ML20246M399
| ML20246M399 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/01/1989 |
| From: | Dipalo A NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905190125 | |
| Download: ML20246M399 (59) | |
Text
i . p n. .
[f UNITED STATES -'
T- [5- g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20f,55
[
. }, /
?****
May 1, 1989 MEMORANDUM FOR: -Public Document Room
-FROM: Anthony J. DiPalo, Leader' Regulatory Analysis Section-(- Regulation Development Branch-Division of Regulatory Applications, RES j'
SUBJECT:
STATUS OF RES RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES--MAY 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 of April 28, 1989.
I N
? A
- NY f*E hony J. dip 1 .. Leader Rg u'latory Anat is Section Re ulation Development Branch Division of Regulatory Applications, RES
Attachment:
p ?As stated cc: Document Control. System, R-2914.03 d
l 1
[0 e,031,0123 8903o1 ' i PDR ORG NREAp
I i .
l l
Page No. 1 PDR REPORT 05/02/89 q l
DNSDING RES RULEMAKlNS ACTIVITIES PAGE RDB CFR
'# ' .# Title of Rulesaking Citation Division / Branch Contact Phone No.
I 141. Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants 10 CFR 50 DE/EMEB Millcan,6. 49-23848 (ASME Code, 1986/1987/1989 Addenda) 3 129. Amendment of the Pressurized Thersal Shock Rule 10 CFR 50 DE/MEB Randall,P. 49-23B42 5 68. Prisary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for 10 CFR 50 DE/SSEB Arndt, B. 49-28314 Water-Cooled Power Reactors (Appendix J) 7 136. Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants. 10 CFR 50 DE/SSEB Norris, W. 49-23805 (ASME Code, Section 11, Division 1, Subsection lWE) 9 34. Disposal of Radioactive Wastes, Part 61 10 CFR 61 DE/WMB Prichard,C. 49-23894 Amendments 11 79. Elimination of Inconsistencies Between NRC 10 CFR 60 DE/WMB Prichard,C. 49-23984 Regulations and EPA Standards 13 100. Criteria for Licensing the Custody and 10 CFR 40 TE/WMB Haisfield,M. 49-23B77 Long-Term Care of Uranius Mill Tailings Sites 15 103. Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 10 CFR 50 DRA/AR$1B Wilson,J. 49-23729 CFR Part 50 17 133. Ensuring the Effectiveness of Maintenance 10 CFR 50 DRA/ARSIB Dey, M. 49-23730 Programs for Nuclear Power Plants 19 77. Personnel Access Authorization Progras 10 CFR 50, DRA/RDB Frattali,S. 49-23773 73 21 95. Basic Duality Assurance Progras for Medical Use 10 CFR 35 DRA/RDB ise, A. 49-23797 of Byproduct Material 23 98. Transportation Regulations: Ccapatibility with 10 CFR 71 DRA/ RIB Hopkins,D. 49-23784 the Internaticcal Atosit Energy Agency (IAEA) 25 102. Disposal of Waste cil by incineration fres 10 CFR 20 DRA/RDB Mattsen,C. 49-23638 Nuclear Power Plants 27 104. Education and Experience Requirements for 10 CFR 50, DRA/RDB Fleishman,M. 49-23794 Senior Reactor Operators and Supervisors at 55 Nuclear Power Plants 29 105, Reasserting NRC's Sole Authority for Approving 10 CFR 150 DRA/RDB Pearson, W. 49-23764 Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreesent States !
PDR REPORT 0 84 CNSDINS RES RULEMAKINS ACTIVITIES PAGE RDB CFR
- # Title of Rulesaking Citation Division /Franch Contact Phone No.
31 112. Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC Approved 10 CFR 72, DRA/RDB Pearson,W. 49-23764 Casks at Civilian Nuclear Pouer Reactor Sites 73, 74,170 33 !!6. Asendment to 10 CFR 51.51 and 51.52, Tables S-3 10 CFR 51 DRA/RDS Turel,S. 49-23739 and S-4, Addition of Raden-222 and Technetium-99 Radiation Values, and Addition of Appendix B 35 119. Twenty-Four Hour Notification of Incidents 10 CFR 24 DRA/ RIB Mate,J. 49-23795 37 125. Night Firing Qualifications for Security Guards 10 CFR 73 DRA/RCB Frattali,S. 49-23773 at Nuclear Power Plants 39 135. Minor Amendzents to Physical Protection 10 CFR 70, DRA/R0B Dolins,S. 49-23745 Requirements 72, 73, 75 4l 162. Comprehensive Quality Assurante in Medical Use 10 CFR 35 DRA/RDB Tse,A. 49-23797 and a Standard of Care 43 186. Palladius-103 for Interstitial Treatment cf 10 CFR 35 DRA/RDB Tse,A. 49-23797 Cancer 45 199. Day Firing Qualification and Physical Fitness 10 CFR 73 DRA/RDB Hopkins,D. 49-23784 Prograss for Security Personnel at Category 1 Fuel Cycle Facilities (Appendix H) 47 33. Standards for Protection Against Radiation 10 CFR 20 DRA/RPHEB Peterson, H. 49-23640 1 49 51. Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear 10 CFR 140 DRA/RPHEB Peterson, H. 49-23640 Octurrente 51 53. Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic 10 CFR 34 DRA/RPHEB Nellis, D. 4'r-23628 Equipment 53 128.1.itensing and Radiation Safety Requirements for 10 CFR 36 DRA/RPHEB McGuire,S. 49-23757
)
Large Irradiators 55 148. Nuclear Plant License Renewal 10 CFR 50 DSIR/RPSIS Cleary,D. 49-23936 Final Rulemakings Published in the Federal Register:
Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive Material Licensees (RM 24) published 04/07/89 (54 FR 14051).
Access to Safeguards Information (RM 182) published 04/25/89 (54 FR 17703).
Flow Control Conditions for the Standby Liquid Control System in Boiling Water Reactors (RM 109) published 04/03/89 (54 FR 13361).
I
~ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _
pj . ' .."
l.
l l
RDB NUMBER: 141 LATEST UPDATE: 04/26/89 LTITLE:
Codes and Standards f or Nuclear Power Plants (ASME Code,.
1986/1987/1988. Addenda)
CFR CITATION:
-LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC.2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL. BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No.
AGENCY CONTACT:
Gilbert-C. Millman Nuclear Regulatory' Commission
! Office of' Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3848 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would incorporate by reference the 1986-Addenda, the 1987 Addenda, and the 1988 Addenda to the 1986 Edition'of.Section III, Division 1, and Section XI, Di vi si on -
- 1. of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boil er and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code). In addition, an editorial revision is proposed that would separate the requirements for inservice testing from those for inservice inspection by placing the requirements for inservice testing in a separate paragraph. The ASME Code provides rules f or the construction of light-water-reactor nuclear power plant components in Section III, Division 1, and provides rules for the inservice inspection and inservice testing of those components in Section XI, Di vi si on 1.
The proposed rule would update the existing ref erence to the ASME Code and would thereby permit the use of improved methods for the construction, inservice inspection, and inservice testing of nuclear power plant components.
Incorporating by reference the latest addenda of the ASME Code.would save applicants /licenseen 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.
This action will be handled as a routine updating of $50.55a of the NRC regulations. There is no reasonable alternative to rulemaking action. The proposed amendment will be issued for public comment. The task to develop and publish the proposed amendment is scheduled for a period of 7.5 months with an estimated staff effort of 400 p-hrs. This is a priority A rulemaking.
1
j ,
e CURRENT STATUS:
This. rulemaking was approved f or . initiation by the EDO on l, July 25, 1988.- Staff completed the proposed amendment for I
the incorporation by reference of the 1986 Addenda and 1987 Addenda and the supporting regulatory analysis and sent them for Division review, which was completed November 7, 1988.
(-
t A memorandum was.been received from NRR requesting inclusien of the 1988. Adj enda in the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment and supporting regulatory analysis will be modified' to accommodate this request.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 07/25/88 Proposed Acti on to Di visions f or Review 09/27/88 Division Peview of ' Proposed Action Completed 11/07/88 SCHEDULED' ACTIONS:
Modified Proposed Action to Divisions f or Revi ew (Undetermined)
Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 07/17/89 (Undetermined)
Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR--To Be Determined Proposed Action to EDO 09/19/89 (Undetermined)
Proposed Action to Commission--Not Applicable Proposed Action Published 10/20/09 (Undetermined)
Final Action Published 06/20/90 (Undetermined)
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
J 2
L!_ _ ____._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______ _
~ ,
RDB NUMBER: 129L JLATEST UPDATE: 04/28/89 TITLE:
' Amendment-of'the Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule
.CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 LEGAL-AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2133;.42 USC.2134; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Pryor N. Randall Nuc] ear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20055 301 492-3842 ABSTRACT:
The Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) Rule, published July 23, y 1985, established a screening criterion, a limit on the l degree of radiation embrittlement of PWR reactor vessel i beltline materials beyond which operation cannot continue without additional pl ant-speci f i c anal ysi s. 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 PS rule to be consistent with the guide became apparent when it was found that for some medium-copper, high-nickel materials embrittlement is worse than'now predicted using the PTS rule. A number of PWRs will reach the screening criterion sooner than previously thought, and three plants will need to make plant-specific analyses in
'the next 10 years. Therefore, a high priority is being given to this effort.
1, L An unacceptable alternative to this amendment f rom the saf ety L standpoint is. to leave the present PTS rule in place. The staf f 's pl ant-oy pl ant analyses found four plants whose reference temperatures are 52 to 68 F higher than previously
. thought, based on the present rule. This is beyond the uncertainties that were felt to exist when the present rule was published. Another unacceptable alternative that has been evaluated is to change the calculative procedure for the 3
L- --- --
L L i reference temperature and also change the screening criterion. Failure probabilities for the most critical accident scenarios in three plants, when recalculated using the new-embrittlement estimates, were'somewhat lower, but were quite. dependent on the plant configuration and the scenario chosen. Furthermore, the screening criterior. 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 j because of plant-to plant differences. It is better to have i a conservative " trip wire" that triggers plant-specific analyses.
Immediate costs to industry will be those required for each utility to update the January 23, 1986, submittal required by the PTS rule, using -fluence estimates that take account of flux reduction efforts in the interim and using the new pr ocedure f or calculating RTPTS. In addition, three to five plants will need to make the expenditure of an estimated 2.5 million dollars f or the plant-specific analysis in the 1990's instead of 10 to 15 years l ater.
CURRENT STATUS:
The CRGR package has been prepared and i s awaiting OGC concurrence before signature.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 02/17/88 Proposed Action for Division Review 06/02/88 ACRS Review of. Proposed Action 04/11/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to CR6R (05/08/89)
Proposed Action to EDO 05/30/89 (07/03/89)
Proposed Act ion to Commission--To' Be Determined Proposed Action Published 06/30/89 (07/31/89)
Final Action f or Division Review 11/15/89 Fina? 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 refl ect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
4
n ..
(
[RDDfNUMBER: 68- -LATEST' UPDATE': .04/26/89
. TITLE:
Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors CFRLCITATION:
10 CFR 50, Appendix J LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42-USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC.5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
E. Gunter Arndt Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301.492-3814 ADSTRACT:
The proposed rule would update and revise the 1973 criteria for preoperational and periodic pressure testing for leakage of primar y 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 curresit and improve its usefulness.
The revision is urgently needed to resolve continuing
. conflicts between licensees and NRC inspectors over.
interpretations, current regulatory practice which is no longer being reflected accurately by the existing rule, and j endorsement in tima existir.y regulation of an obsolete I nati on al standard that was replaced in 1981.
The benefits anticipated include elimination of inconsistencies and obsolete requirements, and the addition of greater usefulness and a higher confidence in the
. leak-tight integrity of containment system boundaries under.
post-loss of coolant accident conditions. The majority of the ef f ort needed by NRC to issue the rule has already been expended.
A detailed analysis of costs, benefits, and occupational exposures is available in the Public Document Room, and indicates possible savings to industry of $14 million to $300 mi}1 ion and an increase in occupational exposure of less than 1 percent per year per plant due to increased testing.
5
i;E! ' C ..
CURRENT STATUS:
The extended public comment period for the proposed rule closed on April 24, 19871 Fifty-two letters were received and'are being evaluated. EDO concurrence was: sought for the
' continuation of this rulemaking based onfa qualitative safety analysis of the rule rather than the usual cost benefit' analysis, prescribed by the Dackf.it Rule.- The EDO approved continuation of the rulemaking on February 15, 1989, with expeditious.rerolution of 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 to 04/24/97 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 Commission Undetermined Final Action Published Undetermined NOTE: ' Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due-dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
6
m ,7
.RDB NUMBER: 136 LATEST UPDATE: 04/28/89 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 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENDA CONTACT:
L. Wallace E. Norris
- Nuclear Regulatory Commission L Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washi~ngton , DC 20555 301- 492-3805
. ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would incorporate by reference Subsection IWE, " Requirements for Class MC Components of Light-Water Cooled Power Plants," of Section XI (Di vi si on 1) of the
'American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code). Subsection IWE provides the rules and requirements for inservice inspection, repair, and replacement of Class MC pressure retaining components and their integral attachments, and of metallic shell and penetration liners of Class CC pressure retaining components l and their integral attachments in light-water cooled power plants.
Incorporating by reference Subsectic, IWE will provide systematic examination rules f or- containment s tructure f or I mereting Criterion 53 of the General Design Criteria (Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50) and Appendix J of 10 CFR Part 1X). Age-related degradation of containments has c occurred,,and additional and potentially more seri ous degradation mechanisms can be anticipated as nuclear power l
plants age. i L
1 l If the NRC did not take action to endorse the Subsection 1WE rules, the NRC position on examination practices for containment structures would have to be established on a L case-by-case basis and improved examination practi ces f or L,- . steel containment structures might not be implemented. The I other alternatives of incorporating these detailed examination requirements into the American National Standard ANSI /ANS 56.8-1981 or into Appendix J are not feasible.
7
= .
ll
. Incorporating by ref erence the latest edition and addenda of Subsection IWE will save applicants / licensees and the NRC staff both time and effort by providing uniform detailed criteria against which the staff can review any single submission. Adoption of the proposed amendment would permit the use of improved methods for containment inservice insnection.
CURRENT STATUS:
This rulemaking was approved for initiation by the EDO on June 9, 1988. Division review was completed July 1, 1988, and office concurrences completed November 14, 1988. .)
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rul emaki ng Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 06/09/88 Proposed Action for Division Review 07/01/88 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 11/14/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action te CRGR 03/31/89 (To Be Determined) {
Proposed Action to ACRS--Not Applicable Proposed Action to EDO 04/J4/89 (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 acti on dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates. included in parentheses, if any, represent j task leader estimates. I i
f I
r c6: .
- RDD NUMBER:' 34 ' LATEST' UPDATE: 04/26/89 TITLE:
Di sposal of Radioactive Wastes; Part 61 Amendments CFR CITATION:
- 10 CFR 6i
, ' LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL DUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory . Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3884 ABSTRACT:
- The Commission instructed the staf f to analyze the need to revise the definition of high-level radioactive waste (HLW).
.in Part 60 to conform with the definition in the Nuclear _ ;
Waste Policy Act (NWPA). An ANPR was published on February 27, 1987 (52 FR 5992), which recommended a revision based either wholly or~ partially on concentrations of radionuclides in the waste. After assessing the public comments on the ANPR, and also taking into account recent information, the staff is now recommending against any revision of the definition of HLW. Instead, amendments to Part 61 are being recommended that would require geologic repository disposal of all'above Class C low-level radioactive waste (LLW) unless an alternative has been approved by the Commi ssion. This would' accomplish the objective of establishing suitable j di st. osal raqui r ement s f or radioactive waste with a minimal impact on cost burdens.
j Alternatives are: (1) revise the definition of HLW so that addi tional above Class C LLW is recl assified as HLW; or l (2) proceed to develop a waste classification system like that outlined in tne ANPR.
J The public and industry would benefit from this clarification f
of waste disposal options for above Class C LLW. NRC staff time for preparing this rulemaking is estimated at 2 staff-years.
CURRENT STATUS:
The proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on May 18, 1988 (53'FR 17709). The public comment period ended July 18, 1988. Thirty-fi ve comments were recei ved , and 4
9 1
- p. :.
.i.
evaluation of public comments has been completed. 'The final L rule was forwarded to the Commission-on April 17, 1989
-(SECY-89-120).
TIMETABLE:.
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rul emaki ng Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/85
~
ANPRM Action for Division Review 09/06 Office Concurrence on ANPRM Action Completed 10/86 ANPRM' Action to EDO 11/07/86 ANPRM Action to Commission 02/19/87 ANPRM Action Published 02/27/87 ANPRM Comment Period End 04/29/87 ANPRM Comment Period Extended to 06/29/87 52 FR 16403.
Proposed Action to ACRS 10/87 Proposed Action to CRGR--Not Applicable Proposed Action _.for Office Review 12/17/97.
Proposed Action to EDO O2/05/88 Proposed Action to Commission 02/19/88 SECY-85-51 Proposed _ Action Published '05/10/08 53 FR 17709 Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 07/18/88 Final' Action to' Offices for Concurrence 01/11/89 Final Action to CRGR/ACRS O2/23/89 Final. Action to EDO 04/12/89 Final Action to Commission 04/17/89 SECY-89-120 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action Published 06/15/89 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect milestones developed by the staf f in response to a Commission directive.
10
. - . - - . - _ . . _ . . . _ . _ - _ _ - - . _ . - _ - _ _ . - - _ - - - _ _ - a
ve; , p:
i !
'd "79 RDB NUMBER: LATEST UPDATE: -04/26/89 TITLE:
Elimination of Inconsistencies Between NRC Regulations and EPA Standards
. CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 60 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42.USC 10101-EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND 0THER ENTITIES: No- 4 l
AGENCY' CONTACT: ;
Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Commission ;
Of fice of Nuclear Regulatory. Research !
2 Washington , IX: 20555 301'492-3884 i i
ABSTRACT: l LThe Nuclear- N' a ste Policy Act of 1982 directs NRC-to- l promulgate criteria for.the licensing of HLW' geologic. --
repositories. Section'121 (c) of this act states that these
' a criteria must be consistent with standards to be developed .byr EPA f or the disposal of HLW in deep geologic repositories.
~
]
The proposed rule is needed in order to eliminate several
-inconsistencies with the EPA. standards, thus fulfilling the- ;
statutory requirement. j F Because the NWPA directs NRC to eliminate inconsistencies between Part 60'and the EPA standard, the alternatives to the ,
proposed action are limited by statute. !
The public, industry, and NRC will benefit from eliminating ]'
inconsistencies in Federal HLW regulations. NRC resources needed would be several utaff years but will not include j contract resources. ,
CURRENT STATUS- 1 A Commission paper transmitting the final rule was f orwarded :
to the EDO on July 20, 1987. The EDO did not sent it to the a Commission following OGC review of the recent court decision j j
. 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 H proposed rule in December 1989. The staff is monitoring EPA progress and' plans to publish a proposed rule soon after EPA does.
l i
l 11
p .n:
TIMETABLE:.
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking. Initiation'Date 08/07/85
. Proposed Action' Published' 06/19/86 51 FR 22288
- Proposed Action Comment Period End 08/18/06 L Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed' 07/15/87 Final Action to EDO 07/20/87 SCHEDULED' ACTIONS:
On Hold-NOTE: . Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved kr due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
12
p .: ..
o
- r. R )B NUMBER: 100 LATEST UPDATE: 04/27/89.
h s ,
H TITLE: , ;
Criteria for Licensing'the Custody and Long-Term Care of-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 .
1
' AGENCY CONTACT:
Mark Haisfield Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington,-DC 20555 301-492-3877 ABSTRACT: j The proposed rulemaking would amend Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40'(Domestic Licensing of Source Material), to include a procedure for' licensing a custodian-for the post-closure, long-term control of-uranium mill
-tailings sites required by the Uranium Mill Tailings .
. Radiation' Control Act~of'1978 (UMTRCA). This amendment would establishJa general-license for custody and long-term care _ 4 of uranium mill-tailings.by the Department of Energy, other ,
designated Federal agency, or States when. applicable. The l general license would be formulated so that it would become -l effective-for 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 Pl an that ' meets the. requirements of the general license has been received by NstC. Na signifirmnt impact to the public or industry is expected'as a result of this proposed action.
CURRENT STATUS: j On March 6, 1989, a proposed rulemaking package was sant f or. i office concurrence / comments to Nt1ES, OGC, ADii, Ord GPA. .NMSS 1 requested that it be given until mid-April to complete ;
comments and concurrence. On April. 21, ' NRC recei ved EPA 's )
final rule for Groundwater Protection Standards that was submitted to OMB. RES staff is currently evaluating the impacts of this proposed final rule. Preliminary indications are that we may need to make significant modifications, which j woul'd delay:the current proposed schedule by a minimum of ]
several months.
I 13
, . . :(
TIMET'ABLE:
COr1PLETED ACTIONS:
Rul emaki ng Initiation Date- 02/17/87 Proposed Hetion-for Division and Office Review 11/09/87 "Propueed Action to CRGR/ACRS--Not Applicable Office Concurrence on Proposed, Action Completed
.02/10/88 Proposed. Action to EDD- 02/10/88 Revised Proposed Action to EDO. 03/10/88 Proposed' Action to Conmeission - 03/17/88 SECY-88-83 Commission Meeting 0b/18/88 .
1 ANPRM Published 08/25/88 53 FR 32396 ANPRM'Public Comment Period End 10/24/88
-Detailed. Analysis'of Comments Completed 01/13/89
. Proposed Action to Divisians.and Offices for
. Concurrence 03/06/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:-
Proposed' Action.to EDO 04/14/89 (05/26/89)
Proposed Action to Commission 04/28/89 (06/09/89)
Proposed Rule Published 06/30/89 (08/15/89)
Final Rule Published 03/30/90 (05/15/90)
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved z
due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any,_ represent
-task leader-estimates.
l 4 !
l~
(
14
- {,
l RDD i ' NUMBER: E103 LATEST UPDATE: '04/26/89 (TITLE: . . . ._
Safety-Related and Important to-Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
at '42 USC 5841; 42: USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No.
AGENCY CONTACT:
-Jerry N. Wilson.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
Washington, DC 20555:
'301 492-3729 ABSTRACT:
y The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to clarif y its regulations on the use of-the terms "important to safety" and.
" safety related" by adding definitions of these two terms and of " facility licensing documents" to.10 CFR Part 50 and by discussing how these definitions will'be applied in NRC licensing reviews. Significant issues-concerning the meaning
.of ' these terms as they are. used in this part have arisen .in Commission licensing proceedings. This proposed rule would
' define these terms and' clarify the nature and extent of their effect on quality assuPance requirements, thereby resolving these issues.
Rulemaking was chosen 'as the Methoc' of resolving thi3 i ssLle as a result of the Commission's directive tc resolve the issue by rulemaking contair'ed in the Shoreham licensing dexision (CLI-84-9, 19 NRC 1323, June 5, 1984).
A position paper requesting approvai of the staff proposed definitions and additional guidanco from the Commiscion was signed by the EDO on Mcy 29, 1986. In addition to rulemaking, the position paper discusses the alternative of the Conmission' issuing a policy statement concerning the definitions and their usage.
Since the proposed rule is only clarif ying. existing l requirements,,there is no impact on the'public or the industry as a result of this rulemaking. It is anticipated that the NRC will expend 3.2 to 4.4 staff years in developing the final rule over a 2 year period. The manpower and time f rame I will depend on Commission guidance received on the extent to l
l 1
15 1" , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - -
which 10 CFR usage' of the terms is to be consistent , i . e. ,
- 10 CFR Part 50 only or'all of 10 CFR.
CURRENT STATUS:
~
A package' suggesting an approach to rulemaking was signed by the EDO and forwarded to the Commission on May'29,.1986 (SECY-86-164).1 Staff is currently . awaiting a Commi ssion decision;.however, in light of higher priority issues, Chairman.Zech has requested a delay in the vote on l SECY-86-164.
- TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date joing) 06/12/85 Proposed Action--Suggested Approach (SECY-86-164) to Commission 05/29/86 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Commission Decisi on on SECY-86-164 Undeter mi ned NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
,h 16
C .
1
'l t
RDD NUMBER: 133' LATEST UPDATE: 04/28/89 l TITLE: U Ensuring the . Ef f ectiveness 'of Maintenance . Programs f or.-
. Nuclear Power Plants CFRLC1TATION:
.10 CFR 50 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42-USC 5841;.42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: .Yes AG$NCY CONTACT:
Moni Dey ;
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ;
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research ,
Washington, DC 20555 ;
301 492-3730 ]
l ABSTRACT: j On' March 23, 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission-published a Final - Policy Statement on Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (53 FR 9430). In the policy statement, the {
Commission stated that it expected to' publish a Notice of l Proposed Rulemaking in the near-future and has directed the j staff to develop such a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. ,1 3; As directed by the Commission, the staff will develop a !
general rule that specifies functional requirements for'the )
maintenance.of nuclear power plants and . allows industry l
initiatives to . develop the details of maintenance p'rograms to meet ruch requirements. Tha scope of maintenance activities ) '
tddressed in-the rule will le within the framework of the Commission 's Policy Statement on Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants. The rule will apply to all components, systems and H structures - of nuclear poser pl ants and will be applicable to existing and future plants The rule will.also require each ,
licensee to develop, implement and maintain a maintenance l program, and to formally commit to follow the program.
Compliance with the rule will be determined by audit by NRC j inspectors. A recommended position on whether the rule l should include a requirement to report maintenance ;
performance indicators to the NRC will be developed as a part j Lef developing the' rul emaking. j b i In support of the proposed rule, the staff will devel op a l regulatory guide that will summarize state-of-the-art methods .]'
and. procedures for nuclear power plant maintenance and reli ability assurance programs that the staff considers acceptable ways to meet the functional requirements in the l
u 17 m-.m_ _m.___ _ _ . - -_______.________.m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - -
~ 's e rule. This' regulatory guide will provide the guidance to the industry regarding staff views on the content and functions of an acceptable maintenance program. The regulatory guide will also provide the results of a staff evaluation of the acceptability of industry standards, initiatives and programs against the functional requirements proposed in the rule. !
As directed by the Commission, the staff, in developing the rule, will consider maintenance practices in other countries (Japan , France, and FRG), and other industries (aviation and chemical) in this country in which human performance, maintenance and equipment reliability play an important role in the safety of operations. These considerations will be documented in a supporting NUREG report along with other factors considered important to document the development of the rule and regulatory guide.
It is estimated that about 3 staff years of effort and $600K for contract services will be required to process the final rule.
CURRENT STATUS:
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on November 28, 1988 (53 FR 47822). The public comment period ended February 27, 1989. The final rule and draft regulatory guide were reviewed by both the ACRS and CRGR.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (Commission Mandate) 02/25/88 Proposed Action to ACPS 08/26/88 Proposed Action for 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 Proposed 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 Final 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 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action to Federal Register 06/15/89 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect Commission ,
directives. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent l task leader estimates.
18
y ,
t
- RDB NUMBER: 77- LATESTJUPDATE: 04/28/89
- TITLE:
. Personnel Access Authorization Program CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50; 10.CFR 73 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS'AND OTHER ENTITIES: No
, AGENCY CONTACT:
Dr. Sandra Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office.of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington DC 20555 301-492-3773
' ABSTRACT:
The Commission has conc 1'uded 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, emoti onal l y stable, and do not pose a threat to commit radiological sabotage. Accordingly, the NRC published a proposed rule un August 1, 1984, which would require an access authorization program at nuclear power plants (49 FR 30726).
An alterneti ve proposal by the Nuclear Utility Management and Resource Committee ( NUM ARC.) was submitted as a public comment-on this proposed rule. The alternative proposed a-voluntary intiustry commitment to implement an access authorization program at nuclear power plants based upon industry gui deli nes. Major provisions of this program include background investigation, psychological evaluation, and behavioral observation.
On June 18, 1986, the Commission approved developing a policy statement endorsing industry guidelines as an alternative to the proposed rulemaking. Commitments to adhere to these guidelines would be formalized through amendments to the physical security plans and be subject to inspection and
' enforcement by NRC.
-On March 9, 1988, the NRC published a proposed policy statement endorsing the NUMARC guidelines. In the Federal Register notice, the Commission specifically requested public comments as to whather.the access authorization program should be a rule or a policy statement.
19
' CURRENT STATUS:
On April 19, 1989, the Commission approved a. general rule which would require all licensees to have an access authorization program and would specif y the major attributes of the program. The NRC would also issue a regulatory guide which would endorse, with appropriate exceptions, the industry guidelines, as one acceptable way of complying with the rule.
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 Office Concurrence on Proposed Policy Statement '
Completed 10/30/87 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 Proposed Policy Statement Published 03/09/88 53 FR 7534 Proposed Policy Statement Public Comment Period End 05/09/88 Options Paper to EDO 03/22/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action to ACRS (07/25/89)
Final Action to CRGR (08/01/89)
Final Action to EDO 09/25/89 Final Action to Cort, mission (10/25/89)
Final Action Published (11/15/89)
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in par entheses, if any, represent taek leader estimatea-l l )
i f
l l
l 20
c,1 3g L.
RDB NUMBER: 95- LATEST UPDATE: 04/20/89 TITLE:
Basic Quality Assurance Program f or Medical Use of Byproduct Material CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 35' LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USCl2111 3.42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL. BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No u,
AGENCY CONTACT:
Anthony Tse Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3797 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations concerning the medical use of byproduct material..
The proposed amendments would require its medical licensees to implement a written basic-quality assurance program that is designed to prevent, detect, and correct the cause of errors in the administration of byproduct material. The proposed action is necessary to provide f or improved patient safety. .The proposed amendment, which is intended to reduce the potential for and severity of therapy misadminis*. rations, would primarily affect hospitals, clinics, and individual physicians. Modification of reporting arm recordkeeping requirements for diagnostic.and therapy events are riso proposed in this rulemaking.
CURRENT STATUS: ;
Office concurrence, with comments to be incorporated, has been obtained. The staff is currently preparing the rulemaking f or presentation to the EDO.
l 1
21
i - p.'
L1 ,
l . TIMETABLE:
l- ' COMPLETED' ACTIONS:
Proposed Rule ~on Basic;DA.(Prescriptive) Published I -10/02/07 52 FR 36942
, Options Paper to. Commission 06/03/88 SECY~88-156 SRM Issued Directing Re-Proposal'of BasicLQA Rule 07(12/88 (14 Subcommittee meeting held on 11/07/88.
Proposed Action for. Draft Rule and Guide Sent for Division Review 12/05/88 Workshop'on. Basic QA Rule and Draft Regulatory Guide 01/30-31/89 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence ~ 03/29/89 Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to EDO 04/14/89-(05/10/89)
Proposed Action to Commission 04/21/89 (05/17/89)
Commission Briefing 05/31/89
' Proposed Action Sent to ADM for Publication 05/30/89'(06/23/89)
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect Commission-directed due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
\
l 22
H,, '
-c.
fRDB NUMBE'R L96 -
LATEST' UPDATE: 04/26/89 TITLE:
Transportation Regulations; Compatibi'lity'With the.
International Atomic' Energy-Agency,(IAEA) (Priority 1)'
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR'711
- LEGAL AUTHORITY:-
42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42.USC 2111; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: 'No AGENCY CONTACT:
p ,
Donald R. Hopkins=
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington,'DC 20555 301.492-3784 ABSTRACT:
The p~roposed rule'would, in conjunction with a corresponding rule change by the U.S. Department.of Transportation, make the United States Federal regulations for the safe transportation of radioactive material consistent with those of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA:
regulations can be found in IAEA Safety Series No. 6,
" Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material,"
1985 Edition. Consistency in transportation regulations throughout the world facilitates the free movement of radioactive materials between countries for medical, i research, industrial, and nuciear fuel cycle purposes.
Consistency of transportation regulati ons thrc ughout the world also contributes to safety by concentrating the efforts of the world's experts on a single set of safety standards-and. guidance (those of the IAEA) .from which individual countries can develop their dammstic regulations. Perhaps as important, the accident experience of every country that l 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 routine updating of NRC transportation regulations. There i s no reasonable alternative to rulemaking action. These I
changes should result in a minimal increase.in costs to affected licensees. Proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 71, based on current IAEA regulations, has been issued for public comments, The task will be scheduled over a 2 year interval
- ending June 1989 and will consume 2-3 staff-years of effort
< depending on the number and difficulty of conflicts to be resolved.
23
.- e
~
CURRENT STATUS:
.The proposed rule was published for public comment on June 8, 1988 (53 FR 21550). In order to afford _the public the opportunity to review the NRC proposed rule at the same time as the DDT proposed rule which supplements it, NRC has extended itu public. comment period. The comment period is currently scheduled to end 60 days after. publication of the DOT-proposed rule. Accordingly, this task is on hold until DOT publishes its proposed rule for comment.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation 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 Proposed Action to CRGR 03/23/88 ProposedLAction to EDO 05/11/88 Proposed Action to Commission--Not Applicable Proposed' Action Published 06/08/88 53 FR 21550 Correction Published 06/22/88 53 FR 23484 Proposed. Action Public Comment Period Extended to 03/06/89 53 FR 51281 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action Public Comment Period Extended to l 60 days after publication of DOT proposed rule 04/04/89 54 FR 13528 Fi nal Action to Offices for Review Undetermined-Final Action to ACRS--Not Applicable Final Action to CRGR Undetermined Final Action to EDO Undetermined Final Action to Commission--Not Applicable Final Action Published Undetermined NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates i ncl uded in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
24 l
. - _ _ _ - - - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . --_-__.__---________-____-_0
- 9) ...
8:
m ll
'RDB? NUMBER: 102 LATEST UPDATE: 04/26/G9
, :TITLEi-Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration from Nuclear. Power Plants (Priority 1)-
CFR~ CITATION:
- LEGAL AUTHORITY:
O 42 USC 2201;E42 USC 2167; 42 USC 2073 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Catherine-R. Mattsen Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3638 ABSTRACT:
-The proposed rule, which is being initiated in partial
. response to.a petition filed by Edison Electric Institute and Utility Nuclear. Waste Management Group- (PRM-20-15, dated July 31, 1984), would amend NRC regulations to allow onsite incineration of-waste oil at nuclear power plants subject to specified conditions.- Currently, the only generally approved disposal method f or' low-level , ' radioactively contaminated waste oil from nuclear power. plants-involves absorption or solidification, transportation to, and burial at . a licensed disposal site. There is a clear need to allow, for very low activity level wastes,. the use of ' alternative dioposal methods which are more cost effective from a radiological health and safety l standpoint and which' conserve the limited disposal capaci'y-af c low-level waste burial sites.
Increased savings to both the public snd the industry could 3 thereby be achieved without imposing additional risk to the public health and safety. There would be an estimated industry-wide economic savings of approximately $3 million to ,
$12 million per year if such a rule were promulgated. l Alternatives to this rulemaking action are to' maintain the status quo or to wait until the Environmental Protection Agoncy develops standards on acceptable levels of radio-activity which may be released to the environment on an unrestricted basis. It'is estimated that approximately 1-2 person-years of NRC staff time will be required to process this rule.
25
.= .a-CURRENT STATUS:
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on August 29, 1988 (53 FR 32914). The public comment period ended October 28, 1988. Twenty-five comment letters were received.
. TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 05/19/87 Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable Proposed Action to EDO 06/21/88 Proposed Action to Commission 07/12/88 SECY-88-198 Proposed Action Published 08/29/88 53 FR 32914 Public Comment Period End 10/28/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action to Of fices f or Concurrence Undetermined Final Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable Final Action to EDO Undetermined Final Action to Commission Undetermined Final Action Published Undetermined NOTE: Timetabl e scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
)
\
l.
i l
l l
26 1
H. .
i RDB NUMBER: 104 LATEST UPDATE: 04/28/89- )
TITLE:
Education and Experience Requirements f or Senior Reactor Operators and Super visors at Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 55 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201 L
EFFECTS ON SMALL DUSINESS.AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Morton Fleishman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regul atory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3794 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations regarding educational requirements for operating personnel at nuclear power plants. The proposed amendments would require additional education and experience
. requirements for senior operators and supervisors. In promulgating the proposed amendments, the Commission has identified two alternatives.
Under the first alternative, the proposed amendment would apply to senior operators. It would require that each applicant for a senior operator license to operate a nuclear power reactor have a bachelor's degree in engineering, er,gineering technology, or the physical sciences from an
. . accredited university or college. The proposed amendment would upgrade the operating, engineering, and accident management expertise provided on shift by combining engineering experti se and operating experience in the senior operator position. ;
l i
Under the second alternative, the proposed amendment would l
apply to persons who have supervisory responsibilities, such as shift supervisors or senior managers. It would require L
that they have enhanced educational credentials and experience over that.which is normally required for senior reactor operators. The proposed amendment would upgrade the operating, engineering, and accident management expertise provided on shift by combining engineering expertise and operating experience in the shift supervisory position.
i L 07 l^
l The Commission believes that adoption of either of the alternatives, for' senior operators or shif t supervi sors, would further ensure the protection of-the health and safety of the public by enhancing the capability of the operating staff to respond to accidents and restore the reactor to a safe and stable condition. The Commission will also issue a policy. statement concurrently with-this rule related to utility implementation of an accredited degree program for reactor operators.
CURRENT STATUS: i The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on December 29,.1988 (53 FR 52716). 'The public comment period
- ended' March 29, 1989; 246 public comments were received and ,
are being analyzed. ]
I TIMETABLE:
l COMPLETED ACTIONS: )
ANPRM 05/31/86 51 FR 19561 ANPRM Comment Period Extended to 09/29/86 SECY Paper to Commission (SECY-87-101) 04/16/87 Rulemaking Initiation Date (Commi ssi on Approval )
06/24/87 q Proposed. Action for Division Review O2/12/88 1 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 04/08/88 (
Proposed Action to CRGR (Request for Need for ]
Review) 05/02/88 Proposed Action to CRGR for Review 06/20/88 CRGR Review Meeting 07/14/08 Proposed Action to ACRS 07/19/88 Proposed' Action to EDO 08/29/88 Proposed Action to Commission 08/31/88 SECY-88-245 Proposed Action. Published 12/29/88 53 FR 52716 Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 02/27/89 Proptsed Actdon Public Comment Period Extended to 03/29/89 54 FR 8201 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action to ACRS/CRGR (05/15/89)
Final Action for Division and Office Review L
04/20/89 (05/15/89)
CR8R Briefing on Final Action 04/26/89 (05/24/89)
Final Action to EDO 05/15/89 (05/31/89)
L Final Action to Commission 05/22/89 (06/07/89)
ACRS Briefing on Final Action 05/05/89 (06/09/89)
Final Action Published 07/19/89 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
e l
28 )
l l
+
8 j -
.RDB NUMBER: 105 LATEST UPDATE: 04/28/89 TITLE:
Reasserting NRC's Sole Authority f or Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States CFR CITATION:
l 10 CFR 150 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2021; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS'ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
William R. Pearson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301.492-3764 ADSTRACT:
This rulemaking would establish NRC as the sole authority f or approving onsite disposal 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 low-level waste in order.to. provide a more comprehensive regulatory review of all onsite waste management activities and to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. Uniform review by the NRC will provide f or greater assurance that the radioactive material will not present a health hazard at a later date after the s2te is decommissioned.
CURRENT STATU!:
The final rulemaking. package was issued f or office concurrence on February 15, 1989.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
l Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 05/19/87 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 03/31/88 Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable
, Proposed Action to EDO 06/08/88 Proposed Action to commission 06/14/88 SECY-88-166 i Proposed Action Published 08/22/88 53 FR 31880 Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 10/21/88 Analysis of Public Comments Completed 11/30/88 Final Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable Final Action for Division Review--Not Soplicable Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 02/15/89 Office and Agreement State Comments Due 03/08/89 29
r--------------e-------m----r'--------'-'-- - - - - - - - - - - - ' ' - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - ' - ' ' - - - - - - - ' - - - -- - - - - - - - ' - - - ' - ---r ---- --- --
.r. ,
.9 ;
SCHEDULED ACTIONS: {
g Final Action'to EDO 03/29/89 (To Be Determined)
Final Action to Commission 04/12/89 (To Be Determined)
Final. Action Published. 06/30/89 (To Be Determined) i
- NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved i due dates. Dates included'in parentheses, if any, represent j task leader estimates. l 1
o l
l l
l i
l i
l l
l L ,
l:
i
! i 1
1 l- 1 i
i j
30 i
RDB' NUMBER: 112 LATEST UPDATE: 04/28/89 TITLE:-
Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC Approved Casks at Civilian Nuclear Power Reactor Sites 1
l CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 74; 10 CFR 170 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10153; 42 USC 10198 EFFECTS ON SMALL DUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Willi am R. Pearson j' Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Nuclear Regulatory Con.mi ssion f Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3764 ABSTRACT:
l The proposed rule is in response to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) section 218 (a) which states, in part, that the
, Secretary of DOE shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at. civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the Commission may, by rule, approve for use at sites of civilian nuclear power reactors. The NWPA also requires that the NRC establish procedures f or the licensing of any l' technology approved by the Commission under section 218 (a)
I for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.
The staff anticipates a significant increase in the demand for use of dry spent fuel storage casks starting in the early 1990s, thus processing of this proposed rule would be timely.
NRC resource requirements are anticipated to be about two staff-years.
CURRENT STATUS: ,
The Commission approved (5-0) the proposed rulemaking for l- publication on April 5, 1989. On April 21, the proposed
,- 1 rulemaking was f orwarded to the Of fice of Administration for
[
l^
publication in the Federal Register.
31
j, l 1
1 ITIMCTABLE:
-COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation.Date (EDO Approval). 12/1'4/87-Proposed Action.for Division Review 03/02/88 ;
Proposed Acti'on to ACNW~ 06/28/88 ,
' Proposed Action-to Offices for Concurrence 07/26/88 ]
Proposed Action to CRGR 11/09/88 and 12/14/88 j Proposed Action to.EDO -02/14/89 ,
Proposed Action to Commission 03/08/89 SECY-89-084 !
l SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action Published .( 05/12/89) !
Proposed Action Public Comment Period Ends (06/26/89) j
. Analysis of Public Comments Completed (07/31/89)
Final Action-Published 03/09/90 i
NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-spproved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent- ,
task leader estimates. l l
l I
)
1 i
i l
i l
i 32 l-E '. _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _
- V ..
,i RDB NUMBER: 116. LATEST UPDATE: 04/26/89
]
TITLE:
. Amendment to 10 CFR Part.51, Sections 51.51 and 51.52, Table S-3 and Table S-4, Addition of Radon-222 and Technetium-99 Radiation Values, and Addition of Appendix B, " Table S-3 Explanatory Analysis"
'CFR CITATION:
10 CFR'51 i
LEGAL-AU1HORITY:
42 USC 2011; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 4321; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 i
EFFECTS ON.SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY. CONTACT:
Stanley Turel Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3739 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule provides a narrative explanation of the numerical' values established in Table S-3, " Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data," that appears in.the Commissien's environmental protection regulations. The proposed rule describes the basis f or the values contained in Table S-3, the significance of the uranium fuel cycle data in the. table, and the conditions governing the'use of the table. The proposed rule amends Section 51.52 to modify the enrichment value of U-235 and the maximum level of average 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.
L-L The' proposed rule revi sions 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) decision of April 27, 1982, invalidated the entire Table S-3 rul e. Tha Supreme Court reversed this decision on June 6, 1993.
33
- t. .. .-
L L
The proposed rule to orovide an explanatory analysis for 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 ebeyance until new. values for radon-222 and technetium-99 could be added to the table and l
covered in the narrative explanation. The rule is being
~
L reissuedLas a proposed rule because the scope has been expanded to include radiation values for raden-222 and technetium-99 and the narrative explantion has been 1 extensively revised from that published on March 4, 1981 (46 FR 15154).
The staff's estimate is that the completion of a final Table S-3 rule covering the new values for raden-222 and technetium-99, and the revised explanatory analysis will be i completed in FY 1989. A Commission Paper presenting the l final rulemaking plan and schedule was submitted on August 18, 1986 (SECY 86-242). On September 8, 1986, SECY-86-242 was approved by the Commission.
CURRENT STATUS:
Comments received on draft rule from 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, j f ollowing corrections in the health eff ects 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:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (Two Rulemakings Integrated) 07/30/87 Proposed Action for Di vi si on Review 05/27/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to Offices for 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 Attion Published 08/30/90 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
34
- - _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______________.J
RDB NUMBER: 119 LATEST UPDATE: 04/28/89 TITLE:
Twenty-Four Hour Notification of Incidents CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 20 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Joseph J. Mate Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3795 ADS'. R AC T :
This rulemaking would amend 10 CFR Part 20.403(a) and (b) to clarify the licensees' reporting requirements. In addition, a new section in Parts 30, 40, and 70 will be developed.
While Sections 20.403(a) and (b) are reasonably clear in terms of licensee reporting requirements for events involving
" exposures" and " releases" of radioactive materials, these sections are not clear concerning events involving " loss of op er ati on " and " damage to property." "L.oss of operations" should be clarifi ed in terms of loss of use of facilities, devices or equipment. " Damage to property" should be clarified to include contamination clean-up if the corrective action is equal to or greater than a certain cost. In addi ti on , the rulemaking should also define "i mmedi at e" in actual timo, e.g., within i hour, for reporting requirements.
Thi s rul emaking action will clarify a current Commission regulation; there is no other appropriate procedure to accommodate the clarification. This rulemaking acti vi ty is considered to be a high priority item by NMSS.
The health and safety of the public will be better protected because improved reporting requirements will reduce the potential risk of exposure to radiation from damaged or contaminated material. Clarifying the reporting requirements will simplif y regulatory f unctions and f ree the staf f from unnecessary additional investigation and, at the same time, protect the industry from unnecessary and unexpected fines.
The offices of OE, NMSS, and RES are significantly af f ected by this clarification. ARM and the regions are affected, but to a much lesser degree.
35
1 e i
CURRENT-STATUS:
Since the last reporting period, all of the comments from the NRC staff have been received, evaluated, and incorporated into the draft proposed rulemaking. Fi nal changes have been
- made and the- package was placed. in the RES' concurrence chain on March 6, 1989.
A memorandum to E. Jordan, Chairman of CRGR, was sent on March 9, 1989, requesting that this rulemaking package be exempt f rom CRGR review since the rule does not concern reactors. CRGR responded on April 5, 1989, and agreed with RES' exemption request.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 02/17/88 Action'by DRA Division Director 12/16/88-
-SCHEDULED ACTICNS:
-Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 03/31/89 (05/12/89)
Proposed Action to CRGR and ACRS--Not Applicable Proposed Action to EDO 05/15/89 (06/02/89)
Proposed Acti on to Commi ssi on--To Be Determined Proposed Action Published 06/15/89 Proposed Action Public Comment Period End (08/23/89)
Analysis of Public Comments Completed (10/15/89)
Final Ac ti on for Division Review (11/15/89)
Final Action to RES Director (12/15/89)
Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 01/15/90 Final Action to CRGR and ACRS (02/15/90)
(If Required)
Final Action to EDO 06/15/90 Final Action to Commissi on--To Be Determined Final Action Published 07/16/90 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
i 36
~
'RDB NUMBER: 125 LATEST UPDATE: 04/26/89 E
II TITLE:
Night Firing Qualifications for Security Guards at Nuclear Power Plants (Priority 2)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 73 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Dr. Sandra D. Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 2C555 301 492-3773 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would ensure that security force effectiveness at nuclear power plants is not dependent on the time of day. Security guards currently are required to perform night. firing for familiarization only. There is no requirement for standards to measure their effectiveness.
The proposed rule would change that by requiring that security guards at nuclear power plants qualify for night firing. The only alternative to rulemaking is to retain the current status.
Part 73, Appendix B, Part IV, will be amended to require reactor security guards to qualify annually in an NRC-approved night firing course with their assigned weapons.
The proposed amendment will standardize training and qualification in night firing and prepare power reactor guard forces to more effectively respond in the event of an incident occurring in limited lighting conditions. The cost to industry should be relatively modest since licensees already operate daylight firing training and qualificaiton facilities and programs. The costs to NRC will also be mi ni mal because it will only require minor licensing, inspection and other regulatory actions. There is no occupational. exposure.
It is estimated that 0.4 staff-years of effort over 2 years by the NRC will be required for the rulemaking.
CURRENT STATUS:
The rulemaking package is on hold.
37 1
1
i TIMETABLE:
] COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 05/18/88 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence Undetermined Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR--To Be Determined Proposed Action to EDO Undetermined Proposed Action to Commission--Not Applicable Proposed Action Published Undetermined Final Action Published Undetermined NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
38
i- 'i
, RDB NUMBER: 135 LATEST UPDATE: 04/28/89 TITLE:
Minor Amendments to~ Physical Protection Requirements (Priority 2)
I CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 75 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Stan Dolins Nuclear Regulatory-Commission Office of. Nuclear Regulatory.Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3745 ABSTRACT:
The Safeguards Interoffice Review Group (SIRG) of the NRC has been conducting a systematic review of the agency's
[ safeguards regulations and guidance documents. This review has identified areas in the regulations that are out of date, susceptible to differing interpretations, or in need of cl ar i f i cati'an . In addition, the staff han identified other areas in the regulations where minor changes are, warranted.
In response'to these efforts, specific amendments to the regulations are being proposed. The proposed changes will:
y (1) limit the use of the 100 rems per hour at 3 feet dose J p exemption to a reduction of no more than one physical protection category and not allow a drop below the lowest category, (2) add definitions for common terms not currently
' defined by frequent use, (3) delete action dates that no E longer apply, (4) correct outdated terms and cross references, (5) clarify wording that is susceptible to ;
differing interpretations, (6) correct typographical errors, -f and (7) make other minor changes.
.The alternative to rulemaking would be to allow the status quo to continue. Except for the change in the impact of a high radiation field on physical protection requirements,-
these' minor amendments affect the public, industry and the NRC only in so f ar as they make the regulations easier to understand, implement, and enforce. Limiting the use of the 100 rem per hour-at 3 feet dose exemption to a reduction of no more than one physical protection category, and not allowing a drop below the lowest category, could af f ect two non power reactor licensees. It is estimated that 0.4 39 i
L N: . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
s . . .
- q,9 1 o-staff-years ~of~NRC effort over'2 years will'be. required for the rulemaking. This is a low priority rulemaking.
LCURRENT STATUS:
The rulemaking package -is being reviewed for office
-concurrence.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date. (EDO Approval) 04/04/88 Proposed Action to"DRA ' Division Director 12/29/88 Proposed Action to RES Director 01/04/G9 Proposed Action to Office Directors 01/24/89 Proposed Action to CRGR and ACRS--Not Applicable-p '
SCHEDULEDz ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to EDO- 03/30/89 (06/30/89)
Proposed Action to Commission--Not c'.pplicable
- Proposed Action Published 05/30/89 (07/31/89)
Final Action to Federal Register 04/04/90 NOTE: Timetable sc13eduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader-estimates.
40
-=
c M:
4 a
I - , .-
.RDB NUMBER: 162. LATEST UPDATE: 04/26/89
, LTITLE -
Comprehensive Quality Assurance in Medical Use and . a Standard of Care
.CFR. CITATION:
10'CFR 35 E 4
' ' ' LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS"0N SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER. ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Anthony Tse Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office,of Nuclear-Regulatory Research ,
Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3797
. ABSTRACT -
The Nuclear Regulatory "mmmission is considering whether to amend its regulations t require a comprehensive quality ,
assurance program-for medical licensees using byproduct materials. The purpose of this rulemaking action is to j address each source of error that can lead to a )
misadministration. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking was published to request public comment on the extent to .
which, in addition to the basic quality assurance procedures I (see " Basic Quality 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. J CURRENT STATUS:
In responding to SECY-88-156, Medical -Quality Assurance Rulemaking Options and Related Topics, the Commission . ;
,:. approved the staff recommendation that a draft proposed rule on _ comprehensive quality assurance, i f needed, would be j submitted to the Commission for consideration 12 months after 1 completion of the final rule on basic QA requirements (for basic QA rule, see RDB NUMBER: 95).
l l l l
)
L 1 1
1 l 41 l
r 4
'l
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
, ANPRM Published 10/02/87 52 FR 36949 ANPRM Public Comment Period End 12/31/07 i 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 proposed rule will start 04/90
! Proposed. rule (if needed) will be submitted to the Commission 04/91 p
42 i
a- '..
L
( '" y' vy y i-RDB NUMBER:- 186 LATEST UPDATE: 04/28/89 l' : TITLE:
Palladium-103 for Inter sti ti al Treatment of Cancer
.CF'R uCITATION:
10.CFR 35 LEGAO AUTHORITY: L To;Be Determined
' EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND.OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Dr. Anthony.N. Tse-Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC- 20555 301 492-3797L
-ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear ~ Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations' governing the medical uses of byproduct material.
The proposed regulation would add Palladium-103 sealed source as seeds to the 1.ist of sources permitted in 10 CFR Part 35 for use in cancer treatment. Under current NRC regulations, users must.have their licenses amended before they may use; Palladium seeds in. brachytherapy. The proposed rule, developed in response to a petition for rulemaking-(PRM-35-7), would allow the use of Palladium-103 seeds by each potential user (about '90 licensees) with either a
. simplified amendment or no amendment, depending upon the indi"idual license. An evaluation:of' potential radiation hazards to hospital personnel and the public showed a minimal risk 'if the seeds are used in accordance with the manufacturer's radiation safety and handling: instructions.
CURRENT' STATUS:
The proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register
-on April 6, 1989 (54 FR 13892). The public comment period is scheduled to close May 8,.1989. ;
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (PRM-35-7 Docketed) 12/09/88
- y Fast-track Processing Determinate on Made 01/12/89
. Draft FRN to' Cognizant Individuals f or 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 54 FR 13892
, 43
_ . . - _ _ . _ _A~..__a_.______.__m_.m___ ________.___,____,__________
s . . .
SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action Public Comment Period Ends 05/08/89 Final Action Published 04/09/90 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect'EDD-approved due. dates. Dates included.in parentheses, if any,, represent task leader estimates.
u l
44 l-
3 s' l ~~4
'RDB NUMBER: 189. LATEST UPDATE: 04/28/89 TITLE:
Day Firing Qualifications and Physical Fitness Programs for Security Personnel at Category I Fuel Cycle Facilities CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 773, Appendit H LEGAL AUTHORITY:
To De Determined EFFECTS ON GMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Donald R. Hopkins Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3784 ADSTRACT:
The proposed rule would require that security personnel qualify and requalify annually on specific standardized day firing courses using all assigned weapons. Current regulations require day firing qualification using a national 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 revision. Recent amendments to Part 73 added a requirement for night firing qualification using specific, designated firing courses. To ensure uniformity, the current day firing requirements should be compatible.
Additionally, current regulations specify that security personnel shall have no physical weaknesses that would adversely affect their performance of assigned job duties.
However, no regulatory standards exist for assuring that security personnel are physically fit to perform their duties. Requirements for a physical fitness program and fitness standards at Category I fuel cycle facilities for security personnel need to be added to the regulations in order to provide a uniform, enforceable program. Guidance will be developed to assure that such a program will not, at the same time, endanger the health of those. participating in it.
The proposed rule change would amend 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix H, to include day firing qualification courses in each type of required weapon as well as a standardized physical fitness training course and fitness standards for security personnel. Alternatives to the rulemaking would be 45
-______--_- __ __ _ _ a
g h -. .
n
\I to all'ow the Ntatus quo.to continue. Standardization of day
! firing courses to be consistent with those established for
. night-firing would be of negligible cost to the 3-4 affected i
' licensees and to the NRC since day firing qualification using L a' variety of firing courses is already being done. Physical
-fitness training. programs would incur moderate costs to the licensees in the area of personnel time and limited physical '
l fitness equipment. The cost to the'NRC would be in the area L of licensing and inspection activities. Neither area-of rulemaking'affects occupational exposure. It is estimated that 0.5 staff-years of effort over12 years will be required for this rulemaking of high priority. l l
CURRENT STATUS:
The EDO approved the rulemaking for initiation on' April 25, 1989.
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 Action to Commission--Not Applicable Proposed Action Published 05/31/90 (04/30/90)
Public Comment Period Ends (08/31/90)
Final Action to EDO O2/26/91 Final Action to Commission--Not Applicable Final' Action Published 04/30/91 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
4 46
k: .,
RDB NUMBER: 33' LATEST UPDATE: 04/28/b9 TITLE:
Standards lfor' Protection Against Radiation (Priority 1)
CFR CITATION:
101CFR 20 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
l 42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2095; 42.U'SC'2111; 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2273;- !
42 USC 5841; 42 USC.5842 i
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes
' AGENCY CONTACT:
Harold Peterson Nuclear Regulatory Commission j Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
. Washington, DC 20555 !
301 492-3640 l ABSTRACT:
[ 'Rediation protection philosophy and technology have changed
' markedly since the present Part 20 was promulgated nearly 30 1 years ago. Since Part 20 contains the NRC standards.for protection against radiation that are used by.all licensees and affectsLexposures of workers and. members of_the public, it should be the most basic of the NRC regulations. However, because:the present Part.20 has become outdated, most I radiation protection actions occur through. licensing actions ,
independent of Part 20. 4 complete revision is necessary to provide better assurance of protection against radiation; j establish a. clear health protection basis for the limits; :
reflect current information on health risk, dosimetry, and-radiation protection practices and experience; provide NRC j with a health protection base from which it may consider l other regulatory actions taken to protect public health; be consistent with recommendations of world authorities (ICRP);
l- and apply to all licensees in a consistent manner.
Alternatives to the complete revision considered were no action; delay for further guidance; and partial revision of ,
the standards. They were rejected as ignoring scientific l advancements; being unresponsive to international and national guidance; and correcting only some of the recognized ]
probleca with the present Part 20. Benefits would include
' updating the regulations to reflect contemporary scientific knowledge and radiation protection philosophy; implementing )
j regulations which reflect the ICRP risk-based rationale; reducing lif etime doses to individuals receiving the highest l i
h exposures; implementing provisions for summation of doses
)
47 a
'~
4
.?
l 1.-
from internal and external exposures; providing' clearly L identified dose limits for the public; and providing an
~
Understandable health-risk base for protection. {
'Ini ti al estimates of the cost of implementing the revision' is about $33 million'for all NRC and Agreement State licensees
'in'the the initial year and about-$8 million in each subsequent year. This cost does not include.any savings- .
which might also be realized. by the revision.
CURRENT STATUS: '
The finalfrulemaking was submitted to EDO on' September 27, i
.1988. An EDO briefing was held on October 27, 1988, and a Commission briefing was held on November 11, 1988. An ACNW briefing was held c:n December 21, 1988, and a. Commissioner's Assistants' briefing'was held on' December 22, 1988. The staff is currently resolving several issues associated with theJrulemaking package.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
'ANPRM 03/20/80 45 FR 18023 ANPRM Comment Period End 06/18/30 45 FR 18023 Rulemaking Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/85 Proposed' Action Published 12/20/85 50 FR 51992
-Proposed Action Comment Period End 05/12/86 51 FR 1092 Proposed Action Comment Period Extended to 10/31/86 Schedule f or Development of Final Rule to Commission 10/08/87 Preliminary Report / State Meeting 11/16-17/87 Division and Regional Review Completed 02/15/88 ACRS Subcommittee Meeting 05/31/88 ACRS Full Committee Meeting 06/03/88 Final Action to CRGR 06/07/88 CRGR Meeting 06/22/88 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 06/30/88 Final Action to EDO 09/27/88 Final Action to Commission 11/04/88 SECY-88-315 Commission Briefing 11/10/88 Meeting with NUMARC 02/22/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action Published 04/30/89 (06/30/89)
Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved NOTE:
due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent tack leader estimates.
l 48
-_-__7____
. ' ?* ; ..
I L
1
- RDB1 NUMBER: 51 LATEST' UPDATE: 04/28/89 j l
LTITLE:
Criteri a - f or an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (Priority 2)-
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 140 LEGALLAUTHORITY:
42'USC~2201;~42.USC-2210; 42 USC 5841; 42.USC 5842 EFFECTS'ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
HaroldLPeterson Nuclear Regulatory.. Commission' Office of' Nuclear. Regulatory Research .
Washington, DC 20555
(- 30i 492-3640 .
ABSTRACT:
The final rule will revise the ENO criteria to eliminate the problems that"were encountered in'the Three Mile Island ENO-determination. It is desirable to get revised criteria in place in the event they are needed.
There are no alternatives to this rulemaking, as the current 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 is no saf ety impact on public health or safety. The ENO1 criteria provide legal waivers of defenses. Industry (insurers and uti.lities) claims that a reduction in the ENO criteria could cause increases in insurance premiums. The final rule would also be responsive to PRM-140-1. l It' is estimated that approximately 1.0 staff years of NRC staf f L 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 potential difficulty in the. impact of the revised criteria has arisen which requires detailed reanalysis. This reanalysis. by a contractor has been delayed due to problems with the MACCS Code and higher ~ priority work relating to the revision of 10 CFR Part 20. In addition, recent personnel changes at the contractor have added to the delay. Also, there are ,
additional time demands on the task leader due to the !
revision of 10 CFR 20 (see RDB No. 33), multiple briefings on 49-
- s. ,
Part 20, and preparatory work for revising.a large number of regulatory guides.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action Published 04/09/85 50 FR 13978 Rulemaking Initiation Date (Ongoing) 06/12/85 Proposed Action Comment Period End 09/06/85 Final' Action For Division Review O2/17/87 Final Action to ACRS 10/08/87 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 11/25/87 Final Action to CR8R--Not Applicable b SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action to EDO Undetermined 0 Final Action to Commission . Undetermined Final Action Published Undetermined NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
i i
I l,
60
= - - - _ _ _ ____ -___-_-__ ____ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
I? ' s RDB NUMBER: 53 LATEST UPDATE: 04/27/89 TITLES.
, SafetyiRequirements for Industrial Radiographic Equipment
'(Priority 1)
"CFR CITATION:
-10'CFR 34
-LEGAL AUTHORITY: 1
- 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233 EFFECTS ON'SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY. CONTACT:
Donald O. Nellis Nuclear Regulatory Commission Officecof Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3628 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend the present regulations to i establish performance standards for industrial radiography exposure. devices. Overexposure of radiographer (and. .
occasionally the general public) are more than double that of other radiation workers and have been a concern to the NRC for some time. Approximately 40 percent of the radiography overexposure are associated with equipment malfunction. The issue of safety requirements for these devices is a primary concern since the devices' use relatively high intensity, high ;
energy gamma-ray emitting sources with the potential for j serious overexposure. Although a consensus standard for l radiographic exposure devices was published in 1981 (American l National Standard N432), it is not clear that all l
manufacturers are adopting the standard.
The alternatives considered were to take no action at this j 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, J supplemented by such other performance standards deemed l necessar.y; and to incorporate the consensus standard by reference in the regulations supplemented by such other performance. standards as deemed necessary, plus a requirement
[
for radiographer to wear alarm dosimeters.
The proposed rule would require licensees to modify radiographic devices to meet the performance standards through design changes and quality control procedures. Costs S of incorporating the proposed changes are estimated to be a l
51
.j
o 1
- i. .. .
J 1
I I
one-time cost of $1,625 per licensee to purchase alarm J l dosimeters and $830 annually for replacement of devices and i l alarm dosimeters, annual calibration of dosimeters and annual maintenance costs. Determination of the benefits to be derived from the proposed rule are difficult to determine on a monetary basis but the potential hazards that might be averted include radiation sickness, injury, and even death.
NRC resources required for processing this rule to final J publication are estimated to be 0.4 person-years. j CURRENT STATUS:
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on March 15, 1988 (53 FR 8460). The public comment period was scheduled to expire May 16, 1988. However, several groups in 1 the industry, including the Nondestructive Testing Association, requested long extensions to the public comment period (up to 120 days). NMSS agreed to a 90-day extension and the public comment period was extended until August 16, 1988 (53 FR 18096). To date, 88 comment letters have been received plus 399 responses to an ASNT survey that was circulated by the ASNT to poll their membership on various aspects of the proposed rule.
The final rulemaking package was submitted for office review on April 6, 1989.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIDNS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date 12/31/95 Proposed Action for Division Review 12/22/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 12/23/87 Proposed Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable Proposed Action to EDO 12/30/87 Proposed Action to Commi ssion 01/13/88 SECY-88-10 Commission Approval on Proposed Action 02/22/88 Proposed Action Publ.ished 03/15/88 53 FR 8460 Proposed Action Public Comment Period End 05/16/88 Proposed Action Public Comment Period Extended to 08/16/88 53 FR 18096 Final Action for Division Review 12/28/88 Final Action to ACRS/CRGR--Not Applicable Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 04/06/89 SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Final Action to EDO 04/28/89 (05/12/89)
Final Action to Commission 05/26/89 Final Action Published 06/30/89 NOTE: Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDD-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if any, represent task leader estimates.
52
' j { l'\L . ,
M '*d *i3.
j
.U.
(_ ,T p RDB NUMBER: 128 LATEST UPDATE: 04/28/89
. TITLE:
. Licensing and Radi ation .Saf ety Requirements f or Large Irradiators (Priority-1)
'CFR CITATION:
.10.CFR.36 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42'USC'2073; 42 USC'2093; ,42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2232;.
42 USC.2233; 42 USC 2273;.42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER' ENTITIES: Yes.
AGENCY CONTACT:
Stephen.A.' McGuire Nuclear Regulatory Commission Of fice of: Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC120555 301 492-3757 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regul'atory-Commission is developing regulations to specify radiation safety requirements and license requirements for the use of licensed radioactive materials in.
large irradiators. Irradiators.use gamma radiation to irradiate' products to change their characteristics in some way.. The requirements ~would'. apply to large panoramic 1
irradiators (those in which the radioactive sources and the
~
. material being irradiated are in a room that is accessible to personnel while the source is shielded) and certain large self-contained irradiators in which the source always remains under. water. The rule would not cover.small self-contained irradiators, instrument calibrators, medical uses of scaled sources - (such as teletherapy), or non-destructive testing
-(such as industrial radiography).
Th'e alternative to a regulation is continuing to license irradiators on a case-by-case basis'using license. conditions.
.The f ormalizati on would make the NRC 's requirements better understood and possibly speed the licensing of. irradiators.
. Development of the rule will require 2 staff-years of NRC effort.
~
CURRENT STATUS:
L The' final 1rulemaking package is being revised to accommodate OGC and Region I comments. All other offices have concurred.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTIONS:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 05/05/88 l
53 L =-_ . _-_________:_-______-_______-__ _- - _ _ .
Proposed Action for RES Director Review- 01/11/89 L Proposed' Action for Office Review 01/18/89 Proposed Action to ACRS 01/18/89 Proposed. Action to CRGR--Not Applicable Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 03/06/89
-SCHEDULED ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to EDO 04/05/89 (05/05/89)
Proposed. Action to Commission 05/05/89'(05/19/89).
Proposed Action Published 06/05/89 Final Action Published 05/05/90 NOTE- Timetable scheduled action dates reflect EDO-approved due dates. Dates included in parentheses, if 'any, represent task leader-estimates.
54
7'
/ 'l ji:l'&
4.*_ 'i
}-
c ...
RDB NUMBER: 148 . LATEST UPDATE: 04/28/89
' TITLE: '
' Nuclear Plant License Renewal 1.
.CFR CITATION:
10 CFR.50 LLEGAL AUTHORITY:-
x42 USC 2201;-42 USC 5841
. EFFECTS ON SMALL. BUSINESS AND.OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Donald P. Cleary.
' Nuclear Regul atory Commi ssion j Office of_ Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington,LDC 20555 301 492-3936 ABSTRACT. . ,
i
. License renewal rulemaking to provide regulatory requirements :
for extending nuclear power plant licenses beyond 40 years was initiated in response to the Commission's 1986 and 1987 policy and planning guidance. Current regulatory provisions permit license renewal but do not provide requirements for the form and content of a license renewal application nor the H standards of acceptability against which the application will
.be reviewed. This rulemaking is scheduled for' completion prior-to the anticipated submittal of license renewal applications for Yankee Rowe and Monticello in 1991. The rule will provide the basis f or' development and review of these two " lead plant" applicants and the concurrent devel opment' of i implementing regul atory guidance. Timely
. completion of the rule is critical for establishing standards for continued safe operation of power reactors during the license renewal term and providing the regulatory stability desired by utilities in determining.Whether to prepare for' license renewal or pursue alternative sources of generating g capacity. This rulemaking has been identified by the Chairman'as a major-topic to be monitored.
L I
p 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 1989.
Drafts of the proposed rule, the regulatory analysis, and the environmental assessment are undergoing staff review.
TIMETABLE:
COMPLETED ACTION 0:
ANPRM Published 08/29/88 53 FR 32919 l.
55 l 1
[_ _ ._. __ __________._____-._m__..___ __
'g;_ .tv',
ANPRM Public Comment Period End 10/28/88 SCHEDULED, ACTIONS:
Proposed Action to Offices'for Concurrence (05/15/89)
Proposed Action.to ACRS (05/05/G9)
Proposed Action to CRGR -05/31/89 Proposed Action to EDO 06/16/89 Proposed Action to Commission 06/30/89 Proposed Action Published 09/29/89 Final Acti on Publi shed' 12/31/90 ction dates refl'ect EDD-approved Lt ate = Ps incl ded 5, If any,.reprecent
' task leader estimates.
i r
l.
I l
56 h
I-L _ _* _ : -.
__ _ ____ _ __ _ - - " "'"^-"%-i____,_