ML20246C072

Forwards Status of RES Rulemaking Activities for Jul 1989. Info Current as of 890623

ML20246C072
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/03/1989
From:	Dipalo A NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
NUDOCS 8907100232
Download: ML20246C072 (65)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:pC.,,,, 3' i n- ~ 3-- c > 1 ,W 3 9 g;gg .. / UNITED STATES ' . p' ' + L8

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o

WASHINGTON, D, C. 20555 J E-1 ?

y,,....,

p [' . July 3, 1989 l:l d.: MEMORANDUM FOR: 'Public' Document Room'. -FROM: Anthony,J. DiPalo, Leader-L Regulatory Analysis-'Section -Regulation Development Branch- . Division of. Regulatory' Applications, RES' L l'"

SUBJECT:

STATUS OF RES RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES--JULY 1989.. Attached is.the monthly report on the status'of rulemakings' underway in the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. The information contained'in this , report is current as offJune 23, 1989. L to ho y J. D alo. Leader l R ulatory Analysis Section,. [ Regulation' Development Branch. Division'of' Regulatory Applications, RES

Attachment:

.As stated-cc:.NUDOCS (R-2914.03)- 4 I i 1 l 4 8907100232 890703 i RES SUBJ f l1 -] PDC 2914.03 1

PageNo. 1 06/22/89 Oks0lWS RES RULEMAKINS ACTIVITIE3 PDR REPORT Page RDB CFR 0 i Title Citation Divis.on/ Branch Contact Phone Nc. .....................................=- - - --- =.... I RM141 Cones and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants 10 CFR 50 DE/EMEB Millaan,6. 49-23B48 (ASME Code, 1986/1987/1988 Addental i 3 RM129 Asendsent of the Pressurized Thereal Shot,t 10 CFR 50 DE/MEB Randall,P. 49-23242 l Rule l 5 RM068 Prisary Reactor Containment Leah;c Testing 10 CFR 50 DL 'S5th Arndt,6. 49-28314 for Water-Cooled Power Reatters (Appendix J) 7 RM136 Codes and Standards for Nuclear Pcuer Plants 10 CFR 50 DE/SSEB Norris, W. 49-23805 (ASME Co:e, Section II, Division 1, Subsection !WE) 9 RM079 Elimination of Inconsistencit's Between hRC 10 CFR 60 LE/WMB Prichard,C. 49-23884 Regulations and EPA Standards 11 RM100 Criteria for Licensing the Custedy and 10 CFR 40 DE/WMB Haisfield, M. 49-23877 Long-Ters Care cf Uranics Mill Tallings Sites 13 PM173 Asendments to Part 60 to Delineate 10 CFR 60 DE/hMB Prichard,C. 49-23894 Anticipated Processes and Events and Unanticipated Processes and Events 15 RMlG8 Lca-Level Waste Manif est Inf orsatten and 10 CFR 20, LE/WMB Halsfield,M. 49-23977 Feperting 61 18 RM103 Safety Pelated and 1sportant to Safety in 10 10 CFR 50 DRA/ARSIB Wilson,J. 49-23729 CFR Part 50 20 RM133 Ensuring the Effectiveness of Maintenance 10 CFR 50 DRA/ARBIB Dey,M. 49-23730 Prograss for Nuclear Pcuer Plants 23 RM077 Persennel Access Authorization Prc; ras 10 CFR 50, DRA/ RIB Frattali, S. 49-23773 73 25 RMoS! Pequiresents for Pessession of Irdustrial 10 CFR 31 DRA/RDB Mate,J. 49-23795 Devices 27 RM095 Basic Gaality Assurance Progras f:r Medical 10 CFR 35 DEA /RDB ise, A. 49-23797 Use of Byproduct Material 29 RM099 Transportation Fegalations: Ccs;stitiltty 10 CFR 71 DEA /HB Ho; lins,D. 49-237E4 with the Internattor,al Attsic Eter;y Agency (IAEA) _-__-_____- - Q

[-( hv I .Page No. '2 ~ 06/22/39 .DNSDIN6 RES RllLEMAKINS ACTIVITIES PDR REPORT Page-RDI CFR g A 'l-Title Citation Division / Branch Contact Phone k:. 4 = 31 RM1'02 Disposal of Waste Dil by Incineration fres, 10 CFR 20 DRA/RDB. Mattsen,C. 49-23635 Nuclear Power Plants 33.RM105 Reasserting NRC's Sole Authority for 10 CFR 150 DRA/RDB Pearson,W. 49-23768-Approving Dnsite Lou-Level Waste Disposal in Agreteent States ~ 35 l RM112 Storage of Spent Naclear fuel in 10 CFR 50, DRA/RDP-Pearson,W. .49-2376a' NRC-Approved Stcrage Casts at Nuclear Power 72,170 ' Reactor Sites -37 RM116'.Asendsent to 10 CFR 51.31'and $1.52, Tables 10 C(R 51 DRA/RDP Turel,S. 49-2373I S-3 and S-4, Addition of Radon-222 and Technetius-99 Radiation Values, and Addition of Appendix B 39 'RM119 Taenty-Four Hour Notification of incidents 10 CFR 20 DRA/RDB Mate,J. 49-2379:.- 41-RM125 - Night Firing hal:fications for Security 10 CFR 73 DRA/RDB Frattall,S. 49-237U 6 cards at Naclear Pcaer Plants 43 RM135 Minor Asendsents to Physical Protection 10 CFR 70, DRA/RDE Dolins,S. 49-2374 ~ ' Requirements 72, 73, 75 45 RM162 Cesprehensive' hality Assurance in Medical 10 CFR 35 DRA/ RIB ise, A. 49-23791 t!se and a Standard of Care 46 RMi65 Esergency 9esponse Data Systes 10 CFR $0 DRA/RDB Aa, M. 49-23749

48. RMlB6 Palladice-103 for Interstitial Treatment of 10 CFR 35 DRA/RDB ise,A.

49-23797 Cancer 50 RM189 f Day firin; Qualification and Phpical 10 CFR 73 DRA/RDB Hopkins,D. 49-237B4 Fitness Prograss for Security Persocnel at Category 1 Fuel Cycle Facilities (Appendir H) 52 RM033 ' Standards for Prctection Agaitst Radiation 10 CFR 20 DhA/APHEP Feterson,H. 49-23640 54 RM051 Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear 10 CFR 140 DRA/RPHEP Peterson,H. 49-23640 Occurrence 56 RM053 Safety Requirements for Industrial 10 CFR 24 DRA/EPHEE Nellis,D. 49-2362i Radiographic Equi;tett 1

1 Page No. 3 06/22/89 DNSDING RES RULEMAKINS ACTIVITIES 1 PDR REPORT L ~ ) Page RDB CFR 0 i Title Citation Divisf or /Eranch Contact $ hone No. l l l l 58 RM120 Licensing and Radiation Safety Requirements 10 CFR 36 DRA/RPHEB McGuire,S. 49-23757 for Large Irradiators 60 RM149 Nuclear Flant License Renewa) 10 CD 50 DSIR/RPSIB Cleary, D. 49-23936 l l l I 1 l l i ] l 1 l i

S .RDB NUMBER: RM141 LATEST UPDATE: 06/20/89 TITLE: Codes and Standards for Nuclear. Power Plants.(ASME Code, 1986/1987/1988 Addenda) CFR CITATION: 10 CFR 50 ) LEBAL AUTHORITY:- ' 42 USC 220.1 ; 42 USC 5841 ' EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No-AGENCY CONTACT: Gilbert C. Millman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3848 ABSTRACT: The proposed rule would incorporate by reference the 1986-Addenda, the 1987 Addenda, the 1988 Addenda, and the 1989 Edi tion of Section III, Division 1, and Section-XI, Division.1, with'a specified modification, of the American Society of Mechanical. Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code). Also, the proposed amendment would impose augmented examination of reactor vessel shell welds and would separata the requirements for. inservice testing from those for inservice i nspection' by placing the requirements f or inservice testing in a separate paragraph. The ASME Code provides rules for the construction of light-water-reactor nuclear power plant components in Section III, Division 1, and provides rules f or the inservice inspection and inservice testing of those components in Section XI, Division 1. The proposed rule would update the existing reference to the ASME Code and would thereby permit the.use of improved methods f or the construction, inservice inspection, and inservice testing of nuclear power plant components. Incorporating by reference the latest addenda of the ASME Code would save applicants / licensees and the NRC staff both time and ef f ort by providing unif orm detailed criteria against which the staff could review any single submission. In addition, the proposed rule would require expeditious implementation of the expanded reactor vessel shell" weld examinations provided in the 1988 Addenda and the j 1989 Edition of Section XI and would clarify the existing requirements in the regulation for inservice inspection and inservice testing. i

I.' o l 1 1 E This action'will be' handled as a routine updating of $50.55a of the NRC regulations. There.is no reasonable alternative ) to rulemaking action. The proposed amendment will be issued. j for'public comment. 'The task to. develop and publish the ] proposed amendment is scheduled f or a 7eriod of.7.5 months a with an estimated staff effort of'400 p-brs. This is a priority A rulemaking. CURRENT STATUS: A memorandum was' received f rom NRR requesti ng inclusion of the 1988 Addenda in the proposed amendment. ~The proposed amendment and supporting regulatory analysis was modified to accommodate this request.

TIMETABLES.

COMPLETED ACTIONS:. Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 07/25/88 Proposed-Action to Divisions for Review 09/27/88 Division Review of Proposed Action Completed 11/07/88 . SCHEDULED ACTIONS: Proposed Action to Divisions f or Review (07/03/89) Division Review of Proposed Action Completed (08/11/89) Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 07/17/89 (10/27/89) Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR (12/15/89) Proposed Action to EDO 09/19/89 (01/15/90) Proposed Action to Commission--Not Applicable Proposed Action Published 10/20/89-(02/15/90) Final Action Published 06/20/90 (11/20/90) NOTES. Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-appr oved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates. i 2 u________ i

a:u a g<

(

I RDB NUMBER: RM129 LATEST UPDATE: 06/21/89 i j .T I TI.E s Amendment of the Pressurized Thermal. Shock Rule CFR. CITATION: 10 CFR 50 1 L LEGAL. AUTHORITY: 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS-AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT: Pryor N. Randall Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301.492-3842. I ABSTAACT: ~ The Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) Rul e, published', July 23, l 1985, established.a screening criterion, a limit on the degree of radiation embrittlement of PWR reactor vessel beltline materials beyond which operation cannot continue without additional plant-specific. analysis. The rule-prescribes how to calculate the degree of embrittlement as a function of the copper and nickel contents of'the controlling material and the neutron fluence. The proposed amendment revises the calculative procedure to be consistent with that given in Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.99. The guide . provides an updated correlation of embrittlement data, which received CRGR approval for publication in final form on December 9, 1987. The need to amend the PTS rule to be consistent with the guide became apparent.when it was found that for some medium-copper, high-nickel materials embrittlement is worse than now predicted using the PTS rule. A number of PWRs will reach the screening criterion sooner than previously thought, and three pl ants 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 1 standpoint is to leave. the present PTS rule in place. The staf f 's plant-by plant analyses f ound f our plants whose reference temperatures are 52 to 68 F higher than previously thought, based on the present rule. This is beyond the uncertainties that were felt to exist when the present rule was published. Another unacceptable alternative that has 3 1 i

s.. .t ~ been. evaluated is to change the calculative procedure f or the reference temperature and also change the screening criterion. Failure probabilities f or the most critical-accident scenarios in three plants, when recalculated'using the new embrittlement estimates, were somewhat 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. Immediate costs to industry will be those required for each utility to update the January 23, 1986, submittal required by the PTS rule, using fluence estimates that take account of f l u> reduction efforts in the interim and using the new procedure for calculating RT In additions.three to five PTS. plants will need to make the expenditure of an estimated 2.5 million dollars for the plant-specific analysis in the 1990's instead of 10 to 15 years later. CURRENT STATUS: The proposed action was submitted to the CRGR on May 9, 1989. A meeting is scheduled for July 12, 1989. TIMETABLE: COMPLETED ACTIONS: Rul emaki ng Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 02/17/88 Proposed Action for Division Review 06/02/88 ACRS Review of Proposed Action 04/11/89 Proposed Action to CRGR 05/09/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:. Proposed Action to EDO 05/30/89 (08/04/89) Proposed Action to Commission--To Be Determined Proposed Action Published 06/30/89 (09/08/89) Final Action for Di vi si on Revi ew 11/15/89 (12/15/89) Final Action to ACRS--To Be Determined Final Action to CRGR (02/15/90) Final Action to EDO.04/15/90 Final Action to Commission--To Be Determined Final Action Published 06/15/90 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved i due dates. Dctes included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates. l '4 i

m i a m t

}[

, c

' { j; RDB' NUMBER:: RM068 'LATESTTUPDATE: 06/21/89' - TITLE: T Primary : Reactor ' Containment Leakage Testing f or Water-Cooled Power Reactors l 1 - CFR5 CITATION: 101CFR 50,LAppendix J LEGAL AUTHORITY: 42 USC'2133h 42 USC12134;.42 USC 5841 - EFFECTS ON2SMALL BUSINESS'AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT: E. Gunter:Arndt' ' Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office'of' Nuclear Regulatory Research l Washington,nDC.20555 '301L492-3814- ' ABSTRACT: .The 'prcposed rule' would update and revise the 1973 criteria: I f or preoperational' and periodic pressure testing f or ' leakage : of primary containment' boundaries of water-cooled power reactors.: Problems have developed in application and interpretation of the existing rule. These result from- . changes in testing technology, test' criteria, and a relevant national; standard that needs to be recognized. It is proposed to:- revise the rule as noted to make it current and improve its usefulness. The: revi sion is urgently needed to resolve continuing conflicts between licensees and NRC inspectors over interpretations, current regulatory practice which is no longer being reflected accurately by the existing rule, and endorsement in the existing regulation of an obsolete nat i ona'l standard that was replaced in 1981. Ttua benefits anticipated include elimination of inconsistencies and obsolete requirements, and the addition of greater usefulness and a higher confidence in the leak-tight integrity of containment system boundaries under post-loss of cool ant accident conditions. The majority of the effort needed by NRC to issue the rule has already been expended. 1 1 i 1 I 4 l J

h J Y - b ll .e, A detailed analysis of costs, benefits,.and occupational exposures is available in the Public Document Room, and indicates possible savings to industry of $14 million to $300 million and an increase in occupational exposure of less than i percent per year per plant due to increased testing.. CURRENT STATUS: The extended public comment period.for the proposed rule closed on April 24, 1987. Fi f ty-two l etters were received and are being evaluated. EDO concurrence was sought for the continuation of this rulemaking based on a qualitative safety analysis of the rule rather than the usual' cost benefit' analysis, prescribed by the Backfit Rule. The~EDO' approved continuation of the rulemaking on February 15, 1989, with expeditious resolution cf public comments. ' TIMETABLE: COMPLETED ACTIONS: Rulemaking Initiation Date 02/21/86 Proposed Action to EDO 03/31/86 Proposed Action Published 10/29/86 51 FR 39538 Proposed Action Comment Period End 01/26/87 Proposed Action Comment Period Extended tua 04/24/87 52 FR 2416 SCHEDULED ACTIONS: Final Action for Division Review Undetermined Final Action to Offices for Concurrence Undetermined Final Action to CRGR/ACRS Undetermined Final Action to EDO Undetermined Final Action to Commi ssion Undetermined Final Action Published Undetermined NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent tesk leader estimates. l l 6 [

Dy cg i

g, _. -

f I. i U RDB NUMBER:' RM136 LATEST UPDATE: 06/21/89 TITLE: Codes'and Standards'for Nuclear Power Plants (ASME Code, 'Section XI, Division 1, Subsection IWE) 'CFR CITATION: 10 CFR 50 LEGAL AUTHORITY:- 42 USC 2201; 42'USC 5841 .c EFFECTS.ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENDA CONTACT: Waliace E. Norris Nuclear Regulatory Commission Of fice of Nuclear. Regulatory Research . Washington, DCL 20555 1301 492-3805 ABSTRACT: The proposed rule.would-incorporate by reference Subsection . I WE,- " Requirements for Class MC. Components of Light-Water ' Cooled Power Pl ants," of Section XI (Division.1) of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code-(ASME Code). Subsection IWE provides the rules and r requirements f or inservice inspection, repair, and replacement of Class MC pressure retaining components and their integral attachments, and of metallic shell and penetration liners of Class CC pressure retaining components and their integral attachments in light-water cooled power plants. Incorporating by reference Subsection IWE will provide . systematic examination rules for containment structure for-meeting Criterion 53 of the General Design Criteri a (Appendix A.of 10 CFR Part 50) and Appendix J of 10 CFR Part 50. Age-reJ ated 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 rul es, the NRC position on examination practices f or containment structures would have to be established on a Ecase-by-case basis and improved examination practices for steel containment structures might not be implemented. The other alternatives of incorporating these detailed examination requirements into the American National Standard ANSI /ANS 56.0-1981 or into Appendix J are not feasible. 1 7 i

y i 1 ,m 9 f a I l. Incorporating by reference the latest edition and addenda.of ' Subsection.IWE will save applicants / licensees and the NRC L staff both - time and ef f ort by provi ding uni f orm-detailed criteria-against which the staf f can review any single. ) submission. Adoption of the proposed amendment would permit the use of.ireproved methods for containment inservice L . i nspecti on. i CURRENT STATUS: L 4 L The proposed rulemaking package was submitted' to the CRGR f or review on June.13, 1989. . TIMETABLE: COMPLETED ACTIONS: Rul emaki ng Initiation Date-(EDO Approval) 06/09/88 Proposed Acti on f or Di vi si on. Revi ew 07/01/88-Proposed' Action to Offices for Concurrence -11/14/88 Proposed Action to CRGR 06/13/89 Proposed Action to ACRS--Not Applicable SCHEDULED ACTIONS: Proposed-Action to EDO 04/14/89 (To Be Determined) Proposed Action to Commission--Not Applicable Proposed Action Published 05/15/89.(To Be Determined) Final Action Published 04/15/90 (To Be Determined) ' NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved 'due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent ' task l eader estimates. 1 l l 8

t I a h i .c

e i t'

• 1, i

k cRDB? NUMBER:.RMO79 LATEST UPDATE: 06/20/89-m hu 1 TITLE - Elimination of Inconsistencies Between NRC' Reguleti ons and. .) EPA Standards u I y CF~R CITATION: 10 CFR 60 'l LEGAL. AUTHORITY:- .h 42 USC 10101. EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No ' AGENCY CONTACT: Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555. 301 492-3884 ABSTRACT: ,1 The Nuclear Waste Policy Act-of-1982 directs NRC to promulgate' criteria for the. licensing of HLW' geologic reposi tori es. Secti on 121 - (c)- of this act states tnat these criteria must be-consistent with standards to be developed by. EPA for.the. disposal of HLW.in deep geologic repositories. .The proposed rule is needed in order to eliminate several inconsistencies with' the EPA standards, thus f ulfilling the statutory requirement. Because-the NWPA directs NRC to eliminate inconsistencies between,Part 60 and the EPA standard, the alternatives to the. i proposed action. are limited by statute. l The public, industry, and NRC will benefit from eliminating inconsistencies' in Federal HLW regulations. NRC resources needed would be'several c:aff years but will not include contract resourcec. CURRENT STATUS: A. Commi ssi on paper transmitting the final rule was forwarded to the EDO on July 20, 1987. The EDO did not sent it to the Commission f ollowing OGC review of the recent court decision -striking down the EPA standard. OGC recommended that the rulemaking be held up ' pending EPA's development of a revised HLW standard. (40 CFR 191). Tentatively, EPA plans to issue a proposed rule in December 1989. The staff is monitoring EPA progress and plans to publish a proposed rule soon after EPA

[

.does. L 9 l w,_.__-----_._----._---_---------- - - ' - - - - - - - - - - -

3; y -l 1 ~ i i 'l m TIMETABLE: i COMPLETED' ACTIONS: ' y Rulemaking. Ini tiation Date 08/07/85 I Proposed Action Published 06/19/86 51 FR 22288 { Proposed Action Comment Period-End.~ 08 /18 / 86 j Office Concurrence on Final Action' Completed 07/15/87 ) Fi nal - Action.to EDO 07/20/87 { SCHEDULED ACTIONS: ] Proposed Action--On Hold i NOTES. Timetable scheduled action dates ' reflect EDD-approved due' dates. Dates included'in parentheses, if any, represent i task leader estimates. i l a l s i 1 -{ l 1 f I i l i l- \\ SI - = -----_-----_-_---_

([ x a,, k: f..p. 1 . RDB NUMBER:.RM100 ' LATEST UPDATE: 06/20/89' TITLE:. {

Criteria for Licensing the Custody and Long-Term Care off Uranium Mill. Tailings Sites CFR CITATION:

.10 CFR 40 - LEGAL AUTHORITY: 42.USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS'ON SMALL' BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: ' No AGENCY CONTACT: 1 Mark Haisfield-Nuclear Regulatory Commicsion Office of-Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20055 301 492-3877 ' ABSTRACT: The' proposed.rulemaking wouldl amend Title 10.of the Code of. Federal' Regulations, Part 40 (Domestic Licensing of Source Material), to include a procedure for licensing a custodian for'the post-closure, long-term control of uranium mill tailings sites required by the Uranium Mill Tailings . Radiation' Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). This amendment would establish a general license for custody and -long-term care of uranium mill tailings by the Department of Energy, other-designated Federal agency, or Status when applicable.. The general license would be formulated so that'it would become effectiveLfor a particular site.when-(1) NRC concurs in the determination that the site has been. properly reclaimed or closed and (2) a Surveillance and Maintenance Plan that meets' the requirements' of the general license has been received by NRC. No significant impact to the public or industry is expected as a result of this -proposed action. CURRENT STATUS: On May 26, 1989, a memorandum was cent from RES to the EDO requesting that this rulemaking be placed on hold until final EPA groundwater standards f or inactive mill tailings sites are completed. l 11 14

k TIMETABLE: COMPLETED ACTIONS: Rulemaking. Initiation Date 02/17/87 . Proposed Action for Division-and Office Review 11/09/87 Proposed Action.to CRGR/ACRS--Not Applicable Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 02/10/88 Proposed Action to EDO' 02/10/88 Revised Proposed Action to EDO 03/10/88 Proposed Action to Commi ssi on - 03/17/88 'SECY-88-83 Commission Meeting 05/18/88-ANPRM Published 08/25/88 53 FR 32396 ANPRM Publi.c Comment Period End 10/24/88 Detailed Analysis of Comments Completed '01/13/09 Proposed Action to-Divisions and Of fices f or . Concurrence 03/06/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS: Proposed Action to EDO 04/14/09 (Undetermined) Proposed Action to Commission 04/28/89 (Undetermined) Proposed Rule Published 06/30/89 (Undetermined) Final Rule Published 03/30/90.(Undetermined) NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved - due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if a n y,- represent task leader esti mat es. 12 Y

o w..~ Lp-f [ RDB NUMBER: .RM173' LATEST UPDATE: 06/20/89. + TITLE: ' Amendments to Part 60 to Delineate Anticipated Processes and i. Events and Unanticipated Processes and' Events CFR CITATION: 110 CFR'60 .i LEGAL. AUTHORITY: Public Law 97-425, 42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:- l Clark Prichard Nucl ear. Regulatory Commi ssion ' Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492 3884 1 ADSTRACT: InE10'CFR Part 60, licensing requirements,for disposal of radioactive wastes in geologic repositories, certain perf orr.iance requirements f or 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 j cl ar i f i cati on. This rulemaking would modif y the definition of these terms'in Section 60.2, modify Section 60.113, which describes the use of these. terms, and modify.the definition of " geologic setting" in Section 60.2, and modify the use of ' that term in Secti on 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. CURRENT STATUS: ~ The proposed rulemaking was approved f or initiation by the 'EDO on April 27, 1989 The staff is evaluating the i possibility of accelerating the schedule for issuance of a proposed rule in response to an EDO request. i 13 l

_ _. _ _ - _ - _ = _ _ _ _ _ - _ - 4 .-e TIMETABLE: l COMPLETED ACTIONS: _Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 04/27/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:- -Proposed' Action-to CRGR and ACNW (02/28/90) Proposed Action to EDO (04/10/90) Proposed Acti on to Commission.(04/17/90) Proposed Action Publiched 05/31/90 Final Action Published 06/28/91 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect. EDD-approved due dates. ' Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates. j 1 I ~ 1 1A

.g. RDB NUMBER: RM188 LATEST UPDATE: 06/20/89 . TITLE' Low-Level Waste Manif est' Inf ormation and Reporting l CFR CITATION: 10 CFR 20;110 CFR 61 l LEGAL' AUTHORITY-The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy ) Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and Section 553 of Title 5 of the United States Code EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER. ENTITIES: Yes Disposal site operators ~already operate computer recordkeeping systems at existing disposal sites. Thus, the rule would codif y and standardize, existing practice.- Non ethel ess, the rulemaking will require modification of these existing computer systems. Staff expects that the costs for these modifications will be passed-on to disposal site customers, which will include small entities. These additional cc3ts may be as much as $0.10/ft*, wgich are small in comparison to today's base cost of $50-60/ft (not including transportation costs and surcharges). AGENCY CONTACT: . Mark Hai sfi el d/G.. W. Roles NucTear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Office of. Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20S55 301 492-3877/0595 ABSTRACT: The. proposed rulemaking will amend Parts 20 and 61 tos l (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. f acilities store portions of this manifest information in onsite computer recordkeeping systems; and (3) require that operators peri odicall y submi t, i in an electronic format, reports of shipment manifest i nf orma ti on. i 1 .5 i

r To assure. safe' disposal of LLW, we must understand the- - mechanisms and rates by which radioactivity can-be released -f rom - LLW and into the environment. To do this,~we must-understand the' chemical, physical, Land radiological characteristics of LLW. This task is greatly compiscated 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-ihipments to LLW disposal sites. Pursuant to Section'20.311, a manifest must accompany each shipment of LLW to a disposal facility. Unfortunately, existing manif es'ts do not describe the waste in detail suf ficient 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 f or 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-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 ability to perform saf ety and environmental assessments, and to monitor-compliance with regulations and license conditions. DOE has sagreed to establish and operate a national LLW data system based on their mandate under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. This rulemaking will provide necessary data. The DOE data system will provide NRC staff with the ability to manipulate the electronic manif est l information. A rulemaking is needed, in contrast to an a'Iternative such as a regulatory guide, b ec a'une it can most effectively ensure data that is t echnically complete and standardized at a L national level. The rulemaking will help ensure the l availability of a 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 9tates, f 16 t. . _ =

l' l' l: 1. .We espect that.the rulemaking will slightly increase disposal costs.- The rulemaking is a budgeted activity cited in the NRC 3-year plan. CURRENT STATUS: The rulemakingzwas approved for. initiation by the EDO on . April 26, 1989. TIMETABLE: l COMPLETED ACTIONS: Rul emaking' Initiation (EDO Approval). 04/26/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS: Proposed Action. to Division f or ~ Review 12/15/89 Proposed Acti on to Of fices f or Concurrence 02/15/90 Proposed. Action to CRGR/ACRS (To Be' Determi ned) Proposed. Action to EDO 04/16/90 Proposed Attion. to Commi ssion 04/30/90 Proposed Action. Published 06/29/90 ' Fi nal Action Published 05/31/91 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates' included-in parentheses, if any, represent task leader. estimates. i i l f 17 m

c

o., o y

et32 RDB. NUMBER: FtM103 LATEST UPDATE: 06/20/89 \\ . T'ITLE ' 7% NU Saf ety Related and ' Important to Saf ety in.10 CFR Part 50 CFR CITATION:- 10:CFR 50 LEGAL AUTHORITY: 42;uSC.5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 " EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No A AGENCY CONTACT: Jerry N. Wilson Nuclear Regulat ory Commission j Office af Nuclear Reguletory Research Weshington,,'DC 20555 301:49273729. ABSTRACT: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes'to clarify itu regulations on the use of the terms."important to safety" and "saf ety related" by adding definitiorm of these two terms and of " facility licensing documents" to 10 CFR Part 50 and.by discussing'how these definitions will be applied in NRC -licensing reviews. Significant issues:'concerning the meaning of these terms as.'they are used it. this part have arisen in Commi ssi on,' l i censi ng. proceedi ngs. This proposted rule would define these terms'and clarify-the nature and extent rf their ef f ect on quality assur ance requirements, thereby resolving-l> these i ssues. : Rulemaking was chosen as the method of resolving this issue as a result'of the Commission's directive to resolve the . issue by rulemaking contained in the Shoreham licensing l decision ( CL. I 9, 19 NRC 1323, June 5, 1984). l l A. position paper requesting approval of the staff proposed definitions and additional guidance from the Commission was signed by the EDO on May 29, 1986. In addition to rul ema ki ng, the position paper discusses the alternative of the Commission issuing a policy statement concerning the definitions ano their usage. l l' 1: b [ is i

h x' 'p >,,..

h

) 1 i Since1the proposed rule is only clarifying existing. requirements, there i s no. impact on the public or the industry - as a result of,this rulemaking. .It is anticipated that the - q 'NRC will expend 3.2 to 4.4. staff years in developing the l final rule.over.a 2-year period. The manpower and time frame will depend - on Commission guidance received on the extent to l !which 110' CFR usage of - the terms i s to be' consistent, _i.e., 10 CFR Part.50 only or all of 10 CFR. ,j i . CURRENT STATUS: A package suggesting an approach to rulemaking was signed by-j the 'EDO and f orwarded' to the Commission on May 29, 1986 j .(SECY-86-164). Staff is currently awaiting a Commission deci si on; however, f in light of_ higher priority i ssues, j Chairman Zech has requested a del ay in the vote cn l SECY-86-164. l) TIMETABLE: COMPLETED ACTIONS: Rulemaking. Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/85 l Proposed Action--Suggested Approach (SECY-86-164) to Commission. 05/29/86 SCHEDULED ACTIONS: I _Commi ssi on Decision on SECY-86-164. Undetermined NOT E: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved dueLdates. ' Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent' task : leader estimates. I l ll ( ..] 19 b J1

-g J, + a+ m: n > 9 mM , 9: q mm 1 NQqu 4 l m: ' L RDB"NUMDERq .RM133. LATEST. UPDATE: .06/21/89 ..] ' T'I7 Es H -Ensuring the Effectiveness of MaintenanceiPrograms for. w Nuclear 1 Power Plants - 4 CFR= CITATION: 10 CFR 50 LEGAL AUTHORITY: 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 i ' EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINES3 AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes 3 ' AGENCY. CONTACT: Moni Dey Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3730 .ADSTRACT: On March 23,: 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission I published a Final-Policy Statement en Maintenance of Nuclear Power ' Pl ants (53 FR 9430). -In the policy statement, the Commission stated'that it expected to publish a; Notice of. ) Proposed Rulemaking in the near future.and has directed the. O staff to develop. such' a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. As directed.by the' Commission, the staff will develop a -general rule that specifies. functional requirements'for the 'l maintenance of' nuclear power ' pl ants and allows industry if initiatives. to develop the details of maintenance programs. to. . meet such requirements. The scope of maintenance' activities addressed in the rule will be within the framework of the 'Commi ssion 's Policy. Statement on Maintenance of Nuclear Power ) Plants. The rule will apply to all components, systems and j structures of nuclear power plants and will be applicable to l existing and future plants. The rule will also require each licensee to develop, implement and maintain a maintenance program, and to formally commit to follow the program, Compliance with the rule will be. determined by audit by NRC inspectors. A recommended position on whether the rule j should include a r equirement to report maintenance f .perf ormance indicators to the NRC will be developed as a part of develop 2ng the rulemaking. l 1 l l I 20 LLL :=_

+: l In support of. the proposed rule, the staf f wil15 develop.a j regulatory guide that will summarize state-of-the-art methods ] and procedures f or nuclear. power plant maintenance and 1 reliability assurance programs that the staff considers acceptable ways to meet the f unctional requirements in the. rule. This-regulatory ' guide will provide the guidance. tolthe. . industry regarding staff views on the content and functions-of an acceptable maintenance. program. The regulatory guide l will also provide the results of a staff evaluation of the l acceptability.of industry standards, initiatives and programs-I .against the f-unctional r requirements : proposed i n the rule. As directed by the Commission, the staff, in devel'oping the rule, will-consider maintenance practices in other countries - (Japan, France, and FRG), and other industries (aviation and chemical) in this countr y in which human performance, maintenance and equipment reliability play an important role in'the safety of' operations. These considerations wi]1 be documented'in a supporting NUREG report along with other ' factors considered important to documant the development of the. rule and regulatory guide. It is estimated'that about-3 staff-years of effort and $600K .for contract services will be required to process the final . rul e. CURRENT STATUS: The final rule was submitted to the Commission on April 28, -1989 (SECY-89-143). TIMETADLE:' COMPLETED ACTIONS: Rul emaki ng Initiation Date (Commission Mandate) 02/25/88 Proposed Action to ACRS 08/26/88 Proposed Action f or Division Review 08/26/88 Proposed Action to CRGR 09/02/88 Proposed Action to RES Director 08/29/88 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 09/06/88 Proposed Action to EDO 09/26/88 Proposed Action to Commission 09/30/88 SECY-88-277 Proposed Action Published 11/28/88 53 FR 47822 Pr oposed Action Public Comment Period Extended 12/29/88 53 FR 52716 Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 02/27/89 Final Action to ACRS 04/07/89 Fi nal Action to Offices for Concurrence 04/10/89 Final Action to CRGR 04/12/89 Final Action to EDO 04/21/89 Final Action to Commission 04/28/89 fiECY-89-143 Commission Briefing 05/31/89 21 1 'l

.') -'), t: -- g. ' ' ui' ' e '!,. l i;. ..p lt., s t.4 ( p, ', 't : .D' SCHEDULED ACTIONS ' -+ 1 Final Action to Federal' Registe. 06/15/89 (Undetermined) NOTE. Timetab1'e scheduled ~ acti on dates reflect Commi ssion : s directives. ' Dates incl uded in parentheses, 'if any, represent task ieader.. estimates, u3 I f t' j I d i .1 ) p 4 -_a_______-__.

+ .n v}, ~ i 44i e I; RDB NUMBER: RM077-LATEST' UPDATE: 06/20/89 1 TITLE: Personnel'Acces's Authorization Program o- .CFR CITATION: 10 CFR 50;.10 CFR 75 LEGAL AUTHORITY: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 l EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT: Dr.' Sandra Frattali Nuclear : Regul atory Commi ssi on 'Off. ice of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington 1DC 20555 301 492a3773 ABSTRACT -The Commissice has concluded that it is appropriate for each licensee:who operates a nuclear power plant to establish an access' authorization program to ensure.that individuals who require unescorted access.to protected areas or vital areas-of-their facilities are trustworthy, reliable, emotionally-stable, and do,not pose a threat to commit radiological sabotage. According1', the NRC published a proposed rule on-y August 1,.1984, which.would require an at:ess authorization program.at< nuclear 1 power plants (49 FR 30726). "An? alternative proposal by'the Nuclear' Utility Management and-j Resource. Committee (NUMARC)- was submitted as a public comment on this proposed. rule. The ' alternative proposed a voluntary industry commitment to implement an access authorization i program at nuclear power plants based upon industry J guidelines. Major provisions of this program include background investigation, psychological evaluation, and behavioral observation. On June 18,.1986, the Commission approved developing a policy i statement endorsing industry guidelines as an alternative to the proposed rulemaking. Commitments to adhere to these guidelines would be f ormalized through amendments to the j physical security plans and be subject to inspection and l l enforcement by NRC. ] l. 1 l l i 1 23 ~ l -I

b,~ .On March 9, 1988, the NRC published a proposed policy statement endorsing the NUMARC guidelines. In the Federal Register noticei 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 'Commissi on decided to go f orward with j 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 endorse, with appropriate exceptions, the applicable industry guidelines, as an acceptable way of complying with the rule. CURRENT STATUS: A final rulemaking and a regulatory guide are being draf ted. In' addition, a new regulatory analysis and backfit are being prepared. TIMETABLE: COMPLETED ACTIONS: Rulemaking Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/85 Proposed Policy Statement / Guidelines to CRGR 11/10/86 Proposed Policy Statement Effort Transferred to RES from NMSS 06/05/87 I Office Concurrence on Proposed Policy Statement I Completed 10/30/87 1 Proposed Policy Statement / Guidelines to ACRS-- Not Applicable (ACRS reviewed the guidelines as part of the Insider Rule Package 02/13/86) Proposed; Policy Statement / Guidelines to EDO 12/07/87 Proposed Policy Statement / Guidelines to Commission 12/15/87 SECY-87-306 i Proposed Policy Statement Published 03/09/08 53 FR 7534 Proposed Policy Statement Public Comment Period End OS/09/88 Options Paper to Commission 03/22/89 SECY-89-98 SCHEDULED ACTIONS: Final Action ~to ACRS (07/25/89) { Fi nal Action to CRGR (08/01/89) g Final Action to EDO 09/25/G9 i i Final Action to Commission (10/25/89) Fi nal Action Published (11/30/89) NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates. i e 24

Fk '

. n-y i

,q 4 lic.h s - -v:g t > M1 E e/ .'RDB-NUMBER: RM081 LATEST UPDATE: .06/21/89 5

TITLE:

Requirements f or: Possession of Indsstrial Devices-CFR CITATION: 10 CFR 31 . LEGAL AUTHORITY: s L 42.USC 21'11; 42 USC 2114; 42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMAL'L. BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT: . Joseph J.sMate Nuclear, Regulatory Commission- ' Office.of Nuclear Regulatory.Research-Wash'i ngton', DC 20555 301 492-3795 ABSYRACT: Industrial devices that contain byproduct material are used .inLmany, manufacturing processes where it would be inconve.'4ont or hazardous to perform necessary measurements by other means. There have been cases-in.which devices were improperly maintained, improperly transf erred, or ' inadvertently, discarded. Whenca device is-transferred to a scrap metaloprocessor, during reprocessing the-sealed source capsule can be breached, resulting.in the' contamination of the entire' batch of scrap metal with subsequent unnecessary radiation exposure'to the public from the re-used metal. This problem is urgent because of the potential radiation exposure and expense incurred.when it is.necessary to retrieve manufactured items fabricated from contaminated metal. The ' scrap metal industry is helping by teaching reprocessor how to identify potential sources of radiation "p that:could be found in incoming scrap metal.. However, the H NRC does not believe this voluntary effort is sufficient ) because this ef f nrt only identifies the problem af ter lass of 1 the device by the general licensee. Because of the 1-arge number of general licensees-(35,000) using about 400,000 devices, a substantial NRC inspection program would not be an efficient use of staff resources. A reporting program under which the device user periodically reports to the NRC that .the device is still'in use, or reports to whom it has been transferred, appears to be the most efficient method for assuring that devices are not improperly transf erred cr inadvertently discarded. The periodic report would be a j i i J m 25- ^~-

ox'. k"f O \\ ) -+- i wu a i o l small. burden:en device users and'NRC, but would save j reprocessorsLand:public health and safety-agencies. 1 significant' amounts of1 staff time by reducing the chance of Ea' device being improperly' transferred or' inadvertently ' discarded..NRC'Will need'about one professional staff-year j to1 complete the final rule. j i CURRENT, STATUS: .] The EDO approved initiation of this rulemakingJon i May 26, 1989. TIMETABLE:- f COMPLETED ACTIONS: ' l Rulemaking Initiation (EDD Approval) 05/26/89 ' SCHEDULED. ACTIONS: Proposed; Action to Offices-for Concurrence 12/29/89 Proposed Action to CRGR and ACRS--Not Applicable - i Proposed Action to EDO 03/30/90 Proposed Action to Commissi on--To Be Determined j Proposed ~ Action Published 04/30/90 Proposed Action Public Comment Period Ends 06/29/90 Final Action to'EDO 04/30/91 Final Action to Federal Register 05/31/91 'I NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved-due dates. Dates included-in parentheses, if any, represent j ' task l eader 'esti mates. l i k 26

-'c

p L

'4 RDDLNUMBER:' RMO95-LATEST UPDATE:- '06/20/89 TITLE: Dasic' Quality Assurance. Program f or Medical Use of Byproduct L Materi al ' 'CFR CITATION: 10 CFR 35 LEGAL AUTHORITY: 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841' EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS.AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT. Anthony Tse Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC.20SS5 301-492-3797 ABSTRACT - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is-proposing to amend its regulations concerning-the medical use of byproduct material. The. proposed amendments would require its medical licensees to establish and implement a written basic quality assurance ' program to'preventi detect, and correct the cause of errors in the administration of byproduct material. The. proposed . action i s: necessary to provide f or i mproved patient saf ety, l - The' proposed amendment, which is intended to reduce the potenti al for,and severity of therapy misadministration, 7 would primarily affect hospitals,. clinics, and individual physicians, Modification of reporting and.recordkeeping requirements for' diagnostic'and therapy events are also proposed in this rulemaking. CURRENT STATUS: The proposed rulemaking package was' submitted to the Commission on June 7, 1989 (SECY-89-171).- The Commission was briefed by the staff on June 13, 1989. l, 27

l' i

reg 'i 4 y.. . s;.. s 1 . TIMETABLE { COMPLETED ACTIONS: .{ f Proposed Rule on Basic QA (Prescriptive) Published j 10/02/87 52 FR 36942' -[ Options Paper to Commission 06/03/88 SECY-88-156 SRM Issued, Directing Re-Proposal of Basic QA Rule 07/12/88 l OA Subcommittee meeting held on 11/07/88. j Proposed Action for Draft Rule and Guide Sent for i Divi sion Review 12/05/08 Workshop on Basic QA Rule and Draf t Regulatory Guide j 01/30-31/89 i Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 03/29/89 -l Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable l Proposed Action to EDO 06/01/89 Propo ml Action to Commission.06/07/89 5ECV-89-171 . ~Commitm on Briefing 06/13/09 SCHEDULED ACTIONS: Proposed Action Sent to ADM for Publication 05/30/89 (06/30/89) NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect Commi ssion-directed. due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent tash leader-estimates. i r l 1. r 28 2________-_____.

ym - j. y ~ $N ./, 4

<,, ~,

n a [y f-il, RDB' NUMBER: RMO98 LATEST UPDATE:- -06/20/89.'

T 1 TLE:.

' Transportation Regulations;. Compatibility With the - Intern at i on al Atomic Energy Agency-(IAEA) (Priority l') S CFR CITATIONS L10 CFR 7.1. LEGAL AUTHORITY: L 42.USC 2073; 42_USC 2093; 42 USC22111; 42 USC 2232; h 42 USC;2233; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC'5842-i EFFECTS ON SMALL DUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: :No AGENCY CONTACT: Donald.R. Hopkins-Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research h Washington, DC-20555 '301 492-3784 w ABSTRACT: The proposed. rule-would, in con.iunction with a corresponding rule. change by the U.S. Department of Transportation, make theEUnited: 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 radioacti ve material s between - countries f or medical, research,' industrial, and. nuclear fuel cycle purposes. Consistency of transportation regulations throughout the world also contributes to safety by concentrating the efforts k of the world's experts on a single set of safety standards and guidance (those of the IAEA) from which i ndi vi dual countries can develop their domestic regulations. Perhaps as important, the accident experience of.every country that bases its domestic regulations on those of the IAEA can be applied by every other country with consistent regulations to improve its safety program. The action will be handled as a i routine updating of NRC transportation regulations. There is i no reasonable alternative to rulemaking action. These changes should result in a minimal increase.in costs to af f ected ' l i censee s:. Proposed changes to 10'CFR Part 71, based on current I AEA regulations, has been issued for public comments. The task will be scheduled over a 2 year interval ending June 1989 and will consume 2-3 staf f years of effort

depending on the number and difficulty of conflicts to be resolved.

29 l

a a i i l i CURRENT-STATUS: j The proposed. rule was published for public' comment on June 8, 1988.(53 FR 21550). In order to afford-the public the opportunity ~ to review the NRC proposed rule at the same time as~the DOT proposed rule which supplements it, NRC has extended its public comment period. .The comment. period is j currently scheduled to end 60 days af ter publication of the j DOT-proposed rule. Accordingly, this task is on hold until j DOT publishes-its proposed rule for comment. ] TIMETABLE: ' COMPLETED ACTIONS: Rulemaking Ini tiation Date (EDO Approval) 01/09/87 Proposed Action for Division Review 09/04/87 Office. Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 02/12/88 Proposed Action to ACRS--Not Applicable i Proposed Action to CRGR 03/23/88 1 ' Proposed Action to EDO 05/11/88 I Proposed Action to Commission--Not Applicable Proposed Action Published 06/08/88 53.FR 21550 l Correction Published 06/22/88 53 FR 23484 Proposed Action Public Comment Period Extended to 03/06/89 53 FR 51281 SCHEDULED ACTIONS: Proposed Action Public Comment Period Extended to

60. days after publication of DOT-proposed rule 04/04/89 54 FR~13528 Final Action to Offices for Review Undetermined 1 Final Action to ACRS--Not Applicable Final Action to CRGR Undetermined Final Action to EDO Undetermined Final Acti on to Commi ssi on--Not ' Appli cable Final Action Published Undetermined NOTE:

Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved I due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates. 1 l' 1~ 30 1

0 lo ,,e o i o e '1' l I [ RDB IJUMBER:.'RM102 LATEST UPDATE: ~ 06/20/89 TITLES-Disposal'of Waste 01.1 by Incineration f rom Nuclear Power

Plants.(Priority 1) h v-CFR CITATION

-10 CFR 20 LEGAL AUTHORITY: '42-USC.2201; 42 USC 2167; 42 USC 2073 EFFECTS ON SMALL-BUSINESS AND. OTHER ENTITIES:- No-1.H AGENCYLCONTACT: l ' Catherine R. Mattsen L Nuclear Regul'atory Commission Office of. Nuclear Regulatory Research s H Washington,- DC 20555' 301-492-3638 ABSTRACT: The proposed rule, which is being initiated in partial response to a. petition filed by Edison Electric Institute.and Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (PRM-20-15, dated July 31, 1994),. Would amend NRC regul ations to: allow onsite ' incineration of waste oil at nuclear power plants subject to specified. conditions. Currently, the only generally approved disposal method for' low-level,.. radioactively contaminated' waste oil from nuclear power' plants involves absorption or sol i di f i c ati on, transportati on to,.and burial at a licensed Edisposal site. There is a clear need to al1ew,'for very 1ow activi ty l evel-wastes, the use of alternative. disposal methods which are more cost ef f ective f rom a. radiological - health and safety standpoint and which conserve the limited. disposal capacity of low-level waste-burial sites. Increased savings to both the public and the industry could thereby be achieved without imposing additional risk to the public health and safety. Tnere would be an estimated industry-wide economic savings of approximately $3 million to $12 million per year if such a rule were promulgated. Alternatives to thi s rulemal:ing action are to maintain the ? ] status quo or to wait until thr Environmental Protection Agency develops standards on acceptable levels of radio- ]i activity 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 proteus thi s rule, j l 1 { 31

a a,, , 7 w" y - 0;.1 % @v ' b NO g*' i i + , a u,o. ' < > N im ;p a ,.L in v n n o .. :: a dhA ' i h /-. ; t, < y:;Ap. :p, ' _ ' n, d. A t w f YM k.k, tf &w z s.~ ,,h.7l'f ' r ,' y $l?. ,y

8..,-

w ,r',, W' i, .s ,(- { f Wp $jCURRENTeSTATUS:l-)The, schedul e ff orf. thi sT.rul emaki ng '. i s ; currentl y o @e. j xpr ~ t m +, jtb y";, *,., ?;f h N TIMETABLEt!;.. .... hl

k. ) 3

$>.4" j;.., ' i;? ' 'V fCOMPLETED ACTIONS: ~ hi.i': t Rulemaki ng: Ini ti ati on ; Dates (EDO ApprovalF 05/ 9/87 pg ? Proposed; Action,totACRS/CRGR--Not:Applicab)e , MQ . Proposed: Action to EDO' 06/21/88' v ,4 g i ? Pr.op'osed " Action; to. Commission.07/12/88 :SECY-88-198-gwqp q Proposed Action Published.08/29/88.53 FR'32914 b*s, - Pub 1'i c : Comment. Peri od ' End. '10/28/88 ?>/, " SCHEDULED-- ACTIONS:, @@p n; Finall'ActionLto Offices for. Concurrence Undetermined-h jP Fina1[.Attion to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable KR .f 3.! Fi nals Act's on. to EDO ' . undetermined U i

1 Final? Actionito Commission... Undetermined

^ ^ e z..o... p s iW f*..c. . Final ~. Action Published: ' Undetermined i ' m ; ;; " y ,, tf NOTE: iTimet'able. scheduled action. dates reflect EDO.-approved W.I M Idue; dates. Dates included in: parentheses 4:.if' any, represent y j. ,y p taskJ1eader estimates. 1 I 4 .}* ] ?0 I )' 'A,.', 9 s _,3; }n: 'ir r s c 3 1 b i 3 y,; ' I4 4 ..'; O ., l VI, { p. a d t T 4 I' 0 a ji i By 4 { lA / 1 q h 32 l h! ) ,y 7..,.- g):-S j IT ~ w. o.

^

j

WW b, 3.. w D N 1 . n. RDBrNUMBER: RM105 LATEST [ UPDATE: 06/20/89 LT7TLE: Reasserting NRC 's L Sole - Authority f or. Approving Onsi te Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States CFR CITATION:- 10 CFR 350 LEGAL A'UTHORITY:- .42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2021;.42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCYLCONTACT: . William R..Pearson

U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

-Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3764 ABGTRACT: This rulemaking would establish NRC as the sole authority f or ' approving onsite di sposal of very low-level waste at all NRC-licensed reactors and at Part 70 facilities. There is a need to amend 10 CFR Part 150.15 to authorize one agency (the NRC) to regulate all such onsite disposal of l ow-l evel waste in order to provide a more comprehensive regulatory review of all' onsite waste management activities and to avoid unnecessary' duplication of effort. Unif orm review by the NRC will provide f or greater assurance that the radioactive material' will not present a health hazard at a later date Laf ter. the site i s decommissi oned. CURRENT-STATUS: A meeting.with NRR, NMSS, GPA, and DEC was held on June 1, 1989 to resolve the issues raised during office concurrence. A revised draf t rulemaking has been circulated among the cognizant individuals for comment. TIMETABLE: COMPLETED ACTIONS: Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 05/19/87 Proposed Action to Of fices f or Concurrence 03/31/88 Proposed Acti on to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable Proposed Action to EDO 06/08/88 Proposed Action to Commission 06/14/88 SECY-88-166 Proposed Action Published 08/22/88 53 FR 31880 Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 10/21/88 4 Analysis of Public Comments Completed 11/30/88 { Final Action' to ACRS/CRGR--Not Appl icabl e j Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 02/15/89 l i l 33 l ______________.._..____..___________d

. _ - =. - f g , (Ne Q* ip ' SCHEDULED ACTIONS:- ' Final ' Acti on to EDO 03/29/89 (08/18/89)- Final Action.to Commission 04/12/89-(09/22/89). Final ' Action' Published 06/30/89 (10/27/89) NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved. - due. dates. Dates included in' parentheses, if any, represent task' leader estimates. .. I l' S 1 34 ) __z____._____________._.______._____.__________________._.__.____

m .a l[y W' c. / p' M '. RDB LNUMBER:. RM112 . LATEST UPDATE: 06/21/89 TITLE:1 .StoragefofLSpent Nuclear Fuel in'NRC-Approved. Storage Casks" at~ Nuclear Power Reactor. Sites CFR CITATION: 10 CFRi50; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR'170 LEGAL'A'THORIT :- U l' L42LUSC110153;.42 USC 10198 ' EFFECTS ON - SMALL-DUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: 'No JAGENCY CONTACT: WillMam.R. Pearson-Office of Nuclear.Regul'atory Research Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,.'DC 20555 ._301 492-3764 ABSTRACT: The proposed rule is in response to-the Nuclear Waste Policy 'Act-(NWPA) section 210-(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 et' 'civili an nucl ear power reactor -sites, with the objective of, establishing one or more technologies that the'Commis' ion.may, by rule, approve for use at sites of s

civilian nuclear power reactors. The NWPA also requires that the NRC establish procedures f or the. licensing.of any . technology approved by the Commission under. section 218. (a) for.use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor. -a y .The staff anticipates a significant~ increase in the demand' for use of dry spent fuel storage casks starting'in the early 1990s, thus processing of this proposed rule would be timely. 'NRC resource requirements are anticipated to be about two staff-years. CURRENT STATUS: The proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register 'n May 5, 1989 (54 FR 19379). The public comment peri od is scheduled to end June 19, 1989. ] 1 l J 1 i

Ib e f '?. !.. '.E [l ' L, I JTIMETABLE: COMPLETED ACTIONS: Rulemaking Initiation Date-(EDO Approval) 12/14/87- ' Proposed Action'for Division Review 03/02/88 Proposed Action to ACNW 06/28/88 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 07/26/88 "j J

Proposed Action to CRGR 11/09/88 and 12/14/88 Proposed Action to EDO.02/14/09 Proposed Action to Commission 03/OS/89 SECY-89-084 Proposed Action' Published 05/05/89 54 FR'19379 Proposed Action Public Cornment Period Ends 06/19/89-L SCHEDULED ACTIONS:

Finalf Action to ACNW and C ?GR (04/13/90) Fi nal Action to EDO- 05/18/90 . F'inal Action to Commissi on 06/15/90-Final Action Published 07/27/90 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved 'due dates.' ' Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent' ' task leader estimates. l l I 36- 'l

F' i ~ ~, ~ = ~ ~ - - ] e-f3;.7, i 1 i 2 [RDB NUMBER: ~ ? q RM116 LATEST UPDATE: 06/20/89 ,j L-1 L .' TITLE. Amendment:to c10 CFR.Part 51, Sections 51;51Eands51.52, Table. 1 i. S-3 and Table S-4,,Addjtion-of Radon-2221and Technetium-99 j Radiation; Values,.and: Addition'of Appendix B, " Table S-3 i Explanatory: Analysis" ,m (CFR CITATION: 110 CFR 51 a LEGAL AUTHORITY: 42 USC 2011;?.42 USC 2201;.42 USC 4321'; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS DN SMALL' BUSINESS AND.OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT: Stanley'Turel Nucl ear ' Regul atory Commi ssi on Office of Nuclear Regulatory Hesearch Washington, DC 20555 301'492-3739 ' ABSTRACT: The proposed, rule provides a' narrative explanation of the. numerical values established in Table S-3. " Table of Uranium ' Fuel, Cycle Environmental Dat a," that appears in the Commissi on 's environmental: protection regulations. The proposed rule describes the basis for the values contained in : Table:S-3,.the significance of the uranium fuel cycle data in the tableand the conditions. governing the use of the table. The proposed rule amends Section 51.52 to modify the enrichment value of U-235 and the maximum level of average' fuel irradiation. The narrative explanation also addresses important fuel cycle impacts and the cumulative impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle for the whole nuclear power industry so that it may be possible to consider these impacts generically rather than repeatedly in individual licensing proceedings, thus reducing litigation time and costs for both NRC and applicants. The proposed rule revisions of Section 51.51 and addition of Appendix B was published for public review and comment on March 4,.1981 (46 FR 15154). The final rulemaking was deferred pending the outcome of a suit (Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. NRC, No. 74-1486) in the U.S. Court of Appeals. The U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) i deci sion of April 27, 1982, invalidated the entire Table S-3 rule. The Supreme Court reversed this decision on June 6, 1983. 37

p;

N '

bet 5-e The proposed rule toL provide an explanatory' analysis for j Table S-3 has been' revised to reflect new developments during the time the rulemaking was deferred. Final. action on the Table S-3 rule was. held in abeyance until new values f or Jradon-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 expanded ' to include radiation values f or radon-222 and technetium-99 and the narrative explantion has been er.tensively revised from that published on March 4,

1981, (46 FR 15154)-.

The~ staf f 's estimate is that the completion of.a final Table

S-3 rule 1 covering the new values for radon-222 and

. technetium-99, and the revised explanatory analysis will be j completed i n FY 1989. A Commission Paper presenting the .j final rulemaking plan and schedule was submitted on L ugust 18, 1986 (SECY 86-242). On September 8,

1986, A

SECY-86-242 was approved by the Commission. CURRENT STATUS: Comments received on draf t rule f rom divisions within RES and other offices have been reviewed and incorporated whenever possible into the rulemaking - The division review package is expected to reach D/RES for signature by June 30, 1989, f ollowing corrections in the health effects section of the appendix-NRR has assigned personnel to help in the review of the package,. including updating the health physics " calculations. TIMETABLE: COMPLETED ACTIONS: Rul emaki ng Initiation Date (Two Rulemakings Integrated) 07/30/97 Proposed Action for Division Review 05/27/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS: Proposed _ Action to Of fices f or Concurrence 06/30/89 Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable Proposed Action to EDO 07/31/89 Proposed Action to Commission 08/30/89 Proposed Action Published 09/29/89 Final Action to Commission 07/31/90 Final Action Published 08/30/90 NOTE: Timetable schedul ed action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates. ~38

c,. -a n. ./ ;. i r,%s ww a RDB NUMBER:1 :RM119 -LATEST UPDATE: 06/21/89 . _T I TLE : - . Twenty-Four Hour Notification of Incidents. CFR CITATION:' 10 CFR 20 J LEGAL AUTHORITY:., 42 USC 2201;.42'USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIESi No ' AGENCY CONTACT: Joseph J. Mate. ' Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office'of Nuclear Regulatory Research ' Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3795 ABSTRACT: This rulemaking would amend 10 CFR Part 20.403(a) an'd ' ( b ) to c1'arify the. licensees' reporting requirements. In addition, a new section in Parts 30, 40, and 70 will be devel oped. Whil'e Sections 20.403(a) and (b) are reasonably ? ear in terms of licensee reporting requi rements f or - e vents involving " exposures",and " releases" of radioactive _ materials, these sections are:not clear concerning events involving " loss of operation" and " damage'to property." '" Loss of operations" should be clarified in terms of loss of use of facilities,- H devices or equipment. " Damage to property".should be clarified to include contamination clean-up if the corrective i action is' equal to or greater than a certain cost. In 1 addition, the rulemaking should also define "immediate" in I actual time, e.g., within 1 hour, for reporting requirements. This rulemaking action will clarif y a current Commission 1 regulation; there is no other. appropriate procedure to accommodate the. clarification. This rulemaking activity is considered to be a high priority item by NMSS. The health and safety of the public will be better protected because improved reporting requiremen's will reduce the pot enti al risk of exposure to radiaticn. Clarifying the reporting requirements will simplif y regulatory f unctions and f r free the staff from unnecessary additional investigation and, l at the same time, protect the industry from unnecessary and unexpected fines.* 39 _J

4 - CURRENT STATUS: There is disagreement over where to insert the proposed' changes into'10.CFR.- Meetings will be held between NMSS, NRR, and RES to resolve these. issues. TIMETABLE:- COMPLETED ACTIONS: l Rulemaking Initiation: Date (EDO Approval) 02/17/88 Action by DRA' Division Director 12/16/88 . SCHEDULED ACTIONS: Proposed Action to Offices Mor Concurrence ,03/31/89 (07/14/89) Proposed' Action to CRGR and ACRS--Not Applicable Proposed Action to EDO 05/15/G9 (08/18/89) i 1 Proposed Action to Commission--To Be Determined Proposed Action Published 06/15/89 (09/29/89) Proposed Action Public Comment Period End (11/24/89) Anal.ysis of Public' Comments Completed. (12/22/89) Final Action for Di vi si on Revi ew (01/19/90) Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 01/15/90 (03/02/90) Final Action to CRGR and ACRS--Not Applicable Final Action to EDO 06/15/90 (04/06/90) Final Action to Commi ssi on--To Be Determi ned Final Action Published 07/16/90 (05/25/90) NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved L due dates.. Dates included in parentheses, if cny, represent task leader estimates. i a Ao

my, c

y,,

me 1 hi ,j. e. .c 4. r E 1 7* -RDS NUMBER: RM125 LATEST llPDATE:- 06/22/89 sTITLE: Night Firing-Qualifications forc-Security Guards-at: Nuclear Power l Pl ants '. (Pri ori ty r 2)' CFR, CITATION:

10 CFR 73-LEGAL' AUTHORITY:

z ' 42; USC 2201; - 42 USC 5841

EFFECTS.

ONlSMALL'DUSINESSPAND OTHER ENTITIES:' No AGENCY CONTACT:

Dr. Sandra D. Frattali-

Nuclear Regulatory. Commission

' Office of. Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301.492-3773 ' ABSTRACT: The: proposed' rule woul'd ensure that security' force. effectiveness at' nuclear power plants is not dependent on the time of day.. Security' guards currently are required to

perf orm night firing' f or f amil'iarization only.

There is no requirement.for standards to measure their effectiveness. The proposed rule would change that by requiring that security guards at nuclear power plants qualify for night firing..The only alternative to rulemaking is to retain the current status. Part'73, Appendix B,.Part IV, will be amended to' require reactor security guards to qualify annually in an .NRC-approved night firing course with their assigned weapons. The proposed amendment will standardize training snd qual i f i cati on in night firing and prepare power reactor guard forces to more effectively respond in the event of an incident occurring in limited lighting conditions. The cost to industry should be relatively modest since licensees already operate daylight firing training and qualificaiton facilities and programs. The costs to NRC will also be minimal because it will on1y require minor 1 i censi ng, e inspection and other regulatory actions. There is no occupational exposure. It is estimated that O.4 staff years of effort over 2 years by the NRC will be required for the rulemaki ng. CURRENT STATUS: The rulemaking package is on hold. 41 r

.), 1 ' TIMETABLE: COMPLETED ACTIONS: Rulemaking' Initiation Date (EDO Approval)' 05/18/88. SCHEDULED ACTIONS: . Proposed Action to Offices for. Concurrence 1. Undetermined l' ' Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGh--To Be Determined Proposed Action to EDO Undetermined Proposed Action to Commission--Not Applicable Proposed Action Published Undeter mi ned j .C c Final Action Published Undetermined s NOTE: Timetable. scheduled ' action dates reflect EDD-approved j due_ dates. Dates. included in parentheses, if any, represent' task, leader estimates. l l l. -l i-1 1 l l l l 42

g lo + ~) k-- 3 i. 3 i l '06/22/89 lRDB NUMBER " RM135: LATEST' UPDATE: c iTITLEn-h Minor Amendments'to Physical Protection Requirements z E -(Priority 2) o d l CFR CITATION: 10 CFR 70;-10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; ~ 10 CFR 75-LEGAL'AUTHORITYr 42 USC 2201;.42 USC 5841 EFFE' CTS'ON EMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 'i AGENCY CONTACT: Stan Dolins> Nuclear Regul atcry. Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington,' DC 20555 301 492-3745 1 ABSTRACT : The Safsguards Interoffice Review Group-(SIRG) of.the NRC has ~ been conducting a systematic review of the agency's t 4 .saf eguards regulations and guidance documents. Thi s review has identified areas in the regulations that are out of date,_ susceptible to differing interpretations, or;in need of cl ari f i cati on. = 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 F regulations'are being proposed. The proposed. changes will: (1) -add definitions f or 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 dif f ering interpretations, -(5) correct typographical errors, and (6) make other minor thanges. The alternative to rulemaking would be to allow the status quo to continue. Except for the change in the impact of a high radiation fi el d. on physi cal 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 O.4 staff-years of NRC effort over 2 years will be required for the rulemaking. This is a low priority rulemaking. CURRENT STATUS: The proposed rulemaking package is being prepared f or-RES concurrence and submittal to the EDO. 'N 43 = _ _ - _

' !,. ^ t r s s 'hl i; [ TIMETABLE: O COMPLETED' ACTIONS: Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDD' Approval') 04/04/88' -Proposed ' Action to DRA Division Director 12/29/88 . Proposed. Action to RES Director 01/04/89 ,1 -Proposed Action.to Office Directors 01/24/89 ProposedLAction;to CRGR and ACRS--Not Applicable 4 Proposed' Action Resubmitted f or Of fice Concurrence' 05/26/89 Office Concurrence on P,roposed Action Received 06/14/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS: Proposed' Action to EDO 03/30/89 (06/30/89) Proposed Action to Commission--Not Applicable Proposed Action Published 05/30/89 (07/31/89). I Final. Action to Federal Register 04/04/90-NOTE: T'imetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO~ approved' 'due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent

task leader estimates.

I l l ) 1.. 44 l 1 1 J

mm - n.: r .r. tu ..'al Hi 4

RDB NUMBER: 'RM162 liATEST, UPDATE:'~ 06/20/89.

' TITLE:^ Comprehensive ( Ouality Assurance :in' Medical Use' and a-Standard ' er of Care CFR CITATION: 10 CFR 35 LEGAL AUTHORITY:' -42 USC 2111;[42 USC-2201; '42 USC 5841 .~ EFFECTS.ONlSMALLfBUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: 'No AGENCYcCONTACT: E Anthony'Tse-Nucl ear Enegul at ory ' Commi ssi on. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20595 '301 492-3797 -ABSTRACT: The ' Nucl ear. Regulatcry :Commi ssion i s consi deri ng ' whether to amend its-regulations.to require a comprehensive quality assurance program'for medi-cal licensees using byproduct Ematerials. The, purpose of'.-this rulec.aking actson is to caddress each source of error that'can~ lead to a -misadministration.- An advance notice of proposed rulemaking. .was published to request 1public comment on the extent to which, in addition to;the basic. quality assurance procedures (see "Dasic Quali ty ' Assurance in Radiation Therapy"), ' a more comprehensive quality assurance requirement is needed'and invites advice and~ recommendations on about'20 questions that [ -will have to be addressed in the rulemaking process. CURRENT' STATUS: This rblemaking is on hold. TIMETABLE: COMPLETED ACTIONS: L ANPRM Published 10/02/87 52 FR 36949 l ANPRM'Public Comment Period End 12/31/87 Options Paper Completed 06/03/88 SECY-88-156 Staff Requirements Memorandum Issued 07/12/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS: Scheduled actions currently on hold. Work on propos*d rule will start 06/90 Proposed rule (if needed) will be submitted to the Commission 06/91 45

g )N, }' s w, m c ,j RDB' NUMBER: RMI'65~ LATEST UPDATE: '06/20/09. 2 [ ~ TITLE: Emergency' Response Data System CFR CITATION: L 10 CFR,501 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 USC122G2; 42 USC-5841; 42 USC.5843;' -42'USC 5846 - EFFECTS ON SMALL' BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT: .M. L. Au Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC ;20555 301 492-3749 ABSTRACT: The proposud ru?.e would require the implementation of the NRC-approved Energency Response Data: System (ERDS) at all licensed' nuclear power plants. The primary rolc mf the Nuclear Regulatory Commission'during anLemergency at a licensed nuclear power facility'is one of monitoring the licensee to. assure'that appropriate recommendations are made. with respect to necessary offsite actions to protect public health.and safety. In order to adequately perf orm '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 the immediacy 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 romputer data link between the electronic data systems at licensed nuclear power f acilities and a central computer in the NRC Dperations Center. Current experience with voice-only emergency communication link, utilized for data tr ansmi ssi on, has demonstrated it to be slow and inaccurate. Simulated site tests of the ERDS concept in emergency planning exercises have demonstrated that ERDS is ef f ective between the.NRC Operations Center and affected licensees. 46 1 __ _ _w

=. s. The rule would require that_theilicensees provide!the required hardware and' software to transmit the data in a L format specified by the'NRC. The NRC would require that the 1 -licensee activate the ERDS as soon as possible f ollaming the f declaration of an alert condition. Based on a site survey of' 80: percent. of. licensed f acilities,.the current estimates of licensee costs are $20K-50K for software and $0-100K for hardware. The current esti mated cost to. NRC 'i s 12. 6 milli on. The proposed' changes to 10 CFR Part,50 wil) oe 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 conflicts to be resolved. CURRENT' STATUS: The. proposed'rulemaking is currently under preparation for DRA review. - TIMETABLE: ' COMPLETED ACTIONS: Rulemaking ~In'itiation Date (EDO Approval) G5/26/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS: Proposed Action to DRA Division Director (09/15/89) Proposed. Action to Offices for Concurrence 10!31/89 Proposed Action to CRGR and ACRS 11/30/89 Proposed Action to.EDO 03/30/90 Proposed Action to Commission 04/30/90 Proposed Action Published 05/31/90 Fi nal Action-to Federal Register 03/29/91 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates refleci 2DD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if an /, represent task leader estimates, i i l O i 47 ___-_________-___-_____-__--Q

_ = _ - - -.- 't- ,g . 4-W ~" L.. j -[ . j.. j-[ \\' t t \\ r o 'RDB NUMBER:: RM186 - ' LATEST UPDA'TE: .06/20/09 TITLE: . Pal l adium-103 ' f ore Intersti ti al l Treatment of Co..um .CFR CITATION: ~.10 CFR 35 LEGAL AUTHORITY To Be Determined '. EFFECTS ON SMALLLBUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No .i AGENCY CONTACT: 'Dr. Anthony N..Tse Nucl ear. Regul atory. Commi ssi on . Of fi ce. cf ' Nuclear Regul atory.Research. Washington, DC 20555 1 301 492-3797 .s. 1 7 ABSTRACT: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission'is proposing to' amend its rtigulations governing'the medical uses of byproduct' material. The proposed' regulation would add Palladium-103 sealed source as' seeds to the list of sources permitted in 10 CFR'Part 35. f'oriuse in cancer treatment. Under current NRC regulations, users must have tneir licenses amended before theyJmay use- . Palladium seeds in brachytherapy. The. proposed rule, developed in-response to a petition.for rulemaking (PRM-35-7)i would allow the use of Pall adi um-103 seeds by each; potential uver ' (about 700 licensees) with either a simplified.amendmtnt 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 manuf acturer 's radiation saf ety and handling instructions. CURRENT STt.TUS: The proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on April 6, 1989 (54 FR 13392). The public cornment perd ad closed May 8, 1989. To date, one comment has been received. 1-I -l .1 48 I i {5

h r 4 3 r;r zio ,m in R ' TIMETABLE: COMPLETED ACTIONS: n- .Rulemaking Initiation Date' PRM-35-7~ Docketed) 12/09/88 Fast-track Processing: Determination Made 01/12/89 Draft FRN'to' Cognizant; Individuals for Review 01/19/89 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 02/14/89 Proposed. Action.to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable-Proposed Action to EDO 03/23/89 Proposed Action to Commission--Not Applicable Proposed' Action Published 04/06/89 54fFR 13892 Proposed' Action Public Comment Period Ends 05/08/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS: Final Action to Of fices f or Concurrence -(09/29/89) Final Action Published 04/09/90 NOTE:

Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. ; Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.

i 1 ) l t l 49 j 1 l

g. ynn e, J; Ii . D 9' , e,. r)p r [. s ') l'S ' l f ': U.._s lj g" ' Q p -m

RDB NUMBER

.RM189 ' LATEST UPDATE: '06/20/89. i T ' TITLE: - Day Firing Qualifications and Physical' Fitness Programs for SecurityjPersonnel'at' Category I Fuel Cycle Facilities h CFR CITATION, [ 110 CFR.75, Appendix H 1 l l? LEGAL AUTHORITY: To:Bn Determined i EFFECTS ON SMALL.DUSINESS AND OTHERl ENTITIES:- No. D ' AGENCY CONTACT: -Donald'R. Hopkans-Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research . Washington, DC 20555 .301'492-3784 . ABSTRACT:- . The proposed rule would require that security personnel qualif y and requalif y annually on. speci fic standardized. day ? firing courses using all ascigned weapons. Current ~ regulations require day firing qualification using a national police: 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 revi si on.

Recent amendments to Part 73 added a requirement for night firing qualification using specific, desi gnated firing. courses. To ensure uniformity, the current day firing requirements should be compatible. Addi ti on all y, 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 f or assuring that security personnel are physically fit to perform their duties Requirements for a physical fitness program and fit. ass 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. Gui dance will bei developed to assure that such a program will not, at the same time, endanger the health of those participating in it. I 1 50 l

\\

U m

The' proposed rule. change would' amend 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix H, to-include. day firing qualification courses in eachetype of' required weapon as well.as m' standardized "pnysicale fitness training ' course and fitness standards f or security personnel. Alternatives to the rulemaking~ would be 'co allow the status quo to continue. ' Standardization of_ day 4 iring courses to be consistent.with'those established for-right firing'would be of negligible cost to the 3-4 affected E licensees and to the NRC since day firing qualification.using a variety offfiring courses is already being done. Physical fitness training. programs would incur moderate costs to the licensees in theLarea of personnel time and 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 -equired f or this rulemaking of high priority. CURRENT STATUS: p. The EDD approved the. rulemaking f or initiation on April 25, l 1989. NMSS is developing the substance for the rulemaking and'has contracted for technical asristance. A coordination .l meeting between NMSS and RES has been scheduled for mid-July. ) TIMETABLE: ' COMPLETED' ACTIONS: Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 04/.25/89-SCHEDULED ACTIONS: Proposed Action to Offices for Review 11/30/89 Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable Proposed Action to EDO O2/28/90 Proposed Acti on to.Commi ssi on--Not Applicable Proposad Action Published 05/31/90 (04/30/90) Publi.c Comment Period Ends (08/31/90) Final Action to EDO O2/28/91 Final Action to Commission--Not Applicable i Final Acti on P;tblished 04/30/91 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates. 1 l' 51 l-

, _7 J fY _t . 4 \\- +. 'RDB NUMBER: RMO33 LATEST UPDATE: 06/21/89. TITLE : L LStandards'for Protection Against Radiation (Priority 1) 1 f s CFR CITATION:. '10~CFR 20 LEGAL' AUTHORITY: 42'USC 20730 42 USC 2093; 42 USCJ2095; 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: iMarold Peterson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research ' Washington,.DC 20555 301 492-3640-ABSTRACT: Radiation protection philosophy -and ~ technology have changed markedly since the present Part 20 was promulgated nearly 30 l years ago. Since Part 20 contains the NRC standards for protection against radiation that are used by all licensees 1 and affects exposures of workers and members of the public, j ituohould. be' the most basic of ' the NRC regul ations. However, because'the present Part 20 has become outdated, most i 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 f or the limits; reflect current inf ormation - on heal th ri sk, dosimetry, and radiation protection practices and experience; provide NRC with a health protection base from which it may ronsider other regulatory actions taken to protect public health; be consistent with recommendations of world authorities (ICRP); and apply to all licensees in a consistent manner. Alternatives to the complete revision considered were no action; delay for further guidance; and partial revision of i L the standards. They were-rejected as ignoring scientific L advancements; being unresponsi e to international and l national guidance; and correcting only some of the recognized i problems with the present Part 20. Benefits would include E updating the regulations to reflect contemporary scientific knowledge and radiation protection philosophy; i mpl ementi nq) 1. l l 52

F' 'oL i regulations which reflect the11CRP risk-based rationale; reducing lif etime doses to individuals receiving 'the highest exposures; implementing provisions f or summati on of. doses .from internal and external exposures; providing clearly u identi fied dose limits f or. the. public; and providing an understandable' health-risk base for protection. Initial estimatiA of the cost of implementing the revision is about $33 mil?" -i.for all NRC'and Agreement State licensees-in the the .atial year and.about $8 million in eath subsequent year. .This. cost does not include any-savings which might also be realized by the' revision. CURRENT. STATUS: lha final rulemaking was submitted to EDO on September 27, 1988. An EDO briefing was hel1 on October 27, 1988, and a Commission briefing was held on November 11, 1988. An ACNW . briefing'was held'on December 21, 1988, and a Commissioner's Assistants' briefing was held on December 22, 1988. ' TIMETABLE: COMPLETED ACTIONS: ANPRM 03/20/.80 45 FR 18023 1 ANPRM Comment Period End 06/18/B0 45 FR 18023 Rul emaki ng Initiation Date (Ongoi ng ) 06/12/85 Proposed Action Published 12/20/85 50 FR 51992 Proposed Action Comment Period End 05/12/06 51 FR 1092 Proposed Action Comment Period Extended to 10/31/86 Schedule for Development of Final Rule to Commission 10/08/87 Preliminary Report / State Meeting 11/16-17/97 Division and Regional Review Completed 02/15/08 ACRS Subcommittee Meeti ng 05/31/08 ACRS Full Committee Meeting 06/03/08 F'nal Action to CRGR 06/07/88 CR8R Meeting 06/22/88 Final Action to Of fices f or Concurrence 06/30/88 Final Action to EDO 09/27/88 Final Action to Commission 11/03/88 SECY-88-315 Commission Briefing 11/10/88 Meeting with NUMARC 02/22/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS: Final Actici. Published 04/30/89

57/30/89)

NOTE: Timetable. scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates inc.l uded in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates. l 53

' "7. ? ? ' - 4t N 9: G*. g e .RDS. NUMBER: RMO51 LATEST UPDATE: 06/20/89 'F r . TITLE: 7 C'ri teri a ' f or an. Extraordinary Nucl ear. 0ccurrence J (Pri ori ty ' 2) T CFR CITATION : 10 CFR 140 . LEGAL 0 AUTHORITY ' o' 42 USC.2201; 42'USC 2210; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS'ON SMALL' BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 'AG'ENCY_ CONTACT: Harold Peterson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Offdho of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Washington, DC 20555 301'492-3640 LABSTRACT:

The final rule will revise the END criteria to eliminate the problems that were~ encountered in the Three Mile Island ENO -determination. It is desirable to get - revised criteria in ji place in the' F.* rat they are needed. L as the' current L. 1There are no alternatives to this rulemaking, ENO criteria are already embodied in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 140..-The only way to modify them, as this rule seeks to do, is through rulemaking. There ist no saf ety impact on public health or. saf ety. The ENO criteria' provide legal waivers'of defenses. Industry. (insurers and utilities) claims' that a reduction in the END criteria could cause increases in insurance premiums. The final rule would also be responsive to PRM-140-1. It do estimated that approximately 1.0 staff years of NRC staff time will be required to process the final rule. CURRENT STATUS: This action is being placed on hold. The final rule package has been concurred on by NMSS, NRR, and ARM. A potentia] . difficulty in the impact of the revised criteria has arisen which requires detailed reanalysis. This reanalysis by a contractor has been delayed due to problems with the MACCS Code and higher priority work relating to the revision of 10 CFR Part 20. In additi on, recent personnel changes at the contractor have added to the delay. Also, there are addi ti onal time demands on the task leader due to the revi sion of 10 CFR 20 (see RDB No. RMO33), multiple briefings on Part 20, and preparatory work for revising a l arge number of regulatory guides, i 54

n 4 .,ri j l l -TIMETABLE: 1 COMPLETED ACTIONS: ,j Proposed Action Published 04/09/85-50 FR 13978 I Rulemaking Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/85 . Proposed' Action Comment Period End 09/06/85-L Final Action For Division Review O2/17/87 Final Action to ACRS 10/09/87 1-Office Concurrence on Finel Action Completed 11/25/87 Final Action to CRGR-Not Applicable Meeting with Contractor (EG&G) 06/15/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS: 1 Final Action to EDO Undetermined l Final Action to: Commission Undetermined. Final Action Published Undetermined NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect ED07 approved due dates. Dates included in par crtheses, if any, represent task leader estimates, i i I 55

nr, .sd ) rr 'I. s.p_, %,Wlhi ' q,3 W s, l&& ]; V.P. ' J' bg{GQ g ,'i ] V' t 4 g m... ' aORDSLNUMBER ' RM053; LATEST UPDATE: 06/22/09 ' . n=, u '\\. "i DTITLE:.Saf'ety R' qu'i rements f or " In' ustri al ' Ra' i ogr'aphi c Equi pment. e d d + (Priority,1). ) CFR CITATION - H" 10 CFR 34: @ti.' o.. (LEGALLAUTHORITYO 3 "l' C 42 USC.2111;f42.USC.2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC.2233 -EFFECTS;ON SMALL BUSINESS-AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes i I ^ AGENCY' CONTACT: Donald;D..Nellis~ Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC'.20555 301E492-3628 ' ABSTRACT: 'Ttur proposed rule would amend the present regulations to .esthblish.. performance standards for' industrial radiography-exposure devices. Overexposure of radiographer (and L occasionally the general public). are more than double that of other radiation workers and have been a concern'to the NRC for.some time. Approximately 40--percent of the radiography overexposure are ' associated with equipment mal f uncti on. .The issue'of safety requirements f or these devices is a pr.imary concern since the devices'use relatively high intensity, high energy gamma-ray emitting sources with~the notential for serious overexposure. Although a consensur standard f or -radiographic exposure devices was published in 1981-(.American National Standard-N432), it is not clear that all xnanuf acturers 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 to incorporate the consensus standard by reference in the regulations supplemented by such other performance standards as deemed necessary, plus a requirement i f or. radiographer to wear al arm dosimeters. l 56

+ r. The proposed rule would require licensees to modif y radiographic devices to meet the perf ormance' standards through design changes and quality control procedures. Costs of incorporating-the proposed changes are estimated to be a one-time cost of.$1,625 per licensee to purchase alarm dosimeters and $830 annually f or 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 procencing this rule to final publication are estimated to be 0.4 person years. CURRENT STATUS: The final rulemaking package was submitted to the EDO on June 12, 1989. TIMETABLE: COMPLETED ACTIONS: Rulemaking Initiation Date 12/31/85 Proposed Action for Division Review 12/22/96 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 12/23/87 Proposed Action to ACRS/CRBR--Not Applicable Proposed Action to EDO 12/30/87 Proposed Action to Commission 01/13/88 SECY-88-10 Commission Approval on Proposed Action 02/22/88 Proposed Action Published 03/15/88 53 FR 8460 Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 05/16/88 Proposed Action Public Comment Period Extended to 08/.16/88 53 FR 18096 Final Action f or Division Review 12/28/88 Final Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable Final Action to Offices for Concurrence '04/06/89 Final Action to EDO 06/12/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS: Final Action to Commi ssion 07/06/89 Final Action Published 08/10/89 l NOTER Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates i ncluded in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates. .l L ~ 57

1, != L' p sp l qc lLw.i 1 '" 'O LRDD NUMBER: RM128 ' LATEST UPDATE: 06/20/89 o TITLE: Licensing. and Radiation Saf ety Requirements f or Large, Irradiators (Priori ty 1)' .c CFR CITATIDN: 10 CFR 36; LEGAL AUTHORITY: 42 USC 2073; 42 USC'2093; 42 USC 2111;-42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 22731 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON EMALL~ BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Ves AGENCY CONTACTS. Stephen A. McGuire ~ Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3757-ABSTRACT - ' The Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission is developing regulations to specif y radiation saf ety requirements and license requirements for the use of 1i censed radioactive material s in- ' l arge ' irradi ator s. Irradiators use gamma radiation to irradiate products to change their characteristics in some way. The requirements would upply to large panoramic irradiators ( t. hose in which aa radioactive sources and the s material being irradiated are in a room that is accessible to personnel while the source is shielded) and certain large self-contained irradiators in which the source always remains under water. The rule would not' cover small sel f-cont ai ned ' irradiators, instrument calibrators, 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 f normalization would make the NRC's requirements better understood and possibly speed the licensing of irradiators. Development of the rule will require 2 staf f-years of NRC effort. CURRENT STATUS: The final rulemaking package was revised to accommodate DGC comments. All other offices have concurred. Staff is currently awaiting DGC concurr ence. 58

• f..*

.f r V TIMETABL.Er COMPLETED ACTIONS: Rulemaki ng Initi atic,n Date (EDD Approval) 05/05/08 l Proposed Actf on f or RES Director ~ Review 01/11/89 Proposed Action for Office Review '01/19/89 Proposed Acti on to ACRO 01/18/89 Proposed Actien to CRGR--Not Applicab1e l SCHEDULED ACTIONS: 04/05/.89 (06/30/09) Fr.oposed Action to EDO Propor,ed Action to Commission 05/05/89 (07/31/89) Proposed Action Publiched 06/05/89 (08/31/09) Final Action Published 05/05/90-NOTE: Timetable scheduled action daten reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent test 1eader estimates, 59 -____m__

7E .w 's: ~ s. 1 .RDB. NUMBER: RM140 LATEST UPDATE:- 06/21/89' .-. T I TLE :. Nuclear Plant License Renewal CFR' CITATION: 10-CFR 50 l. LEGAL l AUTHORITY: 42'USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 . EFFECTS'ON SMALL BUSINESS-AND OTHER. ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT: Donald P. Cleary Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office.of. Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3936 . ABSTRACT: License renewal rulemaking to provide regulatory requirements for extending' nuclear power plant licenses beyond 40 years was initiated in response to the Commission 's 1986 and 1987 l policy and planning guidance. Current regulatory provisions permit license renewal but do not provide requirements f or the form and content of~a license renewal. application nor the standards of acceptability against which the application will l be reviewed. This rulemaking is scheduled for completion . prior to the anticipated submittal of license renewal applications for Yankee Rowe and Monticello in 1991. The rule will provide the basis for development and review of these two " lead plant" applicants and the concurrent development of implementing regulatory guidance. Ti mel y completion of the rule is critical for establishing standards for. continued safe operation of power reactors during the license renewal term and providing the regulatory stability L desired by uti.lities in determining whether to prepare f or license renewal or pursue alternative sources of generating capacity. This rulemaking has been identified by the Chairman as a major topic to be monitored. CURRENT STATUS: An advance notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on August 29, 1988 (53 FR 32919). A summary of comments was published as NUREG/CR-5332 in March 989. j Drafts of the proposed rule, the regulatory analysis and the environmental assessment are undergoing staff revier. By direction of the EDO, the staff is revising the se!edule to provide for an expanded scope and content. 1 60 l L______=__________

i 'e*. i

• l TIMETABLE:

COMPLETED ACTIONS: r L ANPRM Published 08/29/88 53 FR 32919 4NPRM.Public Comment Period End 10/28/88 Commission Briefing 06/22/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS: Proposed 1 #.c t i on to ACRS and CRBR--To Be Determined Propos9d Action to EDD--To Be Determined Proposed Action to Commission--To Be Determined Proposed Action Published--To Be Determined Final Action Published 04/30/92 t!OTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates. l l 61}}