ML20245F888
| ML20245F888 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/31/1989 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0936, NUREG-0936-V08-N02, NUREG-936, NUREG-936-V8-N2, NUDOCS 8908150121 | |
| Download: ML20245F888 (129) | |
Text
--
NUREG-0936 Vol. 8, No. 2 ;
i 1
i i XRC Regulatory Agenda l L
Quarterly Report
. April- June 1989 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration
,f""*%,
I f
8908150121 890731T PDR HUREG ppg 0936 R
C
.% 1 AVAILABILITY NOTICE Availability of Reference Matericts Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available frorr, one of the following sources:
1.
The NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW, Lower Level, Washington, DC 20555
- 2. The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082
- 3. The National Technical In ormation Service, Springfield, VA 22101 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publica-tions, it is not intended to be exhaustive.
Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda: NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investi-gation notices: Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence: Commission papers; and applicant end licensee documents and correspondence.
The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the GPO Sales i
Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceed-I ings, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regula-j tions in the Code of Federal P.egulaticns, 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 Cornmission, 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.
Documorits such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC l
conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the pud 1ication cited.
l Singie copies of NRC draft reports ue available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request to the Office of Information Resources Management, Distribution Sect;on, U.S.
Nuciear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Copies of indusvy codes and stendards *, sed in a substeintive mannor in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Aver'ue. Bethesda, Maryland, and are available there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copy-righted 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.
l
NUREG-0936 vol. 8, No. 2 NRC Regulatory Agenda '
Quarterly Report
' April-June 1989 Manuscript Completed: July 1989 Date Published: July 1989 Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
,P* "*%
(M...6) .
i
N TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I - RULES (A) Rules on which final action has been taken since March 31, 1989 Page Modifications to the NRC Hearing Process (Limited
' Interrogatories and Factual Basis for Contentions) ,.
1 (Part 2)......................................................
Rule on the Submission and Management of Records and Documents Related to the Licensing of a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste (Part 2)................................................ 2 Manner of Service of Pleadings Upon the Secretary of the ;
commission (Part 2)........................................... 3* !
Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Reactors (Parts 2, 50, 51, 52, 170).................................................. 4 Advisory Committees; Policies and Procedures (Part 7)........... 5*
Fitness for Duty Program (Part 26).............................. 6 Emergency Preparedness.for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive ,
Materials Licensees (Parts 30, 40, 70)........................ 7 !
Flow Control Conditions for the Standby Liquid Control System in Boiling Water Reactors (Part 50).................... 8 Disposal of Radioactive Wastes; Part 61 Amendments (Part 61).... 9 Access to Safeguards Information (Part 73)...................... 10 Regulation of Uranium Enrichment Facilities (Part 76)........... 11 Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements; Miscellaneous 7mendments Necessitated by Changes in the Price- Anders on Act ( Part 3 4 0 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Indemnification of Licensees that Manufacture, Produce, Possess or Use Radiopharmaceuticals or Radioisotopes for Medical Purposes (Part 140)................................... 13 iii i
i h
Pace (B) Proposed Rules Procedures Involving the Equal Access to Justice Act:
Implementation.(Parts 1, 2)...................................- 15
' Informal Hearing' Procedures for Nuclear Reactor Operator Licensing Adjudications (Part 2).............................. 16;
]
4 Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings--
Procedural Changes in Hearing Process.(Part 2)................ 17
)
- NEPA-Review Procedures for Geologic Repositories for High-Level Waste (Parts 2, 51, 60)................................. 18 j
H Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap ;
in Federally Assisted Programs (Part 4)........................ 19 Debt Collection Procedures (Part 15)............................. . 20 Sequestration of Witnesses Interviewed Under Subpoena /
Disqualification of Attorneys (Part 19)........................ 21 Disposal.of Waste Oil by Incineration from Nuclear Power Plants (Part 20)............................................... 22 Standards for Protection Against Radiation (Part 20)............. 24 Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting.of. Defects and Noncompliance (Parts 21, 50).......... 26 Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Equipment 1 (Part 34)...................................................... 28 Palladium-103 for Interstitial Treatment of Cancer (Part 35)..... 30 )
Basic Quality Assurance Program for Medical Use of Byproduct Material (Part 35)................................... 31 Ensuring the Effectiveness of Maintenance Programs for Nuclear Power Plants (Part 50)......................................... 32 Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors (Part 50)....................................... 33 Education and Experience Requirements for Senior Operators and. Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants (Parts 50, 55)......... 34 I
i iv l
I
Pane Amendment to 10 CFR 51.51 and 51.52, Tables S-3 and S-4, Addition of Radon-222 and Technetium-99 Radiation Values, '
and Addition of Appendix B, " Table S-3 Explanatory Analysis" (Part 51)............................................ 36 l
Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at ..
Nuclear Power Reactor Sites (Parts 50, 72, 170)................. 38 Elimination of Inconsistencies Between NRC Regulations and EPA Standards (Part 60)........................................ 39 Transportation Regulations: Compatibility With the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (Part 71)............ 40 Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (Part 140)...... 42 R asserting NRC's Sole Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States (Part 150)......., 43 (C) Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern; Generic Rulemaking (Parts 2, 20).................................................. 45 ;
M:41 cal Use of Byproduct Material: Training and Experience Criteria (Part 35)............................................. 46 Comprehensive Quality Assurance in Medical Use and a Standard of Care (Part 35).............................................. 47 Criteria for Licensing the custody and Long-Term care of Uranium Mill Tailings Sites (Part 40).......................... .48 Nuclear Plant License Renewal (Part 50).......................... 49 Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures, Systems, and Components (Part 50)............ '50
.(D) Unpublished Rules Conduct of Employees; Miscellaneous Amendments (Part 0)......... 51 R2 Vised Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings l 52 !
j (Parts 0, 1, P., 9, 50)........................................
Availability of Official Records (Part 2)....................... 53 v
I l
Page Revision of Definition of Meeting (Part 9)...................... 55 i Credit Checks - Expanded Personnel Security Investigative Coverage (Parts 11, 25)....................................... 56*+
Access Authorization Fee Schedule for Licensee Personnel and Implementation of SF-312 (Parts 11, 25, 95)................... 57*
Twenty-Four Hour Notification of Incidents (Part 20)............ 58 Low-Level Waste Manifest Information and Reporting (Parts 20, 61)................................................ 59*
Preserving the Free Flow of Information to the Commission (Parts 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 72, 150)........................... 61*
Requirements for Possession of Industrial Devices (Part 31)..... 62*
Licensing and Radiation Safety Re'quirements for Large Irradiators (Part 36)......................................... 63 Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (ASME Code, 1986/1987/1988 Addenda) (Part 50)............................. 64 Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (ASME Code,Section XI, Division 1, Subsection IWE) (Part 50)............. 66 Amendment of the Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule (Part 50)....... 68 Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 (Part 50)..................................................... 70 Emergency Response Data System (Part 50)........................ 72*
Personnel Access Authorization Program (Parts 50, 73)........... 74 Amendments to Part 60 to Delineate Anticipated Processes and Events and Unanticipated Processes and Events (Part 60)... 76*
Minor Amendments to Physical Protection Requirements (Parts 70, 72, 73, 75)........................................ 77 Night Firing Qualifications for Security Guards at Nuclear Power Plants (Part 73)........................................ 78 vi
L.
Pace 1-D y; Firing Qualifications and Physical Fitness Programs'for
-Security Personnel at Category I Fuel Cycle Facilities -79*
(Part.73).....................................................
Export of Heavy Water to Canada (Part-110)...................... 81 Rsvision of Fee Schedules: Radioisotope Licenses 82*
- (Part 170)....................................................
PURC Acquisition Regulation (NRCAR) (48 CFR Chapter 20, Parts 83 1-52).........................................................
SECTION II - PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING
.(A) Petitions incorporated into final rules or petitions denied since March 31, 1989 1 University of Missouri _(PRM-50-48).............................. 85.
(B) Petitions for which a notice of denial has been prepared and is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register next quarter None (C) Petitions incorporated into proposed rules None
. l (D) Petitions pending staff review The Rockefeller University (PRM-20-17).......................... 87 ,
1 The Rockefeller University (PRM-20-18).......................... 88 89 GE Stockholders' Alliance (PRM-20-19)...........................
Amersham Corporation (PRM-35-8)................................. 90*
Frae Environment, Inc., et al. (PRM-50-20)...................... 91 92 Citizens' Task Force (PRM-50-31)................................ ]
l Vii 1
i
Page Kenneth G. Sexton _(PRM-50-45).................................... 93
' State of Maine (PRM-50-46)................................. ..... '94 -
Charles Young (PRM-50-50).......................................- 95 American Nuclear Insurers and MAERP Reinsurance Association, Edison Electric Institute, Nuclear Utility Management and-Kesource Council, and Nuclear. Mutual Limited and Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (PRM-50-51, PRM-50-51A, PRM-50-51B)........................... 96 Marvin Lewis (PRM-50-52')........................................ !r7-(E)-Petitions with deferred action Sierra Club (PRM-40-23)......................................... 99 viii
P-nface q The Regulatory Agenda is a quarterly compilation of all rules on which the NRC has recently completed action or has proposed, l or is considering action and of all petitions for rulemaking ]
that the NRC has received that are pending disposition. (
)
Organization of the Agenda The agenda consists of two sections that have been updated through June 30, 1989.Section I, " Rules," includes (A) rules on which final action has been taken since March 31, 1989, the closing date of the last NRC Regulatory Agenda; (B) rules ,
published previously as proposed rules on which the Commission has not taken final action; (C) rules published as advance notices of' proposed rulemaking for which neither a proposed nor 4 l
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 incorporated into final rules since March 31, 1989; (B) petitions for which a notice of denial has been prepared and is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register next quarter; (C) petitions incorporated into proposed rules; (D) petitions pending staff review, and (E) petitions with deferred action.
In Section I of the agenda, the rules are ordered frcm the lowest to the highest part within Title 10, Chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 10). If more than one rule 1 appears under the same part, the rules are arranged within that part by date of most recent publication, If a rule amends multiple parts, the rule is listed under the lowest affected l
j part. In Section II of the agenda, tha petitions are ordered I I
from the lowest to the highest part of Title 10 and are If l identified with a petition for rulemaking (PRM) number.
mor e than one petition appears under the same CFR part, the i
. petitions are arranged by PRM numbers in consecutive order l witnin that part of Title 10.
I A Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) has been added to each rulemaking agenda entry. This identification number will make ,
it easier for the public and agency officials to track the publication history of regulatory actions.
I IX
The dates 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 and are not binding on the Commission or its staff. They are included for planning purposes only.
This Regulatory Agenda is published to provide the public early. ;
notice and opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. However, the NRC may 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 initiated a procedure for !
the review of the regulations being prepared by staff offices i that report to him to ensure that staff resources were being l allocated to achieve most effectively NRC's regulatory priorities. This procedure requires EDO approval before staff i j
resources may be expended on the development of any new j rulemaking. Furthermore, all existing rules must receive EDO '
approval prior to the commitment of additional resources.
Rules that have received EDO approval to date are identified by the symbol (+). As additional rules receive EDO apprcval, ;
(
they will be identified in subsequent editions of this agenda. !
Those unpublished rules whose further development has been (
terminated will be noted in this edition of the agenda and deleted from subsequent editions.
Rules whose termination was ;
directed subsequent to publication of a notice of proposed '
rulemaking will be removed from the agenda after publication of a notice of withdrawal. Rules and Petitions for Rulemaking that appear on the agenda for the first time are identified by an asterisk (*).
Public Participation in Rulemaking Comments on any rule in the agenda may be sent to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.
Comments may also be hand delivered to One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m.
and 4:15 p.m.
Comments received on rules for which the comment period has closed will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments the agenda.
received on or before the closure dates specified in l
X L_______
The agenda and any comments received on any rule listed in the agenda are available for public inspection, and copying for a fee, at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Public. Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC, between j 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.
Additional Rulemaking Information For further information concerning NRC rulemaking procedures or the status of any rule listed in this agenda, contact Betty Golden, Regulations Specialist, Regulatory Publications Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone (301) 492-4268 (persons outside the Washington, DC metropolitan area may call toll-free: 800-368-5642). For further information on the substantive content of any rule listed in the agenda, contact the individual listed under the heading " Agency contact" for I
that rule.
]
xi l
l
!-RUL ES.
\
F-l l
I 1
l
-(A) Rules on Which Final Action Has Been Taken Since March 31, 1989 i
C
1 I
1 l
1 i
l
i i
TITLE: '
Modifications to the NRC Hearing Process (Limited
~
Interrogatories and Factual Basis for Contentions) . .
RIN:.
3150-Ah05 j
CFR CITATION: j 10 CFR 2 i
ABSTRACT: I The proposed rule has been superseded by the proposed rule entitled,
" Rules of Practice for Domestic' Licensing Proceedings--Procedural Changes in Hearing Process," which is scheduled to be published as a final. rule in July 1989. This rule will address the following t i aspects of the hearing process: admission of contentions, discovery against NRC staff, use of cross examination plans, timing of motions for summary disposition and limitations on' matters and issues that may be included in proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law, or.in an appellate brief submitted by a person who does not have the burden of proof or who has only a limited interest in the proceeding.
TIMETABLE::
Proposed Action Terminated 06/29/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2239 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Karen D. Cyr Nuclear Regulatory Commission i i
Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 1 301 492-1637 1
i
TITLE:
Rule on the Submission and Management of Records and Documents Related to the Licensing of a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of High-Level' Radioactive Waste RIN:
3150-AD02 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2 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 repository. In order for the NRC to be able to make its decision within the allotted time, ready access to all pertinent records must be assured to all parties in the licensing proceeding. The DOE has committed to develop an electronic information management system to be used for the licensing proceeding. The NRC staff has used the process of negotiated rulemaking to' develop a rule that revises the Comission's discovery
. procedure ano motion practice in 10 CFR Part 2 for the high-level waste licensing proceeding. .This rule requires the DOE license application and all supporting records to be provided in a standardized electronic format. All parties to the licensing proceeding will be required to submit all relevant data to this system. In turn, all parties will have access to the data base.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 04/14/89 54 FR 14925
' Final Action Effective 05/15/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
NWPA, AEA j
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Francis X. Cameron Nwlear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel i Washington, DC 20565 301 432-1622 2
I o ;
1 TITLE:
- Manner of Service of Pleaoings Upon the Secretary of the Comission i
RIN:
L- 3150-A022 l l
CFR CITATION: i 10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:
The final rule amends the Comission's regulations to require all parties in NRC proceedings to file copies of all pleadings filed with any agency adjudicatory tribunal with the Office of the Secretary in the same or equivalent manner in which they were filed with the tribunal. This will result in the Office of the Secretary receiving the pleading on approximately the same day as the tribunal.
TIMETABLE: ,
Final Action Published 06/26/89 54 FR 26730 Final Action Effective 07/26/89 LEGAL' AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Charles Mullins Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1606 3
l TITLE:
Early Site Permits; Standard Design! Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Reactors RIN:
3150-AC62
'CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 52; 10 CFR 170 ABSTRACT:
- The final rule adds a new part to the Commission's regulations to improve the reactor licensing process. The rule provides for the issuance of early site; permits, standard design certifications, and 1 combined construction permits and conditional operating licenses for nuclear power reactors TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 04/18/89 54 FR 15372 Final Action Effective 05/18/89 l LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2239; 42 USC 2282; 42 USC 4842; 42'USC 5841; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Steve Crockett Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1600 >
l kh 4
I TITLE:
- Advisory Committees; Policies and Procedures RIN:
3150-AD25 )
i CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 7 ABSTRACT:
The final rule amends the Commission's regulations that define the policies and procedures to be followed by the NRC in the establish-nent, utilization, and termination of advisory committees. This amendment reflects administrative and management changes that have taken place since NRC's regulations were published in 1975 and maintains consistency between NRC regulations and those issued by the General Services Administration in 1987.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 06/27/89 54 FR 26947 Final Action Effective 06/27/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Susan Fonner Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1632 5
TITLE:
Fitness for Duty Program RIN:
3150-AC81 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 26 ABSYRACT:
The final rule creates a new part in the Commission's regulations that requires licensees authorized to operate nuclear power reactors to implement a fitness for duty program that will provide reasonable assurance that activities asso;;iated with nuclear power plant operations are carried out in an environment that is free from the effects of 31cohol and drug abuse.
L TIMETABLE:
l- Final Action Publisned 06/07/89 54 FR 24468
) Final Action Effective 07/07/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841-EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Loren L. Bush Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, OC 20555 301 492-0944 I
4 1
1
'I 1
)
6
i l
I i
TITLE:
Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive Materials Licensees RIN:
3150-AA41
, CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70 l ABSTRACT:
L The final rule amends the Commission's regulations to require about 30 fuel cycle and other radioactive materials licensees to submit an emergency plan that would, among other actions, require the notification of local authorities in case of an accident and that the licensee recommend protective actions for the public.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 04/07/89 54 FR 14051 Final Action Effective 04/07/90 LEGAL' AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIF": No ASENCY CONTACT:
Michael Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3918 I
7
TITLE:
Flow Control Conditions for the Standby Liquid Control System in Boiling Water Reactors RIN:
3150-AC72 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The final rule clarifies the Commission's regulations pertaining to boiling water reactors (BWR). The current regulations require that all boiling water reactors must have a standby liquid control system (SLCS) with a minimum flow capacity and boron content equivalent in control capacity to 86 gallons per minute (gpm) of 13 weight percent el sodium pentaborate solution.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 04/03/89 54 FR 13361 Final Action Effective 05/03/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2136; Section 106 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No I.GENCY CONTACT:
William R. Pearson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3764 1
8
TITLE: '
Disposal of. Radioactive Wastes; Part 61 Amendments -
RIN:
, 3150-AB89-CFR CITATION:
ABSTRACT:
The final rule requires geologic repository disabove Class unless an C;1ow-level rad alternative has been approved by the Commission. This accomplishes the objective of establishing suitable disposal requirements for radioactive waste with a minimal impact on cost burdens, TIMETABLE: .
Final Action Published 05/25/89 54 FR 22578 Final Action Effective 06/26/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Melvin Silberberg/ Clark Frichard Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3810/3884 l
9 l
4
-j TITLE:
Access to Safeguards Information-
+. RIN: 1 i
3150-AD12 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:
The final rule amends the Commission's requirements for access to Safeguards Information to conform'with a provision of Pub.
L.99-399. "The Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1986."
TIMETABLE:
-Final Action Published 04/25/89 54 FR 17703 Final Action Effective 05/25/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
M. L. Au Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 l_ 301 492-3749 1
10 l
TITLE:
Regulation of Uranium Enrichment Facilities RIN:
3150-AC71 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 76 ABSTRACT:
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking has been withdrawn. The Commission has agreed with the staff's recommendation not to initiate a proposed rule for the regulation of uranium enrichment facilities at this tine.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM Withdrawn 5/9/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Peter Loysen Nuclear Recole wry Commission Office u. nuclear Material Safety and Safeguerds Washington, DC 20555 301 492-0685 l
TITLE:
Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements; Miscellaneous Anendments Necessitated by Changes in the Price-Anderson Act RIN:
3150-AD08 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 140 ABSTRACT:
The final rule implements the statutory requiretaents of the Price-Anderson Act of 1988. The final rule amends the Commission's regulations to coincide, as statutorily required, with the increase in the level of the primary layer of insurance provideo by private nuclear liability insurance pools.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 06/06/89 54 FR 24157 Final Action Effective 07/01/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2210; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Ira Dinitz Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20b55 301 492-1289 12
TITLE:.
Indemnification of Licensees that Manufacture, Produce Possess or-Use Radiopharmaceuticals or Radioisotopes for Medical Purposes.
RIN:
3150-AD13 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 140 ABSTRACT:
Section 19 of the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988 required -
the Comission to determine, through use of a negotiated rulemaking
. proceeding, whether persons licensed by the Comission or Agreement i
States for the manufacture, production, possession, or use of radioisotopes or radiopharmaceuticals for medical purposes
("radiopharmaceutical licensees") should be indemnified under the Price-Anderson Act. Section 19 required the Convenor of the proceeding to submit a recommendation to the Comission on whether the Comission should enter into indemnity agreements with radiopharmaceutical licensees. The Convenor's report recommended that the Comission not extend indemnity under the Price-Anderson Act to any class of radiopharmaceutical licsnsees. Therefore, this rulemaking was terminated.
TIMETABLE:
Terminated 05/24/89 54 FR 22444 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
Price Anderson Act, Pub. L. 100-408 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
AGENCY CONTACT:
Francis X. Cameron Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1623 13 l
- I t
(B)ProposedRules
)
i l
l i
l l
4 1
i 1
i l
I 1
f l
1
TITLE:
! Procedures Involving the Equal Access to Justice Act:
Implementation RIN:
3150-AA01 CFR CITATION:
The proposed rule would implement the Equal Access to Justice ,
Act (EAJA) by providing for the payment of fees and expenses to i certain eligible individuals and businesses that prevail in +
agency adjudications when the agency's position is determined a not to have been substantially justified. This proposed regulation is modeled after rules issued by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) and has been modified to conform to NRC's established rules of practice. The proposed rule would further the EAJA's intent to develop government-wide, " uniform" agency regulations and would describe NRC procedures and requirements for the filing and disposition of EAJA applications.
A draft final rule was sent to the Commission in June 1982, l
but Commission action was suspended pending a decision by the Comptroller General on the availability of funds to pay awards i to intervenor parties. This issue was also the subject of
! litigation in Business and Professional People for the Public Interest v. NRC, 793 F.2d 1366 (D.C. Cir. 19857. This litigation is being evaluated to determine what if any changes i may be necessary in the proposed rule. .
Additionally, in August 1985, the President signed into law an enactment renewing the EAJA after its expiration under a statutory sunset requirement. This legislation, Pub. L. No. 99-80, revises the EAJA, and these revisions are being evaluated to determine whether further conforming changes may be necessary in the proposed rule.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 10/28/81 46 FR 53189 Proposed Action Comment Perioo Ends 11/28/81 46 FR 53189 Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
5 USC 504 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Paul Bollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1634 15 l
l I
TITLE:
Informal Hearing Procedures for Nuclear Reactor Operator Licensing Adjudications RIN:
3150-AD17 i CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2 ,
ABSTRACT.
The proposed rule would amend NRC regulations to provide rules of i procedure for informal adjudicatory hearings in nuclear power reactor operator licensing proceedings. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 requires that the NRC, in any proceeding for the granting, suspending, revoking, or amancing of an NRC license, including licensing as ca operator or senior operator at a nuclear power plant, afford an interested person, upon request, a " hearing."
This proposed rule would amend an existing rule which provides for informal hearing procedures for materials licensing proceedings to include reactor operator licensing proceedings as well.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 04/26/89 54 FR 17961 Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 06/26/89 Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT: {
Karla Smith Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1606 16 1
I
b TITLE:
Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings--Procedural Changes in Hearing Process RIN:
3150-AC22 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:
I The proposed rule would address the following aspects of the hearing process: admission of contentions, discovery against NRC staff, use of cross examination plans, timing of motions for i sumery disposition and limitations on matters and issues that may be included in proposed findings of fact or conclusions of I' law, or in an appellate brief submitted by a person who does not have the burden of proof or who has only a limited interest in the proceeding. These proposals were initially developed by the Reguletory Reform Task Force and published for public coment, together with a number of other proposals, as suggestions for procedural changes in the licensing of nuclear power plants (49FR14698; April 12,1984). The Comission 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 former Commissioner Asselstine. !
The staff is analyzing public comments received on the proposals ,
and expects to forward a recommendation for the Comission's consideration.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 07/03/86 51 FR 24365 Proposed Action Coment Period Extended to 10/17/86 51 FR 31340 Final Action Published 07/00/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND 01HER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Karen D. Cyr Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the Caneral Counsel Washington, DC 20555 _
301 492-1637 17
r_- ___ - . - - - _ _ _ - _ _ .
I I
TITLE:
NEPA' Review Procedures for Geologic Repositories for High-Level Waste RIN:.
3150-AC04 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would provide procedures for performing an environmental review of High' Level Waste (HLW) geologic repositories.
Part 51 contains no provisions for the environmental. review of a license application for a HLW repository. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established requirements for environmental reviews that are at variance with the environmental reviews that the NRC performs in licensing other types of nuclear facilities.
This issue must be addressed in order to avoid delay in the U.S.
HLW Program. .The proposed rule would benefit the public, industry, and NRC by clarifying licensing procedures, thus avoiding case
-determinations and possible litigation during HLW geologic repository licensing. Minor revisions to Part 60 will be necessary to conform to the environmental requirements of _ the nWPA.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 05/05/88 53 FR 16131 Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 08/03/88 Final Action Published 07/00/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
James R. Wolf Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1641 18 l
i i
TITLE:
Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Federally Assisted Programs RIN: _
3150-AC64' CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 4 ABSTRACT: )
The proposed rule would amend the Conmission's regulations j concerning enforcement of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1 1973, as amended, in federally assisted programs or activities to !
include a cross-reference to the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS). Because some facilities subject to new construction or alteration requirements under section 504 are also subject to the Architectural Barriers Act, government wide reference to UFAS will diminish the possibility that recipients of Federal financial assistance would face conflicting enforcement standards.
In addition, reference to UFAS by all Federal funding agencies will reduce potential conflicts when a building is subject to the section 504 regulations of more than one Federal agency.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 03/08/89 54 FR 9966 Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 05/08/89 Final Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Edward E. Tucker Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization / Civil Rights Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7106 l
I 19 l
TITLE:
Debt Collection Procedures RIN:
3150-AC87 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 15 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations concerning the procedures that the NRC uses to collect the debts which are owed to it. The proposed amenduents are necessary to conform NRC regulations to the amended procedures contained in the Federal Claims Collection Standards issued by the General Accounting Office i and the U.S. Department of Justice. The proposed action is intended to allow the NRC to further improve its collection of debts due to the United States. Because the proposed regulation is l necessary to implement the Debt Collection Act of 1982, there is no I
suitable alternative to rulemaking for this action. No commes.ts were received on the proposed rule.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 10/07/88 53 FR 39480 Proposed Action Comment Period End 11/21/88 Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
31 USC 3711; 31 USC 3717; 31 USC 3718; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Graham D. Johnson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Controller Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7535 l
l 20 l
l
TITLE:
Sequestration of Witnesses Interviewed under Subpoena / l Disqualification of Attorneys
.RIN: i 3150-AD06 CFR CITATION:
ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would provide for the sequestration of all persons i compelled to' appear before NRC representatives under subpoena during the conduct of investigative interviews. The proposed rule would also give the agency official conducting the investigation (after consultation with the Office of the General Counsel) the authority to disqualify an attorney who represents multiple interests from the investigative interviews of other witness clients or from the investigatory proceedings entirely whenever the attorney impairs or impedes the pro 0 rest of the. investigation. The proposed rule would require the official to have evidence of the attorney's improper conduct and must provide the excluded counsel a written statement of reasons for the disqualification. The proposed rule would also provide disqualified counsel a right.to Comission review of the disqualification decision. The proposed rule is intended to clarify and delineate the rights and responsibilities of the agency, interviewees, licensees, and attorneys during the conduct of agency investigations. The proposed rule is also intended to promote candor in the investigative process and to facilitate an expeditious resolution of agency investigations.
TIMETABLE:
Propcsed Action Published 11/14/88 53 FR 45768 Proposed Action Coment Period Ends 02/09/89 Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Carolyn F. Evans Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1632 21
I TITLE:
Disposal of Waste Oil by Int.ineration from Nuclecr Power Plants RIN:
3150-AC14 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR'20 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule, which is being initiated in partial response to a petition filed by Edison Electric Institute and Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (PRM 20-15, dated July 31,1984), would amend NRC regulations to allow onsite incinerat on of waste oil at nuclear power plants subject to specified conditions. Currently, the only approved disposal method for low-level, radioactively contaminated waste oil from nuclear power plants involves absorption or solidification, transportation to, and burial at a licensed disposal site. There is a clear need to allow, for very low activity level wastes, the use of alternative disposal methods which are more cost effective from a-radiological health and safety standpoint and which conserve the limited disposal capacity of low-level waste burial sites.
Increased savings to both the public and the industry could thereby be achieved without imposing additional risk to the public hehlth and safety. There would be an estimated industry-wide economic savings of approximately $3 million to $12 million per year if this rule were promulgated.
Alternatives to this rulemaking action are to maintain the status quo or'to wait until the Environmental Protection Agency' develops standards on acceptable levels of radioactivity which may be released to the environment on an unrestricted basis. It is estimated that approximately 1-2 person years of NRC staff time will be required to process this rule.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to EDO 06/21/88 Proposed Action Published 08/29/88 53 FR 32914 Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 10/28/88 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence Undetermined Final Action to ED0 Undetermined Final Action to Commission Undetermined Final Action Published Undetermined
. LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2167; 42 USC 2073 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 22
(:
[t-t I j
,.1 ,
i
- TITLE .
Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration from Nuclear Power Plants AGENCY-CONTACT:. "
Catherine R..Mattsen Nuclear Regulatory Comission . )
Office of-Nuclear Regulatory Research. -l '
Washington, DC P0555
'301 492-3638 l
23
TITLE:
Standards for Protection Against Radiation RIN:
3150-AA38 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would revise Part 20 of the Commission's regulations in its entirety. Radiation protection philosophy and technology have changed markedly since the present Part 20 was promulgated nearly 30 years ago. Because 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's regulations. However, because the present Part 20 has become outdated, most radiation protection actions occur through licensing actions independent of Part 20. A complete revision is necessary to provide better assurance of protection against radiation; establish a clear health protection basis for the limits; reflect current information on health risk, dosimetry, and radiation protection practices and experience; provide NRC with a health protection base from which it may consider other roulatory actions taken to protect public health; be cor.sistent wita recommendations of world authorities, International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP);
and apply to all licensees in a consistent manner.
Alternatives to the complete revision considered were no action, delay for further guidance, and partial revision of the standards. These were rejected as ignoring scientific advancements, being unresponsive to international and national guidance, and correcting only some of the recognized problems with the present Part 20.
Benefits would include updating the regulations to reflect contemporary scientific knowledge and radiation protection philosophy; implementing regulations which reflect the ICRP risk-based rationale; reducing lifetime doses to individuals receiving the highest exposures; implementing provisions for summation of doses from internal and external exposures; providing clearly identified dose limits for the public; and providing an understandable health-risk base for protection.
The cost of implementing the revision is estimated to be $33 million for all NRC and Agreement State licensees in the initial year and about $8 million in each subsequent year. This cost -
does not include any savings which might also be realized by the !
revision.
I 24
I I
TITLE:
Standards for Prote dion Against Radiation i
TIMETABLE: '
AFPRM 03/20/80 45 FR 18023
. ANPRM Coment Period Ends 06/18/80 45 FR 18023 Proposed Action Published-. 12/20/85 50 FR 51992 Proposed Action Coment Period Ends 05/12/86 51 FR 1092.
Proposed Action Coment Period Extended to 10/31/86 Final Action for Division Review 02/15/88 ;
Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 06/30/88 l
Final Action Package to ED0 09/27/88 l Final Action to Comission-(SECY-88-315)' 11/03/88 Final Action Published- 07/30/89 l
L LEGAL AUTHORITY:
l 42 USC 2073;'42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2133;
-42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes
~~ AGENCY CONTACT:
Harold T. Peterson Nuclear Regulatory Comission
' Of fic'e of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3640 25
TITLE:
Proposed Revisions to the Criteria ana Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance RIN:
3150-AA68 i
CFR CITATION: !
{
ABSTRACT:
This proposed rule would amend 10 CFR Part 21 ana 650.55(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 the TMI Action Plan Task II.J.4 and NRC staff experience with Part 21 and 650.55(e) reporting. The j main objectives of the rulemaking effort are: (1) elimination of duplicate evaluation and reporting of safety defects; (2) establish consistent threshold for safety defect reporting in Part 21 and
$50.55(e); (3) establish ccnsistent and uniform content of reporting under Part 21 and $50.55(e); and (4) establish consistent time limits for reporting defects.
Approximately 300 reports are submitted to the Commission annually under Part 21. Approximately 900 reports are submitted to the Commission annually under $50.55(e). These reports identify both plant-specific and generic safety defects for further NRC regulatory action. Under current rules, these reports have formed the basis for NRC issuance of numerous NRC generic communications.
This proposed rulemaking will reduce the potential for duplicate reporting and evaluation of safety defects which now exist. The rulemaking will establish a more coherent regulatory framework that is expected to reduce industry reporting and evaluation burden significantly without reducing safety effectiveness.
Alternatives to the relemaking approach that were considered varied from establishment of a single rule for all reporting of safety defects and operating reactor events to maintaining the status quo for defect reporting. All alternatives were rejected since they would not substantially improve the current ;
safety defect reporting situation. '
Current costs of reporting under Part 21 and $50.55(e) are estimated at $6.67 million annually for industry and $670,000 annually for NRC evaluations. It is anticipated that the annual industry reporting burden should be reduced by approximately $1.0 million, while NRC i
burden should remain the same. Additional industry burden, though minimal, is anticipated in the area of reissuing procedures for reporting, training, and recordkeeping.
26 L-__---_----_-- - -
T11LE:
Proposed Revisions to the Criteria anc Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance TIMETA8LE:
Proposed Initici Action to Commission 12/16/85 Commission Rejected Proposed Action 10/20/86 Revised Proposed Action Published 11/04/88 53 FR 44594 Public Action Comment Period Ends 01/03/89 Revised Final Action to EDO 07/19/89 Final Action to Commission 07/31/89 Final Action Published 08/03/89 .
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2282; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON StiALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY C0!4 TACT:
William R. Jones huclear Regulatory Conmission Office of Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4442 27
1 I
TITLE:
Safety Requirements for Inoustrial Radiographic Equipment RIN:
3150-AC12 1
1 CFR CITATION: j 10 CfR 34 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend the Commission's present regulations to establish performance standards for industrial radiography exposure devices. Overexposure of radiographer (and occasionally the general public) are more than double that of other radiation workers and have been a concern to the NRC for some time.
Approximately 25-35 percent 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 overexoosures. Although a consensus standard for radiographic exposure devices was published in 1981 (American National Standard N432), it is not clear that all manufacturers are adopting the standard.
The alternatives considered were to take no action at this time; 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 incorporate the consensus standard by reference in the regulations supplemented by such other performance standards as deemed necessary, plus a requirement for radiographer to wear alarm dosimeters. !
The proposed rule would require licensees to modify radiographic devices to meet the performance standards through design changes and quality control procedures. Costs of ,
l incorporating the proposed changes are estimated to be a one-time j cost of $1,625 per licensee to purchase alarm dosimeters and '
$850 annually for replacement of devices and alarm dosimeters, annual calibration of dosimeters and annual maintenance costs.
Determination of the benefits to be derived from the proposed rule are difficult to determine on a monetary basis but the potential hazards that might be averted include radiation sickness, injury, and even death. NRC resources required for processing this rule to final publication are estimated to be 0.4 person-years.
28
e v
l l
l
. TITLE:'
Safety Requirements' for In&3 trial Radiographic Equipment f.
1 b - TIMETABLE: .
Proposed Action Published 03/15/88 53 FR 8460 Proposed Action Coment Period Ends 05/16/88 .
Proposed Action Public Coment Extended to 08/16/88 53 FR 18096 Final Action to EDO 06/12/89 Final Action to Comission 07/06/89 Final Action Published 08/10/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233
' EFFECTS ON SMALL 8USINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Donald 0. Nellis Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office- of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3628-l 29 1
TITLE:
Palladium-103 for Interstitial Treatment of Cancer '
'RIN:
3150-AD11 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations governing the medical uses of byproduct material. The proposed regulation would I add Palladium-103 sealed source as seeds to the list of sources permitted in 10 CFR Part 35 for use in cancer treatment. Under current NRC regulations, users must have their licenses amended T
before they may use Palladium seeds in brachytherapy. The proposed rule, developed in response to a petition for rulemaking (PRM-35-7),
would allow the use of Palladium-103 seeds by each potential user (about 700 licensees) with either a simplified amendment or no amendment, depending upon the individual license. An evaluation of potential radiation hazards to hospital personnel and the public showed a minimal risk if the seeds are used in accordance with the manufacturer's radiation safety and handling instructions.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 02/14/89 Proposed Action to E00 03/23/89 Proposed Action Published 04/06/89 54 FR 13892 Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 05/08/89 Final Action Published 04/09/90 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No l 1
AGENCY CONTACT:
Dr. Anthony N. Tse Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3797 30 J
i p
i TITLE:
Basic Quality ^ Assurance Program for Medical Use of Byproduct '
Material.
RIN:
3150-AC65 i CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT: I The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations concerning the medical use of byproduct material. The proposed amendments would require its medical licensees to establish and implement a written.
basic quality assurance program to prevent, detect, and correct the cause of. errors in the administration of byproduct material.
The_ proposed action is necessary to provide for improved patient safety. The proposed amendment, which is intended to reduce the potential for and severity of therapy misadministration, would primarily affect hospitals, clinics, and individual physicians.
The proposed rule would also modify reporting and recordkeeping requirements for diagnostic and therapy events.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 10/02/87 52 FR 36942 Proposed ~ Action Coment Period Ends 12/01/87 Options Paper to Office for Concurrence 05/13/88 Options Paper on QA Rulemaking to E00 05/26/88 Revised Options Paper on QA Rulemaking to ED0 05/31/88 Option Paper to Comission 06/03/88 SECY-88-156
-SRM Issued Directing Re-Proposal of Basic OA Rule 07/12/88 Proposed Action for Division Review 12/05/88 Workshop on Basic QA Rule and Draft Regulatory Guide 01/30-31/89 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 03/29/89 Proposed Action to ED0 06/01/89 Proposed Action to Comission 06/07/89 SECY-89-171 Proposed Action Published 09/00/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Anthony Tse Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3797 31
n ,
TITLE:. . . .
i Ensuring' the Effectiveness of Maintenance Programs for Nuclear- I Power Plants
'RIN: t 3150-AD00 )
CFR CITATION: )
1 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:- _
The proposed rule would provide functional requirements for the maintenance.of nuclear power plants ard allow industry initiatives to develop the details of maintenance programs to meet these requirements. The proposed rule would apply to all-components., systems and structures of nuclear power plants and-would be' applicable to_ existing and future plants. The proposed rule would also' require each licensee to develop, implenent and
- maintain a maintenance program, and to formally comit to follow the program.-
1 'The scope of_ maintenance activities addressed in the. rule will be within the franework of the Comission's Policy Statement
~
on Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants which was issued on March 23,1988(53FR9430).
It is estimated that about 3 staff-years of effort and $600,000.
for contract services will be required to process the final rule.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 09/06/88 Proposed Action to EDO- 09/26/88 Proposed Action to Comission (SECY-88-277) 09/30/88 i Proposed Action Published 11/28/88 53 FR 47822
' Proposed Actica Comment Period Ends 01/27/89 Proposed Action Public Coment Period Extenced to 02/27/89-53 FR 52716 i
' Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 04/10/89 j Final Action to EDO 04/21/89 3 Final Action to Comission 04/28/89 SECY-89-143 Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 5841; 42 USC-5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY. CONTACT:
Moni Dey.
Huclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3730 32
TITLE:
Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors l
i RIN:
3150-AA86 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 leak:ge 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 national standard that needs to be recognized.
The revision is urgently needed to resolve continuing conflicts between licensees and NRC inspectors over interpretations, current regulatory practice which 1s no longer being reflected accurately Ly the existing rule, and endorsement in the existing regulation of an obsolete national standsrd that was replaced in 1981.
The benefits anticipated include elimination of inconsistencies and obsoleta requirements, and the addition of greater usefulness and a higher confidence in the leak-tight integrity of containment system bouncaries under post-loss of coolant accident conditions. The i
majority of the effort needed by NRC to issue the rule has already been expended.
A detailed analysis of costs, benefits, and occupational exposures is available in the Public Document Room, and indicates possible savings to industry of $14 million to $300 million and an increase in occupational exposure of less than 1 percent per year per plant due to increased testing.
l TIMETABLE:
l Proposed Action Published 10/29/86 51 FR 39538 Proposed Action Comment Period Extended 04/24/87 52 FR 2416 Final Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Gunter Arndt Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3814 33
TITLE:
Eoucation and Experience Requirements for Senior Operator:, and Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants RIN:
3150-AC26 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 55 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend the regulations regarding educational requirements for operating personnel at nuclear power plants. The proposed amendment would require additional education and experience requirements for senior operators and supervisors. In promulgating the proposed emendments, the Commission has identified two alternatives.
l .
Under the 11rst alternative, the proposed amendment woulu apply to senior operators. It would require that each applicant for a ,
senior operator license to operate a nuclear power reactor have a l bachelor's degree in engineering, engineering technology, or the physical sciences form an accredited university or college. The i proposed amendemnt woulo upgrate the operating, engineering, and I accident management expertise provided on shift by combining
[ engineering expertise and operating experience in the senior ;
operator position. 4 Under the second alternative, the proposed amendment would apply to persons who have supervisory responsibilities, such as shif t superviors or senior managers. It would require that they have enhanceo educational credentials and experience over that which is l
(
normally required for senior reactor operators. The proposeo amendment would upgrade the operating, engineering, and accident management expertise provided on shift by combining engineering expertise and operating experience in the shif t supervisory position.
The Commission believes that adoption of either of the alternatives, for senior operators or shift supervisor, would further ensure the protection of the health and safety of the public by enhancing the capability of the operating staff to respond to accidents and restore the reactor to a safe and stable condition. The Consission will also issue a policy statement concurrently with this rule related to utility implementation of an accredited degree program for reactor operators.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM Published 05/31/86 51 FR 19561 ANPRM Comment Period Extended To 09/29/86 SECY 87-101 to Commission 04/16/87 34
TITLE:
Education and Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators and Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants TIMETABLE: (CONT)
Comission Approved Preparation of Proposed Rule 06/24/87 Proposed Action for Division Review 02/12/86 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 04/08/88 Proposeo Action to EDO 08/29/88 Proposed Action to Comission (SECV-88-245) 08/31/88 Proposed t,ction Published 12/29/88 53 FR 52716 Proposed Action Coment Period Ends 02/27/89 Proposed Action Comment Period Extended to 03/29/89 54 FR 8201 Final Action Published 07/00/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Morton Fleishman Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1794 35
TITLE: 4 Amendment to 10 CFR 51.51 and 51.52, Tables S-3 and S-4, Addition of Radon-222 and Technetium-99 Radiation Values, and Addition of i Appendix 8. " Table S-3 Explanatory Analysis" RIN:
3150-AA31 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 51 ABSTRACT:
, The proposed rule provides a narrative explanation of the l numerical values established in Table S-3, " Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental-Data," that appears in the Commission's l environmental protection regulations. The proposed rule describes l
the basis for the values contained in Table S-3, the significance of the uranium fuel cycle data in the table, and the conditions governing the use of the table. The proposed rule would amend 10 CFR 51.52 to modify the enrichment value of U-235 and the maximum level of average fuel irradiation. The' narrative explanation also l addresses importa1t fuel cycle impacts and the cumulative impacts I of the nuclear fuel cycle for. the whole nuclear power industry so that it may be possible to consider these impacts generically rather than repeatedly in individual. licensing proceedings, thus reducing litigation time and costs for both NRC and applicants.
The' proposed revision of 10 CFR 51.51 and the addition of Appendix B was published for public review and coment on March 4, 1981 (46 FR 15154). 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. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) decision of April 27, 1982, invalidated the entire Table S-3 rule. The Supreme Court reversed this decision on June 6. 1983.
The proposed rule to provide an explanatory analysis for Table S-3 has been revised to reflect new developments during the time the rulemaking was ceferred. Final action on the Table S-3 rule was held in abeyance until new values for radon-222 and technetium-99 could be added to the table and covered in the narrative explanation. The rule is being reissued as a ,
proposed rule because the scope has been expanced to include '
radiation values for radon-222 and technetiu,n-99 and the narrative i' explanation has been extensively revised from that published on Mat ch 4,1981 (46 FR'15154).
The staff's estimate is that the completion of a final Table S-3 rule covering the new values for radon-22E and technetium-99, ana the revised explanatory analysis will be completed in FY 1989.
A Commission paper presenting the final rulemaking plan and schedule vas submitted on August 18. 1986 (SECY 86-242). On l September 8, 1986, SECY 86-242 was approved by the Commission.
36 i
TITLE:
Amendment to 10 CFR 51.51 and 51.52, Tables S-3 and S-4, Addition I of Radon-222 and Technetium-99 Radiation Values, and Addition of i Appendix B. " Table S-3 Explanatory Analysis" TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 03/04/81 46 FR 15154 Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 05/04/81 l Proposed Action for Division Review 05/27/88 l Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 06/30/89 Proposed Action to EDO 07/31/89 Proposed Action to Commission 08/30/89 Proposed Action Published 09/29/89 Final /ction to Commission 07/31/90 Final Action Published 08/30/90 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2011; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 4321; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5E42 l l
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Stanley Turel Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 ,
301 492-3739
)
37
j i
TITLE:
Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reartor Sites RIN:
3150-AC76 ,
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 170 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule is in response to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) section 218 (a) which states, in part, that the Secretary of DOE shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation ,
with the private sector for dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at L civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the Commission may, by rule, approve for use at sites of civilian nuclear power reactors.
The NWPA also requires that the NRC establish procedures for the licensing of an section 218(a) yfor technology use at theapproved by the site of any Commission civilian nuclear under power reactor.
The staff anticipates a significant increase in the demand for use of dry spent fuel storage casks starting in tne early 1990s, thus processing of this proposed rdle would be timely, hRC resource requirements are anticipated to be about two staff years.
TIMETABLE:
1 Proposed Action for Division Review 03/02/88 Proposeo Action to Offices for Concurrence 07/26/88 Proposed Action to EDO 02/14/89 Proposed Action to Commission (SECY-89-084) 03/08/89 Proposed Action Published 05/05/89 54 FR 19379 Proposed Public Action Comment Period Ends 06/19/89 Final Action to ED0 05/18/90 Final Action to Commission 06/15/90 Final Action Pub'lished 07/27/90 l
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10153; 42 USC 10198 I i
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No I AGENCY CONTACT:
William R. Pearson l
{
Nuclear Regulatory Commise, ion Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research j l
Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3764 38 i
5 i
E TITLE:
Elimination of Inconsistencies Between NRC Regulations and EPA Standards RIN:
L 3150-AC03 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would eliminate several inconsistencies with the EPA standards geologic to be developed repositories. The NuclearforWaste the disposal.of Policy ActHLW in deep (NWPA) of 1982 directs NRC to promulgate criteria for the licensing of HLW geologic repositories. -Section 121 (c) of this act states that the criteria for the licensing of HLW geologic repositor 1es must be consistent with these standards. The proposed rule is needed in order to eliminate several inconsistencies with the EPA standards, thus fulfilling the statutory requirement.
Because the NWPA directs NRC to eliminate inconsistencies between Part 60 and the EPA standard, the alternatives to the proposed action are limited by statute.
The public, industry, and NRC will benefit from eliminating inconsistencies in Federal HLW regulations. NRC resources needed would be several staff years but will not include contract resources.
Because the Federal Court invalidated the EPA standards, action on this rule, which is in response to the EPA standards, is undetermined.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 06/19/86 51 FR 22288 Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 08/18/86 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 07/15/87 Final Action to EDO 07/20/87 Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Melvin Silberberg/ Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Commission j Office of. Nuclear Regulatory Research '
Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3810/3884 ,
1 39
.J m _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
TITLE:
Transportation Regulations: Compatibility With the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)'
RIN:
3150-AC41 CFR CITATION:
10 CFL 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 l world's experts on a single set of safety standards and guidance (those of the IAEA) from which individual countries can develop their comestic regulations. In addition, the accident exper4nn of every country that bases its domestic regulations on those of the IAEA can be applied by every other country with consistent regulations +' improve its safety program. The action will be hant.:; es a routine updating of NRC transportation regulations. There is no reasonable alternative to rulemaking action. These chhnges should result in a minimal increase in costs to affected licensees. Proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 71, based on current IAEA regulations, have been issued for public comment. The task will be scieduled over a 2-year interval and will consume 2-3 staff-years of effort depending on the number and difficulty of conflicts to be resolved.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 06/08/88 53 FR 21550 Proposed Action Comment Period Extended to 03/06/89 53 FR 51281 Final Action to ED0 Undetermined Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes 40 l
TITLE:.
Tra'nsportation Regulations: Compatibility With the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
AGENCY CONTACT:
Donald R. Hopkins -
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3784 l
l l
- I 4I ii1i n . - - - u - .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . - . . -
l TITLE briteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence RIN:
3150-AB01 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 140 ABSTRACT: .
The proposed rule would revise the criteria for an extraordinary e nuclear occurrence (ENO) to eliminate the problems that were encountered in the Three Mile Island EN0 determination. It is desirable to net reviseo criteria in place in the event they are needed. . -
There are no alternatives to th*., rulemaking, as the current END '
criteria are already embodied in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 140. The only way to modify these criteria, as this rule seeks to do, is through rulemaking.
There is no safety impact on public health or safety. The EN0 criteria provide legal waivers of defenses. Industry (insurers and utilities) claims that a reduction in the EN0 criteria could cause '
increases in insurance premiums. The final rule would also be responsive to PRM-140-1.
It is estimated that approximately 1.0 staff year of HRC time will be required to process the final rule. .
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 04/09/85 50 FR 13978 Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 09/06/85 Final Action For Division Review 02/17/87 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 11/25/87 Final Action to ED0 Undetermined Final Action to Corsnission Undetermined Final Action Publishea Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2210; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Harold Peterson Nuclear Regulatory Cotruission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3640 42 l
l
l I
1 I
TITLE-Reasserting NRC's Sole Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level j Waste Disposal in Agreement States j i
RIN.
3150-AC57 )
CFR CITATION:
ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would establish the NRC as the sole authority for approving onsite disposal of very low-level waste at all NRC-licensed reactors and at Part 70 fuel cycle facilities.
There is a need to amend 10 CFR 150.15 to authorize one agency (the NRC) to regulate all onsite disposal of low-level waste in order to provide a more comprehensive regulatory review of all onsite waste management activities and to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. Uniform review by the NRC will provide for greater assurance that the radioactive material will not present a health hazard at a later date after the site is decommissioned.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to ED0 06/10/88 Proposed Action Published 08/22/88 53 FR 31880 Proposed Action Comment Period End 10/21/88 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 02/15/89 Final Action to EDO 08/18/89 Final Action to Commission 09/22/89 Final Action Published 10/27/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2021; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT-Willian R. Pearson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3764 1
43
(C) Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking l
l l
1
N
-1
l i
TITLE:
Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern; Generic Rulemaking RIN: ,
3150-AC35 )
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 20 i ABSTRACT:
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) sought comments on a proposal to amend NRC regulations to address disposal of radioactive wastes that contain sufficiently low quantities of radionuclides that their disposal does not need to be regulated as radioactive.
l The NRC has already published a policy statement providing guidance for filing petitions for rulemiking 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 <tatement which wa: a response to Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-24M. The public was asked
, to coment on 14 questions. The ANPRM requested public comment on several alternative approaches the NRC coula take. The evaluation of public comment together with the results from a proposed research contract will help to determine whether and how NRC should proceed on the matter. The action on this rule is dependent on the issuance of broad Commission policy statement on exemptions from regulatory control.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 12/02/86 51 FR 43367 AHPRM Comment Period Ends 03/02/87 51 FR 43367 Proposed Action Undetermined Final Action Undetermined i
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
Pub. L.99-240 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS p.ND OTHER ENTITIES: Undetermined AGENCY CONTACT:
William Lahs Nuclear Regulatory Commmission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3774 j 45
\
P l
- TITLE: ..
i
-- Medical Use of Byproduct Material: Training and Experience Criteria
- RIN:
3150-AC99
.CFR CITATION:-
10 CFR 35 i; ABSTRACT: . -1
)'? The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) would amend the.
Commission's regulations concerning training and experience. criteria for _ individuals. involved in medical use of byproduct material.
Rulemaking rey be needed to reduce the chance of misadministration.
- , The Commission nwy proceed.with rulemaking,' assist in the development of national voluntary training standards, or issue a policy statement recommending' increased licensee attention to training. If the Commission proceeds with rulemaking, the NRC could publish criteria p in its regulations or recognize medical specialty certificates.- The NRC is not alle to project costs or benefits at this time, and has-requested cost / benefit comments in an ANPRM published May.25, 1988.
The NRC' has hired a contractor to study training.' accreditation and certification programs that are now in place. The NRC staff will analyze the study results,- due in November 1989, and the comments received to determine whether regulatory action is necessary.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM Published 05/25/88 53 FR 18845 ANPRM Comment Period Ends. 08/24/88 Proposed Action Undetermined LEGAL' AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Terry A. Johnson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 492-0635 46
J i;
J TITLE:
Comprehensive Quality Assurance in Medical Use and a Standard of Care RIN: l 3150-AC42 CFR CITATION:
(' ABSTRACT:
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) would amend !
the Commission's regulations governing the medical use of byproduct 1 material to require a comprehensive quality assurance program for medical licensees using byproduct materials. The purpose of this rulemaking action is to address each source of error that can lead to a misadministration. An ANPRM was published to request public L comment on the extent to which in addition to the basic quality !
assurance steps (being addressed by another rulemaking action, I entitled " Basic Quality Assurance for Medical Use of Byproduct L Material") a more comprehensive quality assurance reqv.ement is needed, and invites advice and recommendations on abWt 20 questions that will have to be addressed in the rulemaking process.
TIMETABLE:
i ANPRM Action Published 10/02/87 52 FR 36949 ANPRM Comment Period Ends 12/31/87 52 FR 36949 Options Paper to Offices for Concurrence 35/13/88 Options Paper on QA Rulemaking to EDO 05/26/88 Revised Options Paper on Rulemaking to EC0 05/31/88 Option Paper Completed 06/03/88 SECY-58-156 Staff Requirements Memorandum Issued 07/12/88 Proposed Action Published Undetennined Final Action Published Undetermined l LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 L - EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCv CONTACT:
Anthony Tse Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3797 i
47
1
. TITLE:
Criteria for Licensing the Custody and Long-Term Care of Uranium Mill Tailings Sites RIN: !
3150-AC56 CFR CITATION:- 4 10 CFRl40 ABSTRACT:
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking)would amend 10 CFR Part40!
for licensing a custodian for the post-closure, long-term control of- ;
uranium mill ta.ilings sites required by the Uranium Mill Tailings ;
Radiation. Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). This amendment would !
establish a general. license for custody and long-term care of !
uranium mill tailings by the Department of Energy, other designated ;
Federal agencies, or States when applicable. The license would be :
formulated so that it would become effective for a particular site j when (1) NRC concurs in the determination that the site has been i properly reclaimed or closed and (2) a Surveillance and Maintenance ,
Plan that meets the requirements of the license has been received !
by NRC. No significant impact to the public or industry is expected as a result of this proposed action.
TIMETABLE: 4 Proposed Action for Division and Office Review 11/09/87 !
Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 02/10/88 Proposed Action to EDO. 02/10/88 Proposed Action to Commission (SECY-88-83) 03/17/88 ANPRM to SECY- 08/12/88 i ANPRM Published 08/25/88 53 FR 32396 ANPRM Coment Period Ends 10/24/88 j Proposed Action for Division and Office Review 03/06/89 ,
Proposed Action to EDO Undetermined !
Proposed Action to Commission Undetermined Proposed Action Published Undetermined Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No i
- AGENCY CONTACT:
. Mark Haisfield Nuclear Rr.gulatory Comission Office w Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3877 48
-____w-_
'f )
I TITLE:
Nuclear Plant License Renewal
- RIN:
3150-AD04 CFR CITATION:
' ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule is scheduled for completion prior to the anticipated submittaliof license renewal applications for Yankee Rowe and Monticello.
The rule will provide.the basis for development and review-of these two " lead plant"_ applicants and the concu* rent. development of implementing regulatory guidance. Timely completion of the rule is critical for establishing standards for continued safe operation
'of. power reactors during the license renewal term and providing the regulatory stability desired by utilities in determining whether to prepare for license. renewal or pursue alternative sources of generating capacity.
License renewal rulemaking to provide regulatory requirements for extending nuclear power plant licenses beyond 40 years was -
initiated in response to the Commission's 1986 and 1987 policy and planning guidance. Current regulatory provisions permit license renewal but do not provide requirements for the form and content of a' license renewal application nor the standards of acceptability against which the application will be reviewed.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM Published 08/29/88 53 FR 32919 ANPRM Comment Period Ends' 10/28/88 l Proposed Action to CRGR/ACRS Undetermined Proposed Action to ED0 Undetermined Proposed Action to Commission Undetermined Proposed Action Published Undetermined Final Action Published 04/30/92 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Donald Cleary Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l Washington, DC 20555 l 301 492-3936
, 49 j
TITLE:
Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures, Systems, and Components RIN:
3150-AD10 CFR CITATION:
- ABSTRACT:
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) would develop regulations requiring enhanced receipt inspection and testing of 1 products purchased for use in nuclear power plant structures, 4 systems, and components. These regulations are believed to be necessary to provide an acceptable level of assurance that products ,
purchased for use in nuclear power plants will perform as expected i to protect the public health and safety. This ANPRM is published to solicit public comments on the need for additional regulatory I requirements and to obtain an improved understanding of alternatives j to regulatory requirements. i l
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM Published 03/06/89 54 FR 9229 ANPRM Comment Period Ends 07/05/89 Final Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY: '
i 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Max J. Clausen Wuclear Regulatory Commission '
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20555 301 492-0969 50
i.
l (D) Unpublished Rules 1 i
j i
I f
,---,----,----,-,,,--,-,--,------,------ ,----,-----------,--n,------------ ,----------
i 1
I l
l 4
i I
i TITLE: i l Conduct of Employees; Miscellaneous Amendments j RIN:
3150-AD15 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 0 ABSTRACT:
The rule would clarify and correct typographical errors in 10 CFR Part 0 concerning acts affecting a personal financial interest; confidential statement of employment and financial interests; and restriction against ownership of certain security interests by Commissioners, certain staff members, and other related personnel.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Karla Smith Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1606 51
TITLE:
Revised Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings RIN:
3150-AB66 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 0; 10 CFR 1; 10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 9; 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would shorten and simplify existing Commission procedural rules applicable to domestic licensing proceedings by comprehensively restating the current practice, and revising and reorganizing the statement of those rules to reflect current practice. The changes in this proposed rule would enable the Commission, directly and through its adjudicatory offices, to render decisions in a more timely fashion, eliminate the stylistic complexity of the existing rules, and reduce the burden and expense to the parties participating in agency proceedings. Chairman Zech has requested re-submission of this proposed rule for possible re-consideration by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Commission had deferred further consideration of this proposal which would have revised the Commission's procedural rules governing the conduct of all adjudicatory proceedings, with the exception of export licensing proceedings under 10 CFR Part 110.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 12/00/89 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:
C. Sebastian Aloot Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7787 52
r.
TITLE:
! Availability of Official Records RIN:
3150-AC07 ,
CFR CITATION:
i 10 CFR 2 l 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 advisory committee or was received at an advisory committee meeting, and information that is subject to a pending Freedom of Information Act request.
Additionally, the proposed amendment would add a notice statement l to 10 CFR Part 2 that submitters of documents and information to the NRC should be careful in submitting copyrighted works. The agency in receiving submittals and making its normal distributions routinely photocopies submittals, makes microfiche of such submittals and ensures that these fiche are distributed to the PDR, LPDRs, all appropriate internal offices, and to the National Technical Information Service Center. This broad distribution and reproduction is y de to satisfy the congressional mandate of Section 142(b) of the Atomic Energy Act by increased public understanding of the peaceful uses of atomic energy. Accordingly, copyright owners are on notice that their act of submitting such works to the agency will be considered-as the granting to the NRC an implied license to reproduce and distribute according to normal agency practice. Naturally, this notice does not prevent submitters from applying 10 CFR 2.790(b)(1) procedures to information that contains trade secrets or privileged or confidential commercial or financial information (proprietary information) and it is recognized that some informatir,n in those i categories may be copyrighted. The key factor is tht.t it is their proprietary information status that exempts them frou public disclosure and not their copyright designation. Last?y, this implied license is not applicable to fair use of copyrighted works or the incorporation by reference of coprighted works in agency submittals, e.g., the referencing of a copyrighted code or standard in a submittal does not affect the copyright of that standard.
l TIMETABLE:
Next Action Undetermined 53
kvailabilityofOfficialRecords LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 ;
i EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Mary Katherine Hembree Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1559 1
i l
54 I
i
l TITLE:
Revision of Definition of Meeting RIN:
3150-AC78 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 9 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would return the definition of " meeting" to its ;
pre-1985 wording.- The proposal is based on a study of comments submitted on an interim final' rule published on May 21, 1985 ;
-(50 FR 20889) and the 1987 recommendations and report of the American :
Bar Association (ABA). :Since the pre-1985 wording of the definition ;
of, meeting is fully adequate.to permit .the types- of non-Sunshine Act discussions that the NRC believes would be useful, the proposal calls for the NRC.to reinstitute its. pre-1985 definition of meeting, with the intention of conducting its non-Sunshine Act discussions in accordance with the guidelines recommended by the ABA.
TIMETABLE:
Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTliORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 9
AGENCY CONTACT:-
Peter G. Crar,e Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington,DC 20555 301 492-1634 55
4 l
TITLE:. .
i
- + Credit Checks - Expanded Personnel Security Investigative Coverage ;
RIN:
3150-AD35 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 11; 10 CFR 25 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations to require the expansion of the present investigative scope for licensee "R" Special Nuclear Material Access Authorization and "L" security clearance applicants by adding a credit check and would revise the corresponding fee schedule to recover the additional cost of each credit check.
These amendments are necessary for the following reasons: (1)to obtain a higher degree of assurance that licensee "R" and "L" applicants are reliable, trustworthy, and do not have any significant financial problems which may cause them to be susceptible the national to pressures,)
interest; blackmail, (2 to achieve or coercion greater to act contrary to comparability investigation scope for DOE's "L" and Secret clearances;3)(ytowith be the consistent with the investigative coverage proposed in the NUMARC guidelines for licensee personnel with unescorted access to
-protectedandvitalareasofnuclearpowerplants;and(4)to recover the additional cost of each credit check. This proposed rule would have a negligible effect on the general public. NRC resources required for processing this rule through final publication are estimated to be 240 staff hours.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 08/31/89 Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2165; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 2273; E.0.10865, E.0. 12356 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Beth Bradshaw Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4120 1
1 56
l
'I I
TITLE: '
- Access Authorization Fee Schedule for Licensee Personnel and Implementation of SF-312 RIN:
3150-AD24 CFR CITATION:-
10 CFR 11; 10 CFR 25; 10 CFR 95 ABSTRACT:
The final' rule would amend the. Commission's regulations to revise the rate charged to licensees.by the NRC for conducting access authorization background investigations. The final rule implements the use of the Standard Form 312 " Classified Information Nondisclosure l Agreement," in lieu of the SF-189-A (of the same title) to fulfill the National Security Decision Directive 84 requirement that all persons authorized access to classified information sign a nondisclosure agreement as a condition of access.
l TIMETABLE:
Final Action for Division Review 08/01/89 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 08/18/89 Final Action to ED0 09/01/89 Final Action Published 09/30/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 U.S.C. 2165; 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 2273; 42 U.S.C. 5841; E.0. 108657, E.0. 12356 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Patricia A. Smith Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4118 l
57
)
TITLE:
Twenty-Four Hour Notification of Incidents l RIN:
3150-AC91 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:
the This rulemaking licensees' would reporting amend 10 requirements. CFR 20.403(a) and (b) to clarify (b)
While10CFR20.403(a)and are reasonably clear in terms of licensee reporting requirements for events involving " exposures" and " releases" of radioactive materials, these sections are not clear concerning events involving " loss of operation" and " damage 19 property." " Loss of. operation" should be clarified in terms of loss of use of facilities, devices or equipment.
" Damage to property" should be clarified to include contamination clean-up if the corrective action is equal to or greater than a certain cost. In addition, the rulemaking should also define "immediate" in actual time, e.g., within I hour, for reporting requirements.
This rulemaking action will clarify a current Commission regulation; there is no other appropriate procedure to accommodate i the clarification. This rulemaking activity is considered to be a j high priority item by NMSS.
1 The health and safety of the public will be better protected because improved reporting requirements will reduce the potential risk of exposure to radiation. Clarifying the reporting require-ments will also simplify regulatory functions and free the staff from unnecessary additional investigation and, at the same time, protect the industry from unnecessary and unexpected fines.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 07/14/89 Proposed Action to EDO 08/18/89 Proposed Action Published 09/29/89 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 03/02/90 Final Action to EDO 06/15/90 Final Action Published 07/16/90 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Joseph J. Mate l Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3795 58 1
TITLE:
- Low-Level Waste Manifest Information and Reporting RIN:
3150-AD33 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 20; 10 CFR 61 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend the Counission's regulations to:
(1) augment and improve information contained in manifests accompanying shipments of waste to low-level waste (LLW) disposal facilities licensed under Part 61; (2) require that operators of these disposal facilities store portions of this manifest information in onsite computer recordkeeping systems; and (3) require that operators periodically submit, in an electronic format, reports of shipment manifest information.
To assure safe disposal of LLW, we must understand the mechanisms and rates by which radioactivity can be released form LLW and into the environment. To do this, we must understand the chemical, physical, and radiological characteristics of LLW. This task is greatly complicated by the heterogeneous nature of LLW; it exists in a variety of chemical and physical forms and contains roughly 200 different radionuclides in concentrations that can range from a few microcuries to several hundred curies per cubic foot. Each year there are thousands of shipments of LLW disposal sites.
Pursuant to 6 20.311, a manifest must accompany each shipment of LLW to a disposal facility. Unfortunately, existing manifests do not describe the waste in detail sufficient to assure compliance with the Part 61 performance objectives. In addition, NRC's regulations do not require that disposal site operators develop and operate computer systems for storage and manipulation of shipment manifest information. We believe that such onsite computer systems are necessary for safe disposal facility operation. We also believe that a national data base is needed which contains information on LLW disposed at all sites.
A rulemaking to upgrade shipment manifests and require disposal site computer recordkeeping systems will assure that technical 3 information on LLW is available and in a form which can be used for performance assessments, technical analyses, and other activities.
A requirement to report electronic manifest information will ensure that the regulatory staff, as well as the site operators, have the j ability to perform safety and environmental assessments, and to monitor compliance with regulations and license conditions. DOE !
has agreed to establish and operate a national LLW data system based ;
59
.l l
TITLE:-
- Low-Level Waste Manifest Information and Reporting ABSTRACT: (CONT) on their mandate under the Low-Level _ Radioactive Waste Policy l
i Amenanier.ts Act of 1985. This rulemaking will provide necessary 1 data. The DOE data system will provide NRC staff with the ability to manipulate the electronic manifest information. A rulemaking
.is needed in contrast.to an alternative such as a regulatory guide, because it can most effectively ensure data that is technically complete and standardized at a national level. The rulemaking will help ensure the availability of all complete, detailed national LLW computer data base, operated by DOE, and containing information about waste disposed in all LLW sites, those regulated by NRC as well as by Agreement States.
We expect that the rulemaking will slightly increase disposal costs. The rulemaking is a budgeted activity cited in the NRC 5-year plan.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to EDO 04/16/90 Proposed Action to Consission 04/30/90 Proposed Action Published 06/29/90 Final Action Published 05/31/91 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Mark Haisfield/G. W. Roles Nuclear Regulatory Consission Office of Nuclear Reguletory Research Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3877/0595-60
l l
fi L TITLE:
- Preserving the Free Flow of Information to the Commission
[ RIN:
3150-AD21 CFR CITATION:-
l 10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 60; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72; and 10 CFR 150 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend the Commis,lon's regulations requiring licensees and license applicants to ensure that neither they, nor their contractors or subcontractors, impose conditions in settlement agreementa under Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act, or in other agreements on the terms, conditions, and privileges
.of ' employment, that would prohibit, restrict, or otherwise discourage an employee from providing the Commission with information on potential safety violations. The proposed rule would require licensees.and license applicants to establish procedures to ensure that their contractors and subcontractors have been informed of the prohibition,-that licensees and license applicants are notified l of any complaints filed with the Department of Labor pursuant to Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act by an employee of a contractor or subcontractor, and to re ntre review by the licensee of any settlement agreements related to employee complaints of such termination by a contractor or subcontractor.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 07/00/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Francis X. Cameron Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1623 61
TITLE:
- Requirements for Possession of Industrial Devices
, RIN:
3150-AD34 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 31 ABSTRACT: !
The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations for the possession of industrial devices containing byproduct material to require device users to report to the NRC on a periodic basis.
The proposed report would indicate that the device is still in use or to whom the device has been transferred. The proposed rule would be the most efficient method, considering the number of general licensees and the number of devices currently in use, for cssuring :
that devices are not improperly transferred or inadvertar.cly discarded. The proposed rule is necessary to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure to the public that may occur when an im1roperly i discarded device is included in a batch of scrap metal for !
reprocessing. The proposed rule would also avoid the unnect ssary j expense involved in retrieving the manufactured items fabricated j from contaminated metal. The proposed rule would impose a small i burden on device users and the NRC.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to EDO 03/30/90 l Proposed Action to Commission Undetermined Proposed Action Published 04/30/90 Final Action to EDO 04/30/91 Final Action Published 05/31/91 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2114; 42 USC 2201 ,
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Joseph J. Mate Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3795 62
k TITLE:
. Licensing ~and Radiation Safety Requirements for Large Irradiators l RIN:
3150-AC98 CFR CITAT10N:
10 CFR 36 ABSTRACT:
7e proposed rule would develop regulations to specify radiation s fety requirements and license requirements for the use of licensed radioactive materials in large irradiators. Irradiators use gamma radiation to irradiate products to change their characteristics in some way. The requirements would apply to large panoramic
'irradiators (those in which the radioactive sources and the material being irradfated are in a room that is accessible to personnel while the source.is shielded) and certain large self-contained irradiators in which the source always remains under water. The rule would not l
cover small self-contained irradiators, instrument calibrators, I medical uses of sealed sources (such as teletherapy), or non-destructive testing (such as industrial radiography). ,
The alternative to a regulation is continuing to, license irradiators on a case-by-case basis using license conditions. The formalization would make the NRC's requirements better understood ano possibly speed the licensing of irradiators. Development of the rule will require 2 staff-years.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to ACRS 01/18/89 Office. Concurrence on Proposed Action Coupleted 03/0b/89 Proposed Action to EDO 06/30/89 Proposed Action to Commission 07/31/69 Proposed Action Published 08/31/89 Final Action Published 05/05/90 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5842 !
i EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY J.0NTACT:
Stephen A. McGuire Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Reguhtory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3757 l
63 ,
l
TITLE:
Codes eno Standards for Nuclear Powcr Plants (ASME Code, 1986/1987/
1988 Addenda)
RIN:
3150-AD05 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 i ABSTRACT:
The proposed. rule would incorporate by reference the 1986 Addenda, the 1987 Adoenda, the 1988 Addenda, and the 1989 Edition of .
Section III, Division 1, and Section XI, Division 1, with a j specified modification, of the American Society of Mechanical 1 Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Cooe). Also, the proposed amendment would impose augmented examination of reactor vessel shell welds and would separate the requirements for inservice testing from those for inservice inspection by placing the require-ments for inservice testing in a separate paragraoh. The ASME Code provides rules for the construction of itght-water-reactor nuclear power plant components in Section 111, Division 1, and provides rules for the inservice inspection and inservice testing of those components in Section XI, Division 1.
The proposed rule would update the existing reference to the ASNE Code and would thereby permit the use of improved methods for the construction, inservice inspection, ard inservice testing of nuclear power plant components. Incorporatirj by reference the latest addenda of the ASME Code would save applicants / licensees and the NRC staff both time and effort by providing uniform detailed criteria against which the staff could review any single submissior,. In adoition, the proposed rule would require expeditious implementation of the expanded reactor vessel shell weld examinations providea in the 1988 Addenda and the 1989 Edition of Section XI and would clarify the existing requirements in the regulation for inservice inspection and inservice testing.
This action will be handled as a routine updating of 10 CFR 50.55a of the NRC regulations. There is no reasonable alternative to rulemaking action. The proposed aniendment will be issuad for public comment. The task to develop and publish the proposed amendment is scheduled for a period of 7.5 months with 3r. estimated staff effort of 400 p-hrs. This is a priority A rulemakiag.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Submitted for Division Review 09/27/88 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 10/27/89 Proposed Action to EDO 01/15/90 Proposed Action Published 02/15/90 Final Action Publ shed 11/20/90 4 64
TITLE:
Codes and Standards for fluclear Power Plants (ASME Code, 1966/1987/
1988 Addenda) ,
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201, 42 USC 5841 l
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No l AGENCY CONTACT:
Gilbert C. Millman i Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l
Washington, DC 20555 1 301 492-3848 l
v.
65
TITLE:
Cedes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (ASME Code,.Section XI, Division 1, Subsection IWE)
RIN:
3150-AC93 i CFR CITATION: 2 10 CFR 50 -
ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would incorporate i>y reference Subsection IWE,
" Requirements for Class MC Components of Light-Water Cooled Power j Plants," of Section XI (Division 1) of the An.crican Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code).
Subsection IWE provides the rules and requirements for inservice ;
inspection, repair, and replacement of Class MC pressure retaining '
components and their integral attachments, and of metallic shell and penetration liners of Class CC pressure retaining components and their integral attachments in light-water cooled power plants.
Incorporation by reference of Subsection IWE will provide systematic examination rules for containment structure for meeting Criterion 53 of the General Design Criteria (Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50) and Appendix J of 10 CFR Part 50. Age-related degradation of containments has occurred, and additional and potentially more serious degradation mechanisms can be anticipated as nuclear power plants age.
If the NRC did not take action to endorse the Subsection IWE rules, the NRC position on examination practices for containment structure I would have to be established on a case-by-case basis and improved examination practices for steel containment structures might not be implernented. The other alternatives of incorporating these detailed examination requirements into the American National Standard ANSI /ANS 56.8-1981 or into Appendix J are not feasible.
Incorporating by reference the latest edition and adoenda of Subsection IWE will save applicants / licensees and the NRC stoff both time ano ef fort by providing uniform detailed criteria against which the staff can review any single submission. Adoption of the ,
proposec amendment would permit the use of improved methods for containment inservice inspection.
TIMETABLE:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (ED0 Approval) 06/09/88 Proposed Action for Division Review 07/01/88 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 11/14/88 Proposeo Action to CRGR 06/13/89 Proposed Action to ED0 Undetermined Proposed Action Published Undetermined Final Action Published Undetermined 66 ,
i i
TITLE:
Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (ASME Code,Section XI, Division 1,SubsectionIWE)
I LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Wallace E. Norris Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3805 l
67
l !
TITLE: i Amendment of the Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule i RIN:
3150-AD01- !
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule revises the Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) rule, published on July 23, 1965, which established a screening criterion, a limit on the cegree of radiation embrittlement of PWR reactor vessel beltline materials beyond which operation cannot continue without additional plant-specific analysis. The PTS rule prescribed how *.o calculate the degree of embritt: ment as a function of the copper and nickel contents of the controlling material and the neutron fluence.
The proposed amendment revises the calculative procedures to oe consistent with that given in Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.99.
This guide, which was published in final form on June 8, 1988, provides an updated correlation of embrittlement data.
The need to amend the PTS rule to be consistent with the guide became apparent when it was found that some medium-copper, high-nickel
. materials embrittlement is worse now than predicted using the PTS rule. 'A number of PWRs will reach the screening criterion sooner than previously thought, and three plants will need to make plant-specific analyses in the next 10 years. Therefore, a high priority is being given to this effort.
An unacceptable alternative to this amendment from the safety standpoint is to leave the present PTS rule in place. A plant-by-plant analyses by the NRC staff found four plants whose reference temperatures are 52 to 68*F higher than previously thought, based on the present rule. This is beyond the uncertainties that were felt to exist when the present rule was published. Another unacceptable alternative that has been evaluated is to change the calculative procedure for the reference temperature and also change the screening criterion. Failure probabilities for the most critical accident scenarios in three plants, when recalculated using the new embrittlement estimates, were somewh3t lower, but were quite dependent on the plant configuration and the scenario chosen.
Furthermore, the screening criterion was based on a variety of considerations besides the probabilistic analysis. Reopening the question of where to set the screening criterion was not considered productive because of plant-to-plant differences. It is better to
, have a conservative " trip wire" that triggers plant-specific analyses.
68 i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ ]
TITLE:
Amenament of the Pressurized Thermal Shocx aule
' ABSTRACT: (LON1)
Immediate costs to industry will be those required for each utility
, . to update the January 23, 1986, submittal required by the PTS rule, using fluence estinates that take account of flux reduction efforts in the interim and using the new procedure for calculating RT/ PTS.
Ist addition, three to five plants will need to make the expenditure of an estimated 2.5 million dollars for the plant-specific analysis in the 1990s instead of 10 to 15 years later.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to EDO 08/04/89-l Proposed Action Published 09/08/89 i Final Action to EDO 04/15/90 Final Action to Commission Undetermined Final Action Published 06/15/90 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS OF SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No l
AGENCY CONTACT:
Pryor N. Randall Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l Washington, DC 20555 l 301 492-3842 69
TITLE:
Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50
' RIk:
3150-AB88 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would clarify in the Commission's regulations the use of the terms "important to safety" and " safety related" by aeding definitions of the e two terms and of " facility licensing documents" to 10 CFR Part 50 and by discussing how these definitions will be applied in NRC licensing reviews. Significant issues concerning the meaning of these terms as they are used in this part have
-arisen in Comission licensing proceedings. This proposed rule would define these terms and clarify the nature and extent of their effect on quality assurruce requirements, thereby resolving these issues.
Rulemaking was chosen as the method of resolving this issue as a result of the Cemission's directive to resolve the issue by rulemaking contained in the Shoreham licensing decision (CLI-84-9, 19 NRC 1323, June 5, 1984).
A position paper requesting approval of the staff proposeo
. definitions ano additional guidance from the' Comission was L signed by the EDO on May 29, 1986. In addition to rulemaking, the position paper aiscusses the alternative of the Comission L issuing a policy statement 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 *' ,: 'he NRC will cxpend 3.2 to 4.4 staff years in developirj r inal rule over a two-year period. The manpower and tu trame will depend on Comission guidance received on the extent to which 10 CFR usage of the terms is to be consistent, i.e., 10 CFR Part 50 only or all of 10 CFR Chapter I.
The timetable is on hold based on a decision by the Commission.
l' TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to Commission 05/29/86 Commission Decision on SECY 85-164 undetermined LEGAL AUTHOR:TY:
42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846
,: 70
.w TITLE: '
- Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50
' EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No
' AGENCY. CONTACT:
Jerry N. Wilson Nuclear Regulatory Comission 4 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
. Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3729 71
TITLE:
3150-AD32 '
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The proposed role would amend the Commission's regulations by requiring the implementation of the NRC-approved Emergency Response Data System (ERDS) at all licensed nuclear power plants. The primary role of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission during an i emergency at a licensed nuclear power facility is one of monitoring <
the licensee to assure that appropriate recommendations are made l with respect to necessary offsite actions to protect public health I and safety. In order to adequately perform its role during an )
emergency, the NRC requires accurate and timely data on four types of parameters: (1) the reactor core and coolant system conditions to assess the extent or likelihood of core damage; (2) the conditions inside the containment building to assess the likelihood of its failure; (3) the radioactivity release rates to assess thei,,mmediacy and degree of public danger; and (4) the data from the plant's meteorological tower to assess the distribution of potential or actual impact on the public.
The Emergency Response Data System is a licensee-activated computer data like between the electronic data systems at licensed nuclear power facilities and a central computer in the NRC Operations Center. Current experience with voice-only emergency communication link, utilized for data transmission, has demonstrated it to be slow and inaccurate. Simulated site tests of the ERDS cortept in emergency planning exercises have demonstrated that ERDS is effective between the NRC Operations Center and affected licensees.
The rule would require that the licensees provide the required nardware and software to transmit the data in a format specified by the NRC. The NRC would require that the licensee activate the ERDS as soon as possible following the declaration of an alert condition. Based on a site survey of 80 percent of licensed i facilities, the current estimates of licensee costs are $20K-50K for software ano 50-100K for hardware. The current estimated cost to NRC is 52.6 million. The proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 50 will be issued for public comment. The rulemaking task will be scheduled over a 2-year period ending March 1991 and will consume 2-3 staff years of effort depending on the number and difficulty of l conflicts to be resolved.
72
h
(-
I 1
TITLE:
- Energency Response Data System l TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to ED0 03/30/90 3 Proposed Action to Connission 04/30/90 i Proposed Action Published 05/31/90 Final Action Published 03/29/91 ,
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2131; 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2135; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2239; 42 USC 2282; ;
42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5843; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
M. L. Au Nuclear Regulatory Connission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3749 i
73 i
TITLE:
Personnel Access Authorization Program RIN:
3150-AA90 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:
The Commission has concluded that it is appropriate for each licensee that operates a nuclear power plant to establish an access authorization program to ensure that individuals who require unescorted access to protected areas or vital areas of their f acilities are trustworthy, l reliable, emotionally stable, and do not pose a threat to commit radiological sabotage. Accordingly, the NRC published a proposed rule on August 1, 1984, that would require an access authorization ,
program at nuclear power plants (49 FR 30726).
An alternative Resource proposal Committee by)the (NUMARC Nuclear was Utility submitted as aManagement and public coment on this proposed rule. The alternative proposed a voluntary industry commitment to implement an access authorization program at nuclear j power plants based upon industry guidelines. Major provisions of ]
this program include background investigation, psychological i evaluation, and behaviorial observation.
On June 18, 1986, the Commission approved developing a policy statement endorsing inoustry guidelines as an alternative to the proposed rulemaking. Commitments to adhere to these guidelines would be formalized through amenoments to the physical security plans and be subject to inspection and enforcement by NRC.
On March 9, 1988, the NRC published a proposed policy statement endor sing the NUMARC guidelines. In the Federal Regin,ter notice, the Commission specifically requested public comments as to whether the access authorization program should be a rule or a policy statement.
~
On April 19, 1989, the Commission decided to go forward with a final rule which would require all licensees to have an access authorization program and would specify the major attributes of the program. The NRC would also issue a regulatory guide which would encorse, with appropriate exceptions, the applicable industry guidelines, cs an acceptable way of complying with the rule.
TIMETABLE:
Office Concurrence on Proposed Policy Sbtement Completed 10/30/87 Proposed Policy Statement / Guidelines to EDO 12/07/87 Proposed Policy Statement / Guidelines to Comission 12/15/87 Proposed Policy Statement Published 03/09/88 53 FR 7534 Proposed Policy Statement Comment Period End Od/09/88 74 N -
TITLE: i Personnel Access Authorization Program TIMETABLE: (CONT)
Options Paper to ED0 03/22/89 SECY-89-98 l Final Action to ED0 09/25/89 Final Action to Commission 10/25/89 Final Action Published 11/30/89 ,
i LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINES$ AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Sandra Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of huclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3773 75
I' TITLE:
- Amendments.to Part 60 to Delineate Anticipated Processes and.
Events and Unanticipated Processes and Events RIN:
3150-AD31 CFR CITATION:
!' ABSTRACT:
In 10 CFR Part 60, licensing requirements'for disposal of radioactive wastes in geologic repositories, certain performance requirements for the repository are based on an. assumption of the occurrence of anticipated processes and events. The specific meaning and use of this term, and unanticipated processes and events, needs further clarification. This rulemaking would modify the definition of these term in 6 60.2, modify 6 60.113, which describes the use of these terms and modify the definition of
" geologic setting" in 6 60.2, and modify the use of that term in 6 60,102.
The objective of the rulemaking is to improve the licensing process for the geologic repository program. It would have no adverse effects on the licensee or the public. It'is expected that the resources expended by NRC on the rulemaking would be more than offset by resources saved during the licensing process.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to ED0 04/10/90 Proposed Action to Commission 04/17/90 ;
Proposed Action Published 05/31/90 i Final Action Published 06/28/91 LEGAL AUTHORITY: 1 42 USC 10101; Public Law 97-425 )
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Melvin Silberberg/ Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Commission ;
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3810/3884 76 1
l
TITLE:
-Minor Amendments to Physical Protection Requirements RIN:
3150-AD03 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 75 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule amends the Commission's regulations dealing with physical protection requirements that are out of date, susceptible to differing interpretations, or in need of clarification. These problems were identified by a systematic review of the agency's safeguards regulations and guidance documents conducted by the Safeguards Interoffice Review Group (SIRG). In addition, the staff has identified other areas in the regulations where minor changes are warranted. In response to these efforts, specific amendments to the regulations are being proposed. The proposed changes would:
(1) add definitions for common terms not currently defined by frequent use, (2) delete action dates that no longer apply, (3) correct outdated terms and cross references, (4) clarify wording that is susceptible to differing interpretations, (5) correct typographical errors, and (6) make other minor changes.
The alternative to rulemaking would be to allow the status quo to continue. Except for the change in the impact of a high radiation field on physical protection requirements, these minor amendments affect the public, industry and the NRC only in so far as they make the regulations easier to understand, implement, and enforce.
It is estimated that 0.4 staff-years of NRC effort over 2 years will be required for the rulemaking. This is a low priority rulemaking.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to ED0 06/30/89 Proposed Action Published 07/31/89 Final Action Publisheo 04/04/90 l LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 1 l
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Stan Dolins Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3745 77
i i
i
. TITLE: l Night. Firing Qualifications for Security Guards at Nuclear Power d Plants 4
-RIN:
.3150-AC88 CFR CITATION: 1 10 CFR 73-ABSTRACT:
'The proposed rule would ensure that_ security force effectiveness at nuclear power plants is not dependent on the time of day. Security guards currently are required to perform night firing for familiarization only. There is no requirement for standards to measure their effectiveness. The proposed rt, <e would change that by requiring that security guards at nuclear power plants qualify for night firing. The only alternative to rulemaking is to retain the current status.
Part 73, Appendix B, Part IV, will be amended to require reactor security guards to qualify annually in an NRC-approved night firing course with their assigned weapons. The proposed amendment will standardize training and qualification in night firing and prepare power reactor guard forces to respond more effectively in the event of an incident occurring in limited lighting conditions. The cost l_
' to industry should be relatively modest since licensees already operate daylight firing training and qualification facilities and programs. The costs to NRC will also be minimal because it will only require minor licensing, inspection and other regulatory actions. There is no occupatior,al exposure.
It is estimated that 0.4 staff-years of effort over 2 years by the NRC will be required for the rulemaking.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published Undetermined Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: ho AGENCY' CONTACT:
Dr. Sandra D. Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3773 78 l l
TITLE:
- Day Firing Qualifications and Physical Fitness Programs for Security Persunnel at Category I Fuel Cycle Facilities RIN:
3150-AD30 CFR CITATION:
ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations to require that security personnel qualify and requalify annually on specific standardized day firing courses using'all assigned weapons. Current regulations require day firing qualification using a national policy course or equivalent for handguns and an NRA or nationally recognized course for semiautomatic weapons. A firing course is specified for shotguns, which is in need of revision. Recent amendments to Part 73 added a requirement for night firing gealification using specific, designated firing courses. To ensure uniformity, the current day firing requirements should be compatible.
Additionally, current regulations specify that security personnel shall have no physical weaknesses that would adversely affect their performance of assigned job duties. However, no regulatory standards exist for assuring that security personnel are physically fit to perform their duties. Requirements for a physical fitness program and fitness standards at Category I fuel cycle facilities for security personnel need to be added to the regulations in order to provide a uniform, enforceable program. Guidance will be developed to assure that such a program will not, at the same time, endanger the health of those participating in it.
The proposed rule change would. amend 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix H, to include day firing qualification courses in each type of required i weapon as well as a standardized physical fitness training course and fitness standards for security personnel. Alternatives to the rulemaking would be to allow the status quo to continue.
. Standardization of day firing courses to be consistent with those established for night firing would be of negligible cost to the 3-4 affected licensees and to the NRC since day firing qualification using a variety of firing courses is already being done. Physical fitness training programs would incur moderate costs to the licensees in the area of personnel time ano limited physical fitness equipment. The cost to the NRC would be in the area of licensing and inspection activities. Neither area of rulemaking affects .
occupational exposure. It is estimated that 0.5 staff-years of effort over 2 years will be required for this rulemaking of high priority.
79 l
L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _
TITLE: -
- Day Firing Qualifications and' Physical Fitness Programs for Security Personnel at Category I Fuel Cycle Facilities.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to'EDO 02/28/90 Proposed Action Published 04/30/90 Final Action to EDO 02/28/91 Final Action' Published 04/30/91 1 LEGAL AUTHORITY. .
42 USC.2201;;42 USC 5841 '
EFFECTS ON.SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 3 AGENCY CONTACT:-
Donald R. Hopkins-Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3784 4
D 80 u
i_-______
. TITLE:.
Export of Heavy Water to Canada l
[ : RIN: . 1 u 3150-A020 i p _q CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 110 ABSTRACT:
The final rule would amend the Comission's regulations concerning the 1 import'and export of nuclear. equipment and material in 10 CFR i Part 110. Current regulations require that. license applications for i the, export of 1000 kilograms or more of heavy water to any country require review by the Comission. The Comission has reviewed its processing of nuclear export license applications and has determined that license applications for the export of any quantity of heavy water to Canada do not- raise issues that require Comission review.
Therefore, the Comission has delegated additional authority to the NRC staff to act upon such export license applications without-prior consultation with the Comission. There is no acceptable alternative to rulemaking because an amendment to the regulations is necessary ;
to identify.the classes of export license application which require Comission review. The rule should benefit the NRC, the industry, and the public by expediting the review process for these kinds of applications.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 09/00/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
44 USC 3201; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND 0THER ENTITIES: No AGENCY. CONTACT:
Elaine 0. Hemby.
Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Governmental and Public Affairs Washington, DC 20555 301 492-0341 ,
81 ,
l j
h-4 t L-TITLE: '
- Revision of Fee Schedules: Radioisotope Licenses i
RIN:. '
3150-AD23 CFR CITATION: .
10 CFR Part 170 ABSTRACT: . 1 The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations governing licensing and inspection fees for radioisotope licenses '
~ (small-programs licensed under the provisions of 10 CFR Parts 30, l 40, and 70).- The revised schedule of fees that would more l completely recover- the costs incurred by the Commission in l
'providing services.to identifiable recipients. The proposed rule
- would' update the schedule of fees for small hyproduct material
' applications for decommissioning, change the cost per professional staff hour.for NRC services based on the FY 1990 budget, delete certain exemption provisions and. clarify others for ease of -
administration, add a new exemption _ to provide that Indian tribes and Indian organizations will be exempt from the paynent of. fees,
'and fund transfer in accordance with U.S. Department of the Treasury cash management initiatives.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 08/00/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
31 USC 9701; 42.USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Lee Hiller
- Nuclear Regulatory Commission l -Office of the Controller Washington, DC 20555 1 301 492-7351 i
i 82 i
i TITLE:
NRC Acquisition Regulation (NRCAR)
RIN:
3150-AC01 CFR CITATION:
48 CFR Chapter 20 Parts 1-52 ABSTRACT:.
The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations to establish provisions unique to the NRC concerning the acquisition of' goods and services. The NRC Acquisition Regulation is nece.ssary to implement and supplement the government-wide Federal Acquisition Regulation. This action is necessary to ensure that the regulations governing the procurement-of goods and services within the NRC satisfy the needs of the agency. The NRC Acquisition Regulation implements the Federal Acquisition Regulation within the agency and includes additional policies, procedures, solicitation provisions, or contract clauses needed to meet specific NRC needs.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 09/00/89 Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
41 USC 401 et seq.; 42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Ronald D. Thompson '
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8770 ,
83 ,
I
. , - _-----_-.,--,-------,---------------,-----------n---,.,-,------- --
J I$ ii
(A) Petitions incorporated into final rules or petitions denied since March 31, 1989 1
l 4
i
)
I i
M l
l l
t 1
l I
l i
A
,l
i 2
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-48 PETITIONER: University of Missouri PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: March 1,1988(53FR6159)
SUBJECT:
Redefine " Testing Facility" Based on the Function of the.
Facility Instead of its Power Level
SUMMARY
- The petitioner requested that the Comission adopt a regulation that would add a definition for the term "research reactor" and redefine the term " testing facility" based on the function-of the facility instead of its power level. The petitioner requested this action because the current definition of " testing facility" results in excessive and unnecessary routine regulatory requirements being applied to research reactors which is contrary to the intent of Congress in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
TIMETABLE: Denial of the pc Xtion was published in the Federal Register l
on April 25, 1989 (54 FR 17962)
CONTACT: Mark Au Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301 492-3749 85
- f. :-
I
- ? ,
e,- I 7-I !j 1
1 I
i f
I i
I I
I.
1 I
l l
I a
I.
I 1
l 2
l i
l I
i l
)
I I
l 1
1 l
l 1
i
l (B) Petitions for Wiich a notice of denial has ~been prepared and is tcheduled to be published in the Federal Register next quarter NONE l
S l
l-B' I
.r l
l (C) Petitions incorporated into proposed rules NONE 1
1 1
1 l
l l
l l
l l
i l
l I
1 I
i 1
1
(D) Petitions pending staff review l
l l
4 I
i i
l
_ ._,___,_____-___.m.,.-.__,___.-._,___-.___
l i
i
.l
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-20-17 PETITIONER: The Rockefeller University PART: 20 ,
OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: October 21,1986(53FR41342)
Correction published November 1, 1988 (53FR44014)
SUBJECT:
Disposal of Aninial Tissue Containing Small Amounts of-Radioactivity
SUMMARY
- The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations under which a licensee may dispose of animal tissue containing small ancunts of radioactivity without regard-to its radio-activity by expanding the list of radioactive isotopes for which unregulated disposal is permitted. Specifically, the petitioner requests that the NRC add Sulfur-35, Calcium-45, Chromium-51, Iodine-125, and Iodine-131 in concentrations not exceeding 0.01 microcurie /g to the list of radioactive isotopes set out in 10 CFR 20.306(b). The petitioner also l
requests that the NRC make the unregulated disposal of these wastes a matter with which all jurisdictions must comply.
TIMETABLE: Resolution of the petition is scheduled for Novenber 1989.
I CONTACT: Catherine Mattsen Nuclear Regulatory Connission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301 492-3638 l
87 I
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-20-18 PETITIONER: The Rockefeller University PART: 20 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: October 31, 1988 (53 FR 43896)
SUBJECT:
Disposal of Solid Biomedical Waste Containing Small Amounts of Radioactivity
SUMMARY
- The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations to permit a licensee to dispose of solid biomedical waste containing small amounts of radioactivity without regard to its radioactivity. The petitioner requests that the NRC expand f.he provisions of 10 CFR 20.306 to classify the disposal of wastes such as paper, glass, and plastic trash containing small amounts of Hydregen-3 and Carbon-14 as below regulatory concern. The petitioner would then be able to dispose of this material on-site in a currently operating, controlled-air incinerator. The petitioner believes this to be a reasonable, cost-effective alternative to burial of these i wastes at a commercial low-level radioactive waste site.
i TIMETABLE: Resolution of the petition is scheduled for November 1989, l CONTACT: Catherine Mattsen Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301 492-3638 l
88 I
m .
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRti-20-19 PETITIONER: GE Stockholders' Alliance PART: 20 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: 50 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 1,1989 (54FR5089)
SUBJECT:
Injection of Detectable Odor in li.' clear Power Plant Effluents-
SUMMARY
- The petitioner requests that the Connission amend Part 20 to require that a detectable odor be injected into the emission of nuclear power plants and other nuclear processes over which the NRC has jurisdiction. .The petitioner believes that this action would improve the health and safety of the public by providing for early detection of radiation leaks. A detectable odor would give the public notice of the need to take health protective measures.
The public connent period closes April 3,1989. The NRC will review public connents, prior staff work on this issue, and develop recommendations regarding resolution of the petition.
TIMETABLE: Resolution of the petition is scheduled for December 1989.
CONTACT: Alan K. Roecklein Nuclear Regulatory Connission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301 492-3740 1
4 89 i
PETITION DOCKET NO: *PRM-35-8 PETITIONEP A: rsham Corporation i
Pt.: T: 35 l- OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: Icne -
FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: May 5, 1989 (54 FR 19378)
SUBJECT:
The petitioner requests that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission anend its regulations concerning the medical use c'. byproduct material to include Iridi!4m-192 wire for interstitial- treatment of cancer in the provisions of 10.CFR 35.400 which governs the use of sources for brachytherapy. Under current NRC ;
regulations, a potential user would be required to request and obtain a license amendment before using Iridium wire in ,
brachytherapy treatments. The petitioncr requests this ;
amendment so that each medical use licensee that intends to 8 use Iridium-192 wire for the interstitial treatment of cancer :
nay do so without having to request and obtain a specific l amendment to its licente.
.i TIMETABLE: Resolution of the petition is scheduled for February 1990. '
CONTACT: Anthony Tse Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301)492-3797 90
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-20 PETITIONER: Free Environment, Inc., et al.
PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: 100 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: May 19, 1977 (42 FR 25785)
SUBJECT:
. Reactor Safety Measures
$UMMARY: The petitioner requests that the Commission amend Part 50 before proceeding with the processing of license applications for the Central Iowa Nuclear Project to require that (1) all nuclear reactors be located below ground level; (2) all nuclear l
reactors be. housed in sealed buildings within which permanent
! heavy vacuums are maintained; (3) a full-time Federal employee, with full authority to order the plant to be shut down in case of any operational abnormality, always be present in all nuclear generating stations; and (4) the Central lowa Nuclear Project and all other reactors be sited at least 40 miles from major population centers.
The objective of the petition is to ensure that additional safety measures are employed in the construction and siting of nuclear power plants. The petitioner seeks to have recommendations and procedures practiced or encouraged by various organizations and some current NRC guidelines adopted as mandatory requirements in the Commission's regulations.
The commst period closed July 18, 1977. Three comments were received. The first three parts of the petition (see Descriptionsectionabove)wereincorporatedwithPRM-50-19 for staff action purposes A notice o# denial for the third part of the petition was published in the Federal Register on February 2, 1978 (43 FR 4466). A notice of denial for the first two parts of the pat; tion was published April 19, 1978 (43 FR 16556).
TIMETABLE: The staff is prepering a Federal Register package wnich will contain a denial far the remaining issue in this petition.
The notice is expected to be published by December 1989.
CONTACT: John Telford Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301 492-3796 91 ,
i 1
- _ _ _ _ _ u______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-31 a.
PETITIONER: Citizens' Task Force PART- 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: 70 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: March 24,1982(47FR'12639)
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
- The petitinner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to. require that (1) the present ten-mile emergency planning zone radius be extended to twenty miles and include any towns _ bordering on or partially within this zone; (2) all communities with a population in excess of 5,000 persons be provided by the respective utility with the funding to purchase, install, and operate radiological monitoring equipment to reach and maintain the level of preparedness deemed necessary by the affected municipalities; and (3) utilities be required to finance the emergency plar.ning efforts of municipalities located near nuclear reactors.
The objective of the petition is to estabiish an effective notification and evacuation system in communities located r. ear nuclear reactors. The comment period closed May 24, 1982.
TIMETABLE: Staff resolution of the petition was sent to the Commission on June 7, 1989 (SECY-89-172)
CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301 492-3918 92
PETITION DOCKET NUMBEi- PRM-50-45 PETITIONER: Kenneth G. Sexton PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: October 6, 1986 (51 FL 35b28)
SUBJECT:
Extending the Emergency Planning Zone l
SUMMARY
- The petitioner requests that the Commission amend it", {
regulations to require that current methodologies ead analytical ti iniques be used to reevaluate the es cablished Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) for nur. lear power plcnts. l 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 10 years have produced improved calculations for determining the size of an EPZ.
The petitioner believes that there is overwhelming justification to request that the size of the EPZ be reevaluated on a site-specific basis, after allowing for review of the determination report by any interested parties.
The connent period for this petition, originally to expire on December 5, 1986 was extended to April 15, 1987.
TIMETABLE: Staff resolution of the petition was sent to the Commission I
ori June 7,1989 (SECY-89-172)
CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Connission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (
301 492-3918 93
k 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
- The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its 4
. emergency planning regulations to (1) expand the emergency planning rone for the plume exposure pathway and !
for the ingestion pathway; (2) require that emergency planning be done before any construction of a nuclear facility is. permitted and that the Governor of each affected State approve the emergency plans as a precondition to construction; and (3) require that offsite emergency preparedness findings be made before any fuel loading and/or low power operations are permitted.. i
'The objective of the petition is to expand the emergency planning zone around nuclear power plants to ensure the protection of the public. The comment period expired March 2, 1987.
TIMETABLE: Staff resolution of the petition was sent to the Commission on June 7, 1989 (SECY-89-172)
CONTACT:- Michael T. Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301 492 3918 i-94
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-50 PETITIONER: Charles Young PART: 50 GTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: August 26,1988(53FR32624)
"'?.F:.T : Technical Specifications
SUMMARY
- The petitioner requests the Comission to amend its regulations to rescind the provision that authorizes nuclear power plant operators to deviate from technical specifications during an emergency. The petitioner believes that nuclear power plants should be operated in accordance with the operating license and appropriate technical specifications and that requiring a senior operator to follow the technical specifications during an emergency enhances plant safety.
j TIMETABLE: Resolution of the petition is scheduled for November 1989.
1 CONTACT: Morton R. Fleishman Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301 492-3794 95 t
I PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-51, PRM-50-51A, PRM-50-51B-PETITIONER: American Nuclear Insurers and MAERP Reinsurance Association, Edison Electric Institute, Nuclear Utility Management and Resource Council, and Nuclear Mutual Limited and Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: September 19,1988(53FR36335)
SUBJECT:
Changes in Property Insurance Requirements.
SUMMARY
- The petitioners request that the Commission amend, after notice and opportunity for comment, certain insurance provisions which require that: (1) any insurance claims be paid first for the stabilization of the reactor facilit and (2)yany' andinsurance secondly,proceeds for decontamination be paid to a trustee of thewho facility, would disburse the proceeds according to the priorities.
Four comments were received on this petition and are under office review.
TIMETABLE: Resolution of this petition is scheduled for November 1989.
CONTACT: Robert Wood .
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
301 492-1280 96
I PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-52 PETITIONER: Marvin Lewis PART: ;50 1
OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: August 29,1988(53FR32913) i
SUBJECT:
Financial Qualifications i
SUMMARY
- The petitioner requests that the Commission reinstate financial !
qualifications as a consideration in the operating license hearings for electric utilities. The petitioner believes that the financial condition of a utility should be investigated during the licensing hearings. The petitioner also believes i that the current rule requires the assumption of financial l adequacy and that this assumption has resulted in several j problems that could pose a danger to the public health l and safety.
TIMETABLE: Resolution of this petition is scheduled for October 1989.
CONTACT: Jamas Petersen Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 301 492-1265 97 l
(E)Petitionswithdeferredaction
)
-l i
i f
{
t I
l l
l 1
j
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-40-23 PETITIONER: Sierra Club PART: 40 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 25, 1981 (46 FR 14021);
May 2, 1983 (48 FR 19722)
SUBJECT:
Licensing the Possession of Uranium Mill Tailings at Inactive Storage Sites.
SUMMARY
- The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to license the possession of uranium ;
mill tailings of inactive storage sites. The petitioner proposes the following regulatory action to ensure that the public health and safety is adequately protected: (1) repeal the licensing exemption for inactive uranium mill tailings sites subject to the Department of Energy's remedial programs; (2) require a license for the possession of byproduct material on any other property in the vicinity of an inactive mill tailings site if the byproduct materials are derived from the sites; or, in the alternative, (3) conduct a rulemaking to detemine whether a licensing exemptior, of these sites or byproduct materials constitutes an unreasonable risk to public health and safaty. On March 23, 1983, the petitioner filed an amendment to the original petition. In the amendment, the petitioner requests that, in the event that NRC denies the earlier requests, NRC take further action to ensure that the management of byproduct material located on or derived from inactive uranium processing sites is conducted ,
in a manner that protects the public health and safety and the environment. The petitioner also requests that the NRC take action to govern the management of byproduct material not subject to licensing under section 81 of the Atomic Energy Act.
The objective of the petition is to license the. protection i 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 i is to adequately fulfill its statutory responsibilities under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act.
The comment period closed April 27, 1981. Three comments were received, all stating the petition should be denied. The comment period on the amendment to the petition closed 1 June 30, 1983. Uranium mill tailings are regulated I under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 99 i
_~....._m...-. . . . ..... . . . . . . . .
- - - . . . . . . - - - . . . - . . - - . ~ - . . -- - .- l
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 inactive uranium mill tailings sites. Title II of
'the Act authorizes NRC to regulate disposal of the tailings at active sites.
TIMETABLE: Resolution of _this petition is.on hold pending agendments to Part 40 dealing with the custody and long-term care of reclaimed mill tailings sites. Completion of.this rulemaking is scheduled for 1990. Resolution of.
the petition will be completed following this' action.
CONTACT: Mark-Haisfield Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301 492-3877 i
l 100 u___- _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - - - _ _ - - . _ -
U.S. NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBE R
- D a 336 (Assigned by NRC. Add Vol., Sup;,, Rev.,
I end Addendum Numtaers,if any.)
' M IIO2.
- 2. 82m - BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET tsee imtruct,ons or, the ,,,,,,,) NUREG-0936 Vol. 8, No. 2
?. TITLE AND SUBTITLE NRC Regulatory Agenda 3. DATE REPORT PuBLissED Quarterly Report ,0,,, , , ,
I 1989-April - June 1989- July
- 4. FIN oR GR ANT NUMBE R b, AUTHOR ($) 6. TYPE of REPORT Quarterly
- 7. PE Rl0D COV E R ED tonctuswe Datest April - June 1989 D, PERFORMING oRGANIZ AT ion - N AME AND ADDRESS its NRC. proeidr oovmon, OHa ar nerton. v.s Nucker neoutorary Commisuon, end meltmo eddren, ticontenctor, ruroutor 1 noms and msesing addowsni Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office -f Administration ;
-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '
Washington, DC "0555 h SPoNSORtNG ORGANIZATION - N AME AND ADDR ESS tH NRC. type ~Some ss anore";n conurnetor. provide NRC Dwinon. CHoce or Region, U S Nucteer Requietory Comanwon, and meiterse addressi Same as item 8. above.
- 20. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES j
$1. ABST R ACT (200 wants or Jous The NRC Regulatory Agenda is a compilation of all rules on which the NRC ,
has proposed or is considering action and all petitions for rulemaking which have been received by the Commission and are pending disposition by the Commission. The Regulatory Agenda is updated and issued each quarter.
kl KE Y WORDS/DESCR:PT ORS ttist words orpareses thou wm esssar rescereneru m sacerme ene report.t U AV AILAB6Li1 Y &l AllMENI Unlimited Compilation of rules i. secuna v ctAsmcAnos Petitions for rulemaking -t r ,,,, ,,
' Unclassified rl'has flepurl)
Unclassified ,
t Ib. NUMBER OF PAGE $
- 16. PRICE I
NRC FORM 336 (2-89) e y,3, cgy[ RhmE hi PRlhilk; Drr !C[ s1989 741 59'l:30178
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION """$$[48c"UftgysgAteA WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 usNac PERMIT No. G-67 Section 1 - Rules ^
,,,g;g, ggsg sg,, ,,,,
Action Completed Rulq20%5139531 1 1AN187 US NRC-0 ADM OIV FOIA & PUBLICA110NS SVCS T f' S PDR-NUREG P-?O9 WASHfNGTON DC 20555 ;
Proposed Rules Advance Notice - Proposed Rulemaking Unpublished Rules Section 11 - Petitions for Rulemaking Petitions - Final or Denied l Petitions - Scheduled for Publication in the Federal Register 1 Petitions - Incorporated into Proposed Rules Petitions - Pending Petitions - Deferred Action
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .