
Resolution scheduled for completion in December 1987.
CONTACT: John Stewart Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research-301-443-7980 j!
1 i
p l
l L
I
-102-
1 1
l c
WR 70k:11 336 U.S. NUCLEAA ABOULATOAV COMMisse0N I REeQRT NUM9E R gAsseposd by TIDC, sep res he, sf any)
E'i $$ '
BIB GRAPHIC DATA SHEET j
see.NstaWCTiO~s oN Tai aEveRsi NUREG-0936, Vol. 6. No./2 2 TITLE AND $USTITLE 3 LE Avf SLANK NRC Regulatory Agenda Quarterly Report
/
April-June 1987
.l
. oATe aa ORT CoMPat<O
- p
]
Mo~T, veAR
. AUT,.oais' July-1987 6 DATE REPORT ISSUED MONT-p YEAR
.inl y 1987
{
1 FERFORMING ORGANIZATION N AM& AND MAILING ADD 5 flacippe /W Cocles 6 PROJECT /T AIK RK UNIT NUMBES Division of Rules and Recordi -
i Office of Administration and sources. Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis 'on
/
I Washington, D.C.
20555
(
/
j 10 $?ONSORING ORGANi2 ATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS fine e l,p coaer ite TYPE OP REPORT
{
Quarterly Same as 7 above
/#
D PERsOD COVEMED (inefsssere dataist j
x
/
i s
April-June 1987 u sue uMENT ARv NOu.
q f
f i
/
i o
A,, T R.ci,
i f
The NRC Regulatory Agenda is a compila)81 petjftions for rulemaking w ion of ill rules on which the NRC-has proposed or is considering action and (
beenreceivedbytheCommissionandarebendingdispositionbytheCommission.
The regulatory agenda is updated and is "each quarter.
'Y N
l.
,. exmME N T AN.L Y,,....E vNoRoset.cR.,,
g
..==;T.
compilation of rules e
petitions for rulema -ng unlimited 16 SECURITv CLA5515tCATION k
1 (Tars pepes b eDENTIPitR5r0 PEN ENDED TERMS g ]gqgjfypg 1
Iinun recoru
' Ifnt lauifind 11 NUMetse Ot P AGES te PRect
- u. 5, Govt Rhmth r palki1NG orF ICE 1987 101 592 :F,1197
UNITED STATES 3,,c,,t,ouars ctAss nan NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION POST ^og4f 5 PAfD WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555
,,ygS,",f g,,
Section 1 - Rules PENALTY F R RIV E E,$300 Action Completed Rules
,., 555"o'b R
[0LIS{ f Nll11PunQs r
M I AN n7 i
u yHzivo 7ag 37 a
~q r o.pc n
Proposed Rules
%c gg 20S55 l
Advance Notice - Proposed l
Rulemaking j
\\
Unpublished Rules i
Section ll-Petitions for Rulemaking Petitions - Final or Denied Petitions - Incorporated into Proposed Rules Petitions - Pending Petitions - Deferred Action
_