ML20246P267
| ML20246P267 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/31/1989 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0936, NUREG-0936-V08-N01, NUREG-936, NUREG-936-V8-N1, NUDOCS 8905220131 | |
| Download: ML20246P267 (123) | |
Text
-__--
Vol. 8, No.1 NRC Regulatory Agenda Quarterly Report January - March 1989 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration
,s ~%,
5 # ;
I RM528Mi890532 0936 R PDR
)
I
h.
J i
I
)
Available from Superintend;.t of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Post Office Box 37082 Washington, D.C. 20013-7082 A year's subscription consists of 4 issues for this publication.
Single copies of this publication are available from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 i
i
)
l NUREG-0936 Vol. 8, No.1 i
NRC Regulatory Agenda a i
Quarterly Report
- January - March 1989 Manuscript Completed
- April 1989 Date Publhted: May 1989 Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services l Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 p" m.,
i i
L.--- ---------._-a - - . - - - - -
TABLE OF CONTENTS ,
l l
SECTION I - RULES j (A) Rules on Which final action has been taken since December 30, 1988 Page 1
Informal Hearing Procedures for Materials Licensing Adjudications (Part 2)........................................ 1 Issuance or Amendment of Power Reactor License or Permit l Following Initial Decision (Part 2)........................... 2 Freedom of Information Act; Appeal Authority for Deputy Executive Director for Operations (Part 9).................... 3*
Extension of Time for the Implementation of the Decontamination Priority and Relationship Provisions of Property Insurance Requirements (Part 50)..................... 4 Licensee Action During National Security Emergency (Part 50).... 5 Criteria and Procedures for Emergency Access to Non-Federal and Regional Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities (Part 62).... 6 Centralization of Material Control and Accounting Licensing and Inspection Activities for Non-Reactor Facilities (Parts 70, 74)................................................ 7*
(B) Proposed Rules Procedures Involving the Equal Access to Justice Act:
Implementation (Parts 1, 2)................................... 9 Modifications to the NRC 1: earing Process (Limited Interrogatories and Factual Basis for Contentions) (Part 2)... 10 Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings--
Procedural Changes in Hearing Process (Part 2)................ 11 NEPA Review Procedures for Geologic Repositories for High-Level Waste (Parts 2, 51, 60)................................. 12 l
iii
1
-Page Rule.on the Submission and Management of Records and Documents Related to the Licensing of a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste (Part 2)....................................................... 13 Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Federally Assisted Programs (Part 4)......................... 14 Debt Collection Procedures (Part 15)............................. 15 Sequestration of Witnesses Interviewed Under Subpoena /
Disqualification of Attorneys (Part 19)........................ 16 i
Standards for Protection Against Radiation (Part 20)............. 17 Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration from Nuclear Power Plants (Part 20)............................................... 19 Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance (Parts 21, 50).......... 21 Fitness for Duty Program (Part 26)............................... 23 Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive Materials Licensees (Parts 30, 40, 70)......................... 25 :
Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Equipment (Part 34)...................................................... 26 Basic Quality Assurance Program for Medical Use of Byproduct Material (Part 35)................................... 28 Amendment of 50.62(c)(4) to Clarify Equivalent Control Capacity for Standby Liquid Control Systems (Part 50).......... 29 i
Ensuring the Effectiveness of Maintenance Programs for Nuclear {
Power Plants (Part 50)......................................... 30 l l
Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled l Power Reactors (Part 50)....................................... 31
{
i Education and Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor J Operators and Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants (Parts 50, 55)................................................. 32 I
J IV
_.__._____.________________j
Page Tables S-3 and S-4, Addition of Radon-222 and Technetium-99 Radiation-Values, and Addition of Appendix B, " Table S-3 Explanatory Analysis" (Part 51)................................ 34 Early Site Permits; Standard-Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Reactors (Part 52)......... 36 Elimination of Inconsistencies Between NRC Regulations and EPA Standards (Part 60)......................................... 37 Disposal of Radioactive Wastes; Part 61 Amendments (Part 61)..... 38 Transportation Regulations: Compatibility With the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (Part 71)............ 39 Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (Part 140)...... 40 Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements; Miscellaneous Amendments Necessitated by Changes in the Price-Anderson Act (Part 140).................................. 41 Reasserting NRC's Sole Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States (Part 150)........ 42 (C) Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern; Generic Rulemaking (Parts 2, 20).................................................. 43 Medical Use of Byproduct Material: Training and Experience Criteria (Part 35)............................................. 44 Comprehensive Quality Assurance in Medical Use and a Standard of Care (Part 35).............................................. 45 Criteria for Licensing the Custody and Long-Term Care of Uranium Mill Tailings Sites (Part 40).......................... 46 Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures, Systems, and Components (Part 50)............ 47 Nuclear Plant License Renewal (Part 50).......................... 48 Regulation of Uranium Enrichment Facilities (Part 76)............ 49 1
v I
o_______________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
l l
Page
(
(D) Unpublished Rules Conduct of Employees; Miscellaneous Amendments (Part 0)......... 51*
! Revised. Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings L (Parts 0, 1, 2, 9, 50)........................................ 52 Informal Hearing Procedures for Nuclear Reactor Operator Licensing Adjudications (Part 2).............................. 53*
Availability of Official Records (Part 2)....................... 54 Revision of Definition of Meeting (Part 9)...................... 56 Twenty-Four Hour Notification of Incidents (Part 20)............ 57 Palladium-103 for Interstitial Treatment of Cancer (Part 35)..................................................... 58*
Licensing and Radiation Safety Requirements for Large Irradiators (Part 36)......................................... 59 Codes pnd Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (ASME Code, 1986/1987/1988 Addenda) (Part 50)............................. 60 Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (ASME Code,Section XI, Division 1, Subsection IWE) (Part 50)............. 61 Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 (Part 50)..................................................... 63 Amendment of the Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule (Part 50)....... 65 Personnel Access Authorization Program (Parts 50, 73)........... 67 Minor kmendments to Physical Protection Requirements (Parts 70, 72, 73, '/5)........................................ 69 Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC Approved Casks at Civilian Nuclear Power Reactor Site (Parts 72, 73, 74, 170)............................. ............................ 70 Night Firing Qualifications for Security Guards at Nuclear Power Plants (Part 73)........................................ 71 Access to Safeguards Information (Part 73)...................... 72 Export of Heavy Water to Canada (Part 110)...................... 73*
vi
i l,
Page Indemnification of Licensees that Manufacture, Produce, Possess or Use Radiopharmaceuticals or Radioisotopes for Medical Purposes (Part 140)................................... 74 NRC Acquisition Regulation (NRCAR) (48 CFR Chapter 20, Parts 1-52)......................................................... 75 SECTION II - PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING l
(A) Petitions incorporated into final rules l
or petitions denied since December 30, 1988 l Gene-Trak Systems (PRM-31-4).................................... 77 Public Interest Research Group, et al. (PRM-100-2).............. 78 (B) Petitions for which a notice of denial has been prepared and is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register next quarter Free Environment, Inc., et al. (PRM-50-20)...................... 79 l
(C) Petitions incorporated into proposed rules Theragenics Corporation (PRM-35-7).............................. 81 (D) Petitions pending staff review l The Rockefeller University (PRM-20-17).......................... 83 1
The Rockefeller University (PRM-20-18).......................... 84 GE Stockholders' Alliance (PRM-20-19)........................... 85*
Citizens' Task Force (PRM-50-31)........,....................... 86 Kenneth G. Sexton (PRM-50-45)................................... 87 State of Maine (PRM-50-46)...................................... 88 University of Missouri (PRM-50-48).............................. 89 vii
Page
. Charles Young (PRM-50-50)....................................... 90 American Nuclear Insurers and MAERP Reinsurance Association, Edison Electric Institute, Nuclear Utility Management and Resource Council, and Nuclear Mutual Limited and Nuclear' Electric Insurance Limited (PRM-50-51, PRM-50-51A, PRM-50-51B)............................ 91 Marvin Lewis (PRM-50-52)........................................ 92 (E) Petitions with deferred action Sierra Club (PRM-40-23)......................................... 93 viii
I
)
Preface ,
The Regulatory Agenda is a quarterly compilation of all rules on which the NRC has recently completed action or has proposed, ,
or is considering action and of all petitions for rulemaking !
that the NRC has received that are pending disposition. l 1
Organization of the Agenda i The agenda consists of two sections that have been updated through March 31, 1989.Section I, " Rules," includes (A) rules on which final action has been taken since December 30, 1988, the closing date of the last NRC Regulatory Agenda; (B) rules published previously as proposed rules on which the Commission has not taken final action; (C) rules published as advance notices of proposed rulemaking for which neither a proposed nor final rule has been issued; and (D) unpublished rules on which the NRC expects to take action.
Section II, " Petitions for Rulemaking," includes (A) petitions denied or incorporated into final rules since December 30, 1988; (B) petitions for which a notice of denial has been prepared and is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register next quarter; (C) petitions incorporated into proposed rules; (D) petitions pending staff review, and (E) petitions with deferred action.
In Section I of the agenda, the rules are ordered from the lowest to the highest part within Title 10, Chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 10). If more than one rule appears under the same part, the rules are arranged within that part by date of most recent publication. If a rule amends multiple parts, the rule is listed under the lowest affected part. In Section II of the agenda, the petitions are ordered from the lowest to the highest part of Title 10 and are identified with a petition for rulemaking (PRM) number. If more than one petition appears under the same CFR part, the petitions are arranged by PRM numbers in consecutive order within that part of Title 10.
The dates listed under the heading " Timetable" for scheduled action by the Commission or the Executive Director for
! Operations (EDO) on particular rules or petitions are considered tentative and are not binding on the Commission or its staff. They are included for planning purposes only. This Regulatory Agenda is published to provide the public carly ix
notice and opportunity to piirticipate in the rulemaking process. However, the NRC may ccnsider or act on any rulemaking proceeding even if it is not included in this l Regulatory Agenda.
Rulemakings Approved by the Executive Director for Operations (EDO)
The Executive Director for Operations initiated a procedure for the review of the regulations being prepared by sraff offices that report to him to ensure that staff resources were being allocated to achieve most effectively NRC's regulatory priorities. This procedure requires EDO approval before staff resources may be expended on the development of any new rulemaking. Furthermore, all existing rules must receive EDO approval prior to the commitment of additional resources.
Rules that have received EDO approval to date are identified by the symbol (+). As additional rules receive EDO approval, they will be identified in subsequent editions of this agenda.
Those unpublished rules whose further development has been terminated will be noted in this edition of the agenda and deleted from subsequent editions. Rules whose termination was directed subsequent to publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking will be removed from the agenda after publication of a notice of withdrawal. Rules and Petitions for Rulemaking that appear on the agenda for the first time are identified by an asterisk (*).
Public Participation in Rulemaking Comments on any rule in the agenda may be sent to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.
Comments may also be hand delivered to one White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m.
and 4:15 p.m. Comments received on rules for which the comment period has closed will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before the closure dates specified in the agenda.
X
The agenda and any comments received on any rule listed in the I agenda are available for public inspection, and copying at a i cost of ten cents per page, at the Nuclear Regulatory l Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW.,
Lower Level, Washington, DC, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.
Additional Rulemaking Information For further information concerning NRC rulemaking procedures or the status of any rule listed in this agenda, contact Betty Golden, Regulations Assistant, Regulatory Publications Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone (301) 492-4268 (persons outside the Washington, DC metropolitan area may call toll-free: 800-368-5642). For further information on the substantive content of any rule listed in the agenda, contact the individual listed under the heading " Agency Contact" for that rule.
l l
l l
l i
)
l I
X1 l .
1
I l
l- 3.1; _
t
l (A) Rules on Which Final Action Has Been Taken Since December 30, 1988 l
l l
l L_________________________
l l
l 1
I i
1 l
l l
l 1
l l
1 l
l
TITLE:
-Informal Hearing Procedures for Materials Licensing Adjudications CFR CITATION:
. ABSTRACT: . .
The final rule amends the Connission's regulations concerning its rules of practice to provide _ comprehensive treatment of hearing procedures to be'~ implemented by the Commission for materials licensing proceedings. These procedures will reduce the economic L burden on participants in a materials licensing proceeding.
TIf1ETABLE:
Final Action Published 02/28/89, 54 FR 8269 Final Action Effective 03/30/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC'2201; 42 USC 2111-EFFECTS ON Sf4ALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY C0flTACT:
Paul Bollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1634 L
1
L TITLE:
Issuance or Amendment of Power Reactor License or Pernit Following Initial Decision CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:
The final rule amends the Commission's "inmediate effectiveness" regulation that specifies uhen an initial adjudicatory decision authorizing the issuance or amendment of a license or permit becomes effective.
TIMETABLF:
Fina; Action Published 02/23/89 54 FR 7756 Final Action Effective 03/27/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Paul Bollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1634 l
i
TITLE: l
- Freedom of Information Act; Appeal Authority for Deputy Executive Director for Operations i
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 9 ABSTRACT:
The final rule amends the Commission's regulations concerning the Freedom of Information Act to reflect the recent reorganization within the Office of the Executive Director for Operations. This amendment will permit a Deputy Executive Director for Operations to respond to appeals in lieu of the Executive Director for Operations.
TIMETABLE:
{ Final Action Published 03/10/89 54 FR 10138 Final Action Effective 03/10/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 12 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGEf;CY CONTACT:
Donnie H. Grimsley Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7211 1
l l
1 l
r l
I 3
l
i TITLE:
Extension of Tine for the Implementation of the Decontamination Priority and F. relationship Provisions of Property Insurance Requirements CFR CITATION:
10 CFR EO ABSTRACT:
The final rele amends the implementation schedule for the decontamination priority and trusteeship provisions of its property insurance regulations contained in 10 CFR 50.54(v5)(i) to change the effective date from October 3, 1988 to Apri\ 1, 1990.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 03/17/89 54 FR 11161 Final Action Effective 03/17/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY C0flTACT:
Robert S. Wood fluclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1280 4
TITLE:
Licensee Action During National Security Emergency CFR CITAT10!!:
10 CFR 50 i l
i ABSTRACT: 1 The final rule amends the Commission's regulations governing the i domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities to allow ,
a licensee during a national security emergency to deviate from a license condition or a technical specification. The Commission previously has granted authority to nuclear power reactor licensees to take reasonable action that departs from a license condition or a technical specification in an emergency when the action is immediately necessary to protect the public health and safety and no action consistent with license conditions and technical specifications that can provide adequate or equivalent protection is immediately apparent. This final rule nrovides the sane flexibility to licensees, but for the purpose nf attaining national security objectives during a declared national emergency due to nuclear var or natural disaster.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 02/17/89 f4 FR 7178 Final Action Effective 03/20/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846.
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AtID OTHER ENTITIES: No l
AGENCY CONTACT:
Joan Aron Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data Washincton, DC 20555 301 492-9001 l
l I j 3
i 5
TITLE:
Criteria and Procedures for Emergency Access to Non-Federal ard Regional Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 62 ABSTRACT:
The final rule amends the Commission's regulations to establish procedures and criteria for fulfilling NRC's responsibilities associated with acting on requests by low-level radioactive waste generators, or State officials on behalf of_those generators, for' emergency 6ccess to operating, non-Federal or. regional, low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities under Section 6 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985
!. (LLRWPAA). Section 6 of the LLRWPAA authorizes the NRC to' grant emergency access to any non-Federal low-level waste disposal f acility, if recessary, to eliminate the immediate and serious threat to the public health and safety or the common defense and security, provided the threat cannot be mitigated by any.
alternative.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 02/03/89 54 FR 5409 Final Action Effective 03/06/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2021 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Janet Lambert Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3855 l
6 l
j
TITLE:
- Centralization of Material Control and Accounting Licensing and Inspection Activities for Non-Reactor Facilities CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 74 ABSTRACT:
The final rule amends the Commission's regulations concerning material control and accounting (MC&A) to reflect a management action to centralize MC&A licensing and inspection activities in NRC Headquarters, Rockville, Maryland, for non-reactor facilities.
Effective February 15, 1989, for affected facilities located in Regions I, III, and V, MC&A licensing reviews required by 10 CFR 70.32(c) and inspections will be performed by the Domestic Safeguards and Regional Oversight Branch, Division of Safeguards l and Transportation, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. !
The performance of these activities for facilities located in Region II will remain in Region II until further notice by the Commission.
This action is necessary because the small number of affected facilities in each region cannot support the full spectrum of knowledge, skills, and discipline needed to conduct MC&A inspections. I TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 02/15/89 54 FR 6876 Final Action Effective 02/15/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGEllCY CONTACT: ;
Dr. Stanley L. Dolins/Priscilla A. Dwyer Nuclear Regulatory commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3745/0478 I
l 7
i
i (B) Proposed Rules i
l l
l l
l l
l 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - m_._._._ __..__.___ . _____
l i
i
-l TITLE. i Procedures Involving the Equal Access to Justice Act: !
Implementation:
CFR CITATION: l 10 CFR 1; 10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT: ;
i The proposed rule would implement;the Equal Access to Justice .
l- Act (EAJA) by'providing for the payment of fees and expenses to l: certain eligible individuals and businesses that prevail in agency adjudications when the agency's position is determined
- not to have been substantially justified. This proposed regulation is modeled after' rules issued by the Administrative Conference 1 of the United States (ACUS) and have been modified to conform to i L
NRC's established rules of practice. The proposed rule would ;
further the EAJA's intent to develop government-wide, " uniform" agency regulations and would describe llRC procedures and.
requirements for the filing and disposition of EAJA applications.
A draft final rule was sent to the Commission in June 1982, but Commission action was suspended pending a decision by the- !
l Comptroller General.on the availability of funds to pay awards to intervenor parties. This issue was also the subject of litigation in Business and Professional People for the Public Interest v. NRC, 7T3 F.2d 1366 (D.C. Cir. 19 W). This litigation is being evaluated to determine what if any changes may be necessary in'the proposed rule.
Additionally, in August 1985, the President signed into law an enactment renewing the EAJA-after its expiration under a statutory sunset requirement. This legislation, Pub. L. No. 99-80, revises the EAJA, and these revisions are being evaluated to determine whether further conforming changes nay be necessary in ;
the proposed rule. j l
TIMETABLE: j Proposed Action Published 10/28/81 46 FR 53189 '
Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 11/28/81 46 FR 53189 l Next Action Undetermined ;
LEGAL AUTHORITY: -!
5 USC 504 !
L EFFECTS OH SMALL BUSIllESS AUD OTHER EliTITIES: flo AGENCY CONTACT:
Paul Bollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 L Office of the General Counsel l Washington, DC 20555 l 301 492-1634 9
w-_____-__-_____---___- ._
[.
TITLE:
Modificat~ ions to the NRC Hearing Process (Limited Interrogatories and Factual Basis for Contentions)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2-ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would expedite conduct of.NRC adjudicatory proceedings by requiring interveners in formal NRC hearinos to o set forth the facts on which contentions are based and the sources or documents used to establish those facts and limit the- .
number of interrogatories that a party may file in an NRC )
i proceeding. The proposed rule would expedite the hearing process i by, among other things, requiring interveners to set forth at the !
outset the. facts upon which their contention is based and the supporting documentation to give other parties early notice of intervenor's case so as to afford opportunity for early dismissal 3 of contentions where there is no factual dispute. Expediting the j hearing process should ultimately provide cost savings to all j participants in the process. The content of this rule is being.
considered as part of the regulatory reform rulemaking package.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 06/08/81 46 FR 30349 Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 06/29/81 Final Action Published 06/00/89 LEGAL-AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2239 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSIllESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Karen D. Cyr Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1637 10
TITLE:
Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings--Procedural Changes in Hearing Process CFR CITATION: ,
10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would address the following aspects of the hearing process: ad:aission of contentions, discovery against NRC staff, use of cross examination plans, timing of motions for
. summary disposition and limitations on matters and issues that may be included in proposed findings of fact or. conclusions of law, or in an appellate brief submitted by a person who'does not have the burden of proof or who has only a limited interest in the proceeding. These proposals were initially developed by the Regulatory Reform Task Force and published for public comment, together with a number of other proposals, as suggestions for l
procedural changes in the licensing of. nuclear power plants (49 FR 14698; April 12, 1984). The Commission has decided not to proceed with the April 1984 proposals, except to the extent that they were included in this proposed rule. Therefore, the April 1984 proposals have been deleted from the regulatory agenda.
The NRC is also considering related amendments on the process-of intervention that were developed by former Commissioner Asselstine.
I The staff is analyzing public comments received on the proposals and expects to forward a recommendation for the Commission's consideration.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 07/03/86 51 FR 24365 Proposed Action Comment Period Extended to 10/17/86 51 FR 31340 Final Action Published 06/00/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC C841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER EfRITIES: llo l
AGENCY CONTACT:
Karen D. Cyr Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1637 l
11
TITLE:
NEPA Review Procedures for Geologic Repositories for High-Level Waste CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would provide procedures for performing an environmental review of High Level Waste geologic repositories.
Part 51 contains no provisions for the environmental review of a license application for a HLW repository. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established requirements for environmental reviews that are at variance with the environmental reviews that the NRC performs in licensing other types of nuclear facilities.
This issue must be addressed in order to avoid delay in the U.S.
HLW Program. The proposed rule would benefit the public, industry, and NRC by clarifying licensing procedures, thus avoiding case determinations and possible litigation during HLW geologic repository licensing. Minor revisions to Part 60 will be necessary to conform to the environmental requirements of the NWPA.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 05/05/88 53 FR 16131 Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 08/03/88 Final Action Published 05/15/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSIllESS At:D OTHER ENTITIES: No AGEllCY CONTACT:
James R. Wolf Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn Office of the General Counsel Washincton, DC 20555 301 492-1641 1
12
TITLE:
Rule on the Submission and Management of Records and Documents Related to the Licensing of a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2 l
ABSTRACT: '
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) provides three years for the NRC to reach a decision on construction authorization for a high-level waste repository. In order for the NRC to be able to make its decision within the allotted time, ready access to all pertinent record 3'must be assured l to all parties in the. licensing proceeding. The DOE has committed to 4 L develop an electronic information management system to be used for the l licensing proceeding. The NRC staff has used the process of negotiated rulemaking to develop a proposed rule that would revise the Commission's discovery proceaure and motion practice in 10 CFR Part 2 for the high-level waste licensing proceeding. This rule would require the DOE license application and all supporting records to be provided in a standardized electronic format. All parties to the licensing proceeding would be required to submit all relevant data to this system. In turn, all parties would have access to the data base.
Resource estimates currently under development.
TIMETABLE:
l hotice of Intent Published 12/18/86 51 FR 45338 Notice of Intent / Comment Period Expires 02/18/86 Notice of Formation of Negotiating Committee 08/05/87 52 F!' 29024 Proposed Action Published 11/03/88 53 FR d4411 Prnposed Action Comment Period Ends 12/05/88 l Final Action to Commission 01/30/89 I
Final Action Published 04/00/89 l
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
HWPA, AEA EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: To be determined AGENCY CONTACT:
Francis X. Cameron Nuclear Rtgulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1623 13
L l
-TITLE: .
Enforcement of flondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in
' Federally Assisted Programs 4 CFR CITATION:
~ 10 CFR 4 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations concerning' enforcement of section.E04 of the Rehabilitation Act.of 1973, as' amended, in federally assisted programs or activities to include a cross-reference to the Uniform Federal Accessibility-Standards (UFAS)' ~Because some facilities subject to new-construction or alteration requirements under section 504 are also:
subject to the Architectural Barriers Act,-government wide reference-to UFAS will diminish the possibility that recipients of Federal' financial. assistance vould face conflicting enforcement standards.
In addition, reference to UFAS by all Federal funding agencies will reduce potential conflicts when a building is' subject to the section 504 regulations of more than one Federal agency.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 03/08/89 54 FR 9966 Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 05/08/89 Final Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
.42 USC 2201;'42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON Sf4ALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: fio AGENCY C0flTACT:
Eduard E. Tucker fluclear Regulatory Commission Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization / Civil Rights Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7697 l 14 l
l
TITLE:
Debt Collection Procedures CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 15 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations concerning the procedures that the NRC uses to collect the debts which are owed to it. The proposed amendments are necessary to conform NRC regulations to the amended procedures contained in the Federal Claims Collection Standards issued by the General Accounting Office and the U.S. Department of Justice. The proposed action is intended to allow the NRC to further improve its collectir.n of .
debts due to the United States. Because the proposed reculation is l l necessary to implement the Debt Collection Act of 1982, there is no :
suitable alternative to rulemaking for this action. No comments were i received on the proposed rule. l TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 10/07/88 53 FR 39480 Proposed Action Comment Period End 11/21/88 Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
31 USC 3711; 31 USC 3717; 31 USC 3718; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 l EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Graham D. Johnson Muclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Controller l Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7535 l
l 15
TITLE:
Sequestration of Witnesses Interviewed Under Subpoena /
Disqualification of. Attorneys CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 19 ABSTRACT:
The. proposed rule would provide for the sequestration of all persons compelled to appear before the NRC representatives under subpoena ,
during the conduct of investigative interviews. 'The proposed rule would also give the agency official conducting the investigation (after consultation with the Office of the General Counsel) the authority to disqualify an attorney who represents multiple interests from~the-investigative interviews of other witness clients or from the investigatory proceedings e'ntirely ~uhenever the attorney impairs or impedes the progress of the investigation. The proposed rule would require the official to have evidence of the attorney's improper conduct and must provide the excluded counsel a written statement of reasons for the disqualification. The proposed rule would also provide disqualified counsel.a right to Commission review of the disqualification decision. The proposed rule is intended to clarify and delineate the rights and responsibilities of the agency, interviewees, licensees, and attorneys during the conduct.of agency investigations. The proposed rule is also intended to promote candor in the investigative process and to facilitate an expeditious resolution of agancy investigations.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 11/14/88 53 FR 45768 Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 01/10/89 Final Action Published Undetermined ,
1 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 1 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSit!ESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: llo AGENCY CONTACT: ,
Carolyn F. Evans ;
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,
I Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 f 301 492-1632 i
16 l
i l
i I
. TITLE:
Standards for Protection Against Radiation CFR CITATION: i 10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:-
The proposed rule would revise Part 20 of the Commission's regulations
.in.its entirety. Radiation protection philosophy and. technology:have changed markedly since the present Part 20 was promulgated nearly 30-years ago. Because Part 20 contains the NRC standards for protection against radiation that are used by all licensees.and L affects exposures of workers ud members of the ;d%, it should be the most basic of the NRC regulations. However, bv.cuse the present Part.20 has become outdated, most radiation protection
-actions occur through licensing actions independent of Part 20. A i complete revision is necessary to provide better assurance of l protection against radiation; establish a clear health protection basis for the limits; reflect current information on health risk, dosimetry, and radiation protection practices and experience; provide NRC with a health protection base from which.it may consider other regulatory actions taken to protect public health; be consistent with recommendations of world authorities, International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP);
and apply to all licensees in a consistent manner.
Alternatives to the complete revision considered were no action, delay for further guidance, and partial revision of the standards. These were rejected as ignoring scientific advancements, being unresponsive to international and national guidance, and correcting only some of the recognized problems with the present Part 20.
Benefits would include updating the regulations to reflect contemporary scientific knowledge and radiation protection philosophy; implementing regulations which reflect the ICRP.
risk-based rationale; reducing lifetime doses to individuals receiving the highest exposures; implementing provisions for summation of doses from internal and external exposures; providing clearly identified dose limits for the public; and providing an understandable health-risk base for protection.
The cost of implementing the revision is estimated to be $33 million for all NRC and Agreement State licensees in the initial year and about $8 million in each subsequent year. This cost l' does not include any savings which might also be realired by the I revision.
- l. 17 )
I
[
TITLE:
Standards for Protection Against Radiation TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 03/20/80 45 FR 18023 ,
ANPRM Comment Period Ends- 06/18/80 45 FR 18023 Proposed Action Published 12/20/85 50 FR 51992 Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 05/12/86 51 FR 1092 Proposed Action Comment Period Extended to 10/31/86 Final Action for Division Review 02/15/88 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 06/30/88 Final Action Package to ED0 09/27/88 Final Action to Commission (SECY-88-315) 11/04/88 Final Action Published 04/30/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Harold T. Peterson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3640 l
l l
l 18
-l
-TITLE:
Disposal of Waste Oil by. Incineration from Nuclear. Power Plants j CFR CITATION: i 10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule, which is being initiated in partial response to a.
petition filed by Edison Electric Institute and Utility Nuclear Waste .
Management Group (PRM 20-15, dated. July 31,1984). would amend NRC regulations to allow onsite incineration of waste oil at nuclear power plants subject to specified conditions. Currently, the only approved disposal method for low-level, radioactively contaminated vaste oil from nuclear power plants involves absorption or solidification, transportation to, and burial at a_ licensed disposal. site. There is a clear need to allow, for very low activity level wastes, the use of alternative disposal methods which are more cost effective from a radiological health and safety standpoint and which conserve the limited disposal' capacity of low-level uaste burial sites.-
Increased savings to both the public and the industry could thereby-be achieved without imposing additional risk to the public health-and safety. There would be an estimated industry-wide economic savings-of approximately $3 million to $12 million per year if this rule were promulgated.
Alternatives to this rulemaking action are to maintain the status quo or to wait until the Environmental Protection Agency ' develops standards on acceptable levels of radioactivity which may be released to the environment on an unrestricted basis. It is estimated that approximately 1-2 person years of IIRC staff time will be required to process this -
rule.-
k - TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to EDO 06/21/88 Proposed Action Published 08/29/88 f3 FR 32914 l' Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 10/28/88 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence Undetermined i Final Action to ED0 Undetermined Final Action to Commission Undetermined Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2167; 42 USC 2073
/
EFFECTS OH SMALL BUSillESS A!!D OTHER EfiTITIES: I:o l
l 19
.-.m__#__.. ._ =_ _-__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ - - , _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - m u-________mm__.m-.-_..,.----c__---A--__________.__._- .
TITLE:
Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration from Nuclear Pouer Plants AGENCY CONTAC1:
Catherine R. Mattsen Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of !!uclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3638 1
4 l
l l
1 I
l 20
i TITLE: i Proposed Revisions'to'the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
This proposed rule would amend 10 CFR Part 21 and 550.55(e), both.
of. which reacire .the reporting of safety defects ty licensees.
In addition;.Part 21 requires reperting by non-licensees. This-proposed amendment was prompted by the TMI- Action Plan Task II, J.4 l and NRC staff experience with Part 21 and $50.55(e) reporting.
The ' main objectives of the rulemaking effort are: (1)eliminationof duplicate evaluation and reporting of safety defects; (2) establish'
, consistent threshold for safety defect reporting in Part 21 and l- 650.55(e); (3) establish consistent and uniform content of renorting under Part 21 and $50.55(e); and (4)' establish consistent time limits for reporting defects.
Approximately 300 reports are submitted to the Commission annually under Part 21. Approximately 900 reports are submitted to the Commission annually under 550.55(e). These reports identify both plant-specific and generic safety defects for further NRC regulatory action. Under current rules, these reports have formed I the basis for NRC issuance of numerous NRC ceneric connunications.
This troposed rulemaking will reduce the notential for duplicate reporting and evaluation of safety defects which now cxist. The rulemaking will establish a more coherent regulatory framework that is expected to reduce industry reporting and evaluation burden significantly without reducing safety effectiveness.
Alternatives to the rulemaking approach that were considered varied from establishment of a single rule for all reporting of safety defects and operating reactor events to maintaining the status quo for defect reporting. All alternatives were rejected since they would not substantially improve the current safety defect reporting situation.
Current costs of reportina under Part 21 and 950.55(e) are estimated at $6.67 million annually for industry and $670,000 annually for tlRC evaluations. It is anticipated that the annual industry reporting burden shorld be reduced by approximately $1.0 million, while NRC l burden should remain the same. Additional industry burden, though I minimal, is anticipated in the area of reissuing procedures for reporting, training, and recordkeeping.
21
TITLE: 4 Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance TIMETABLE:
Proposed Initial Actinn to Commission 12/16/85 ;
Commission Rejected Proposed Action 10/20/86 1 Revised Proposed Action Published 11/04/88 53 FR 44594 l Public Action Comment Period Ends 01/03/89 i Office Concurrence of Final Action Complete 05/00/89 '
ACRS and CRGR Review 06/00/89 Revised Final Action to ED0 07/00/89 Final Action to Cornission 07/0C/89 Final Action Published 07/00/89 LEGAL AUTil0RITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2282; ^2 USC 5841; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSIt!ESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: !!o AGENCY C0!! TACT:
William R. Jones l
liuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Analyr.is and Evaluation of Operational Data Washington, DC 2055L 301 492-4442 l
22 ,
TITLE:
Fitness for Duty Program CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 26 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule vould create a new part to the Commission's regulations to require licensees authorized to operate nuclear power reactors to implement a fitness for duty program that will provide reasonable assurance that activities associated with nuclear power plant operations are carried out in an environment that is free from the effects of alcohol and drug abuse. The proposed rule provides for basic fitness for duty program elements such as the development of written policy and procedures, provisions for the training of supervisors and employees, standards for drug testing, requirements for employee assistance programs, management actions, and appeal procedures. (
The proposed rule represents the culmination of several years of effort in developing a fitness for duty program. On August 5, 1982, the Commission published a proposed rule (47 FR 33980).
Based on comments received and staff analysis, final rulemal:ing vas deferred and a policy statement was published on August 4, 1980 (51 FR27921). On December 1, 1987, the Commission was briefed on the experiences gained to date under the policy statement and on the status of implementation. The Corolission then requested the staff to prepare a new proposed rule.
The estimated incremental cost to industry is between $160.7 million and $243.3 million for the life of currently licensed plants. NRC costs to review and oversee implementation, and operation of the programs will involve C staff persons at a cost between $t million and $6 million for a 25-year period.
TIMETABLE:
Prcposed Action Published 09/22/88 E3 FR 3C795 Proposed Action Comuent Perioc' Ends 11/21/88 Final Action to C.RGR 12/23/88 Final Action to ACRS 12/23/88 Final Action to EDO 01/27/89 Final Action to Commission 04/01/89 Final Action Published C7/00/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL DUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIE5: No 23
- TITLE:
Fitness for Duty Program AGENCY enNTACT:
I " a L., Bush l iiuc12ar Regulatory Commission f
UTrice of Nuclear Reactor Reaulation Washinrton, DC 20555 301 492-0944 i
l f
I i
4 I
J 24 i
i TITLE:-
Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive j Materials Licensees ;
l CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70 ABSTRACT: .
The proposed rule would require about 30 fuel cycle and other radioactive materials licensees to submit an emergency plan that would, among other actions, require the notification of local authorities in case of an accident and.that the licensee recommend protective actions for the public. The proposed rule is intended to further protect the public from accidental exposure to radiation. The affected licensees are those whose possession limits indicate the potential for an accident that could. deliver a radiation dose offsite exceeding one rem effective dose equivalent or 5 rems to the thyroid or could cause a soluble uranium inhalation of 2 milligrams (a chemical toxicity hazard).
' Currently the proposea requirements are, for the most part, required by order. However, the Commission decided that a regulation was needed for the long tern. The cost of the rule to licensees was estimated to be between $26,000 and $73,000 per year ~per licensee.
The cost to NRC was estimated to be $4,000 per year per licensee.
The NRC will e> pend about 2 staff-years of effort to promulgate i the rule.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 06/03/81 46 FR 29712 ANPRM Comment Period End 08/03/81 46 FR 29712 Proposed Action Published 04/20/87 52 FR 12921 Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 07/20/87 52 FR 12921 Office Concurrence or final Action Completed 10/16/87 Final Action to E00 03/02/88 Final Action to Commission (SECY-88-204) 07/20/88 Final Action Published 04/00/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
fiichael Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3918 25
_ . _ _ _ _ _ _____-._________-_________________________________________ _ _ ____ _ _____ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ a
TITLE:
Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Equipment CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 34 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend the Commission's present regulations to establish performance standards for industrial radiography exposure devices. Overexrosures of radiographer (and occasionally the general public) are more than double that of other radiation workers and have been a concern to the HRC for some tii:e. ;
Approximately 25-35 percent of the radiography overexposure are l associated with equipment malfunction. The issue of safety i requirements for these devices is a primary concern since the devices use relatively high intensity, high energy gamma-ray emitting sources with the potential for serious overexposure. Although a consensus-standard for radiographic exposure devices vas published in 1981 (American National Standard N432), it is not clear that all manufacturers are adopt ng the standard.
The alternatives considered were to take no action at this time; amend the regulations to require pteformance standards for radiographic devices plus a requireme.nt for radiographer to wear alarm dosimeters and simultaneously issce a reculatory guice endorsing the consensus standard, supplemented by such other performance standards deemed necessary; and incorporate the consensus standard by reference in the regulations supplemented by such other performance standards as deemed necessary, plus a requirement for radiographer to wear alarm dosimeters.
The proposed rule would require licensees to modify radiographic devices to meet the performance standards through design changes and quality control procedures. Costs of incorporating the proposed changes are estimated to be a one-time cost of $1,625 per licensee to purchase alarm dosimeters and
$850 annually for replacement of devices and alarm dosimeters, annual calibration of dosimeters and annual maintenance costs.
Determination of the ber.efits to be derived from the proposed rule are difficult to determine on a monetary basis but the potential hazards that might be averted include radiation sickness, injury, and even death. NRC resources required for processing this rule to final publication are estimated to be 0.4 person-years.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 03/15/88 53 FR 8460 Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 05/16/88 Proposed Action Public Comment Extended to 08/16/88 53 FR 18096 Final Action to EDO 04/28/89 Final Action to Commission 05/26/89 Final Action Published 06/30/89 26
l TITLE Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Equipment LEGAL AUTHORITY: !
42 USC 2111; t,2 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233 {
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSIt!ESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT: 1 i
Donald O. !!ellis Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3628 l
l l
27
H TITLE: i Basic' Quality Assurance Progran for Medical Use of Byproduct Material CFR CITATION:
' ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations concerning the medical use of byproduct material. The proposed amendments would require its nedical licensees-to implement a written basic cuality assurance program that is designed.to prevent, detect, and correct the cause of errors in the administration of byproduct naterial.
The. proposed action is necessary to provide for improved patient safety. The proposed amendment, which is' intended to reduce the potential for and severity of therapy misadministration,. would primarily affect hospitals, clinics, and individual physicians.
The' proposed rule would also modify reporting and recordkeeping requirements for diagnostic and therapy events.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 10/02/87 52 FR 35942 Proposed Action Comnent Period Ends 12/'il/87 Options Paper to Office for Concurrence 05/13/88 Options Paper on QA Rulemaking to EDO 05/26/88 Revised Options Paper on QA Rulemaking.to EDO 05/31/88 Option Paper to Commission 06/03/88 SECY-88-156 SRM Issued Directing Re-Proposal of Basic QA Rule 07/12/88 Proposed Action for Division Review 12/fG/88 Workshop on Basic QA Rule and Draf t Regulatory Guide 01/30-31/89 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 03/31/89 Proposed Action to EDO 04/14/89 Proposed Action to Commission 0?/21/89 Proposed Action Published CG/00/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; a2 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No l AGENCY CONTACT: !
Anthony Tse Huclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3797 28
i I
2 j
TITLE:
Amendment of 50.62(c)(4) to Clarify Equivalent Control Capacity for Standby Liquid Control Systems l CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would clarify the Commission's regulations pertaining to boiling water reactors (BWR). The current regulations require that all boiling water reactors must have a standby liquid control system (SLCS) with a minimum flow capacity and boron content equivalent in control capacity to 86 gallons per minute (gpm) of 13 weight percent of sodium pentaborate solution. In January 1985, a generic letter was issued to all appropriate licensees that provided clarification of the phrase " equivalent in control capacity" contained in 10 CFR 50.62 (c)(4). This letter provided the basis for the flow and weight percent of sodium pentaborate decahydrate requirements and described how equivalency could be achieved for smaller plants. The NRC staff considers the contents of the generic letter to be technically correct and desires that this rosition be established in the regulations.
This proposed rule would clarify a Cotoission regulation; thus, no other procedure is appropriate. The technical proposals in the rule were analyzed for safety as part of the original rulemaking procedure, although they were not specifically mentioned. This rele will not adversely affect the health and safety of the public.
' TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action for Division Review 11/3C/87 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 08/30/88 Proposed Action to ED0 10/12/88 Proposed Action Published 10/24/88 53 FR 41007 Proposed Action Public Comment Period Ends 12/23/88 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 02/15/89 Final Action to EDO 03/16/89 Final Action Published 05/r1/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2136; Section 10G l
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSIt:ESS At:0 OTHER ENTITIES: ho AGEtiCY COI: TACT:
William R. Pearson t:uclear Regulatory Comnission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3764 l 29
P TITLE:
Ensurino the Effectiveness of Maintenance Programs for Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would provide functional requirements for the maintenance of nuclear power plants and allow industry initiatives to develop the details of maintenance programs to meet these reonirements. The proposed rule would apply to all components, systems and structures of nuclear power plants and would be applicable to existing and future plants. The proposed rule would also require each licensee to develop, implement and maintain a maintenance program, and to formally ccomit to follow the program.
The scope of maintenance activities addressed in the rule will be within the framework of the Commission's Policy Statenent 4 on Maintenance of Huclear Power Plants which was issued on j March 23, 1988 (53 FR 9e30).
It is estimated that about 3 staff-years of effort and $600,000 for contract services will be required to process the final rule.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 09/06/88 Proposed Action to E00 09/26/88 Proposed Action to Commission (SECY-88-277) 09/30/88 Proposed Action Published 11/28/88 53 FR 47822 Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 01/27/89 Proposed Action Public Comment Period Extended to 02/27/89 53 FR 52716 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 04/05/89 Final Action to ED0 04/19/89 Final Action to Commission 04/21/89 Final Action Published 06/15/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AMD OTHER EllTITIES: flo AGENCY CONTACT:
Moni Dey Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washinoton, DC 20555 301 492-3730 30
TITLE:
Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50; Appendix J ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would update and revise the 1973 criteria for preoperational and periodic pressure testino for leakage of primary containment boundaries of water-cooled power reactors. Problems
! have developed in application and interpretation of the existing rule. These result from changes in testing technology, test criteria, and a relevant national standard that needs to be reccqnized.
l l The revision is urgently needed to resolve continuing conflicts between licensees and NRC inspectors over interpretations, current l
regulatory practice which is no longer being reflected accurately by the existing rule, and endorsement in the existing regulation of an obsolete national standard that was replaced in 1981.
The benefits anticipated include elimination of inconsistencies and obsolete requirements, and the addition of greater usefulness and a higher confidence in the leak-tight integrity of containn.ent system boundaries ender post-loss of coolant accident conditions. The majority of the effort needed by NRC to issue the rele has already been expended.
A detailed analysis of costs,l'enefits, and occupational exposures is available in the Public Document Room. and indicates possible savings to industry of $14 million to $300 million and an increase in occupational exposure of less than 1 percent per year per plant due to increased testing.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 10/29/86 51 FR 39538 Proposed Action Comment Period Extended 04/24/87 52 FR 2416 Final Action Unc'etermined LEGAL AtlTHORITY:
42 LISC 2133; 42 USC 213a; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSIf1ESS AllD OTHER ENTITIES: No AGEllCY C0f1 TACT:
Gunter Arndt Fuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3814 31
i I
i TITLE:
Education and Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators and. Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants ;
CFR CITATION:
ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend the regulations regarding educational requirements for operating personnel at nuclear power plants. The propo' sed. amendments would require additional education and experience l requirements for senior operators and supervisors. In promulgating the proposed amendments, the Commission has identified two E alternatives.
Under the first alternative, the proposed amendment would apply to l 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, engineering 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 expertise and operating experience in the senior operator position, j Under the second alternative, the proposed amendment would-apply to persons who have supervisory responsibilities, such as shift j supervisors or senior managers. It would require that they have ,
enhanced educational credentials and experience over that which is normally required for senior reactor operators. The nroposed 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.
1 The Commission believes that adoption of either of the alternatives, for senior operators or shift supervisors, would further ensure the protection of the health and scfety of the j public by enhancing the capability of the operating staff to '!
respond to accidents and restore the reactor to a safe and stable l condition. The Commission will also issue a policy statement I concurrently with this rule related to utility implementation of an l accredited degree program for reactor operators. !
TIMETABLE:
AHPRM 05/31/86 51 FR 19561 l ANPRM Comment Period Extended to 09/29/86 1 SECY 87-101 to Commission 04/16/87 i Commission Approved Preparation of Proposed Rule 06/24/87 Proposed Action for Division Review 02/12/86 i Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 0</08/88 l Proposed Action to EDO 08/29/88 l 32 l
l
- 1 b,
3 !
1 1 TITLE:
9 Education and Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators and Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants f
.1 4 TIMETABLE: (CONT)
(i Proposed Action to Commission (SECY-88-245) 08/31/88 J Proposed Action Published 12/29/88 53 FR 52716 1
Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 02/27/89
} Proposed Action Public Comment Period Extended a to 03/29/89 54 FR 8201 1
Final Action for Division Review 04/20/89 Final Action to ED0 05/15/89 3 Final Action to Commission 05/22/89
[. Final Action Published 07/19/89 i
j LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201 l,
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS: No AGENCY CONTACT:
g Morton Fleishman 1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
L Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 g 301 492-3794 i .*
N rd
'r .
4 I
- p. 33
TITLE:
Tables S-3 and S-4, Addition of Radon-222 and Technetium-99 Radiation Values, and Addition of Appendix B, " Table S-3 Explanatory Analysis" CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 51 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule provides a narrative explanation of the numerical values established in Table S-3, " Table of Uranium Feel Cycle Environmental Data," that appears in the Commission's environmental protection regulations. The proposed rule describes the basis for the values contained in Table S-3, the significance of the uranium fuel cvcle data in the table, and the conditions governing the use of the table. The proposed rule vould amend 10 CFR 51.52 to modify the enrichment value of U-235 and the maximum level of average fuel irradiation. The narrative explanation also addresses important fuel cycle impacts and the cumulative imnacts 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 litiaation time and costs for both HRC and applicants.
The proposed revision of 10 CFR 51.51 and the addition of Appendix B was published for public review and connent on March 4, 1981 (46 FR 1E154). The final rulemaking was deferred i pending the outcome of a suit (Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. NRC, No. 74-1486) in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) decision of April 27, 1982, invalidated the entire Table S-3 rule. The Supreme Court reversed this decision on June 6, 1983.
The proposed rule to provide an explanatory analysis for Table S-3 has been revised to reflect new developments during the time the rulemaking was deferred. Final action on the Table S-3 rule was held in abeyance until new values for radon-222 and technetium-99 could he 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 for radon-222 and technetium-99 and the narrative explanation has been 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 radon-222 and technetium-99, and the revised explanatory analysis will be completed in FY 1989.
A Concission paper presenting the final rulemaking plan and schedule was submitted on August 18, 1986 (SECY 86-242). On September 8, 1986. SECY 86-242 was approved by the Commission.
34
i l
TITLE: j Tables S-3 and S-4, Addition of Radon-222 and Technetium-99 Radiation Values, and Addition of Appendix B, " Table S-3 L'xplanatory Analysis" J
l TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 03/04/81 46 FR 15154 Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 05/04/81 Proposed Action for Division Review 05/27/88 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 06/30/89 Proposed Action to ED0 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 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2011; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 4321; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY COMTACT:
Stanley Turel Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3739 l
l l
l l
35
u TITLE:
Early' Site' Permits; Standard Design Certifications; end Combined Licenses for Nuclear-Power P.eactors
! .CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 52 ABSTRACT: ..
The proposed rule would add a new part'to the re<culations to improve the. reactor licensing process. The proposed rule would provide for the issuance of early site permits,: standard design certifications,. i and combined construction permits and conditional operating licenses !
for nuclear powea reactors. The proposed action-is. intended to ,
achieve the ear!' +esolution of. licensing issues, thereby enhancing.
the safety.an? .l' ability of nuclear power plants, and reducing.the complexity and roc'irtainty of the licensing process. Early resolution
'of licensing' issues should afford public participation in the licensing. process an earlier entry into that process. They are I designed to implement as much of the commission's proposed
" Nuclear Power Plant Standardization and Licensing Act of 1987" as is permissible under its existing statutory authority. The proposed' legislation is based on an earlier proposal that1'as developed t,y the Commission's Regulatory Reform Task Force.
TIMETABLE: . .
Proposed Action Published 08/23/88 53 FR 32060 Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 10/24/88 Proposed Action Comment Period Extended to 11/07/88 53 FR 41609 Final Action to Commission 01/27/89 Final Action Published 04/00/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2133; 42_ USC 2201; 42' USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2239; 42 USC 2782; 42 USC 4842; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS APD OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:.
Steve Crockett Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 .
1 301 492-1600 36 4
TITLE:
Elimination of Inconsistencies Between NRC Regulations and EPA Standards CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would eliminate several inconsistencies with the EPA standards to be developed for the disposal of HLW in deep geologic repositories. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) directs NRC to promulgate criteria for the licensing of HLW geologic repositories. Section 121 (c) of this ect states that the criteria for the licensing of HLW geologic repositories must be consistent with these standards. The proposed rule is needed in order to eliminate several inconsistencies with the EPA standards, thus fulfilling the statutory requirement.
Because the NWPA directs NRC to eliminate inconsistencies between Part 60 and the EPA standard, the alternatives to the proposed action are limited by statute.
I The public, industry, and NRC will benefit from eliminating inconsistencies in Federal HLW regulations. NRC resources needed l- would be several staff years but will not include contract resources.
l l Because the Federal Court invalidated the EPA standards, action on L this rule, which is in response to the EPA standards, is undetermined. j l
l l
TIMETABLE: l Proposed Action Published 06/19/86 51 FR 22288 Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 08/18/86 ,
Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 07/15/87 Final Action to ED0 07/20/87 Final Action Published Undetermined l
l LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON Sf'ALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
l Melvin Silberberg/ Clark Prichard l Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3810/3884 i
t 37 l l
l 1
t
, , TITLE: .
Disposal of Radioactive Wastes; Part 61. Amendments
~
CFR CITATION:
- ABSTRACT: _ .
The proposed rule would require geologic repository disposal of.all above. Class C low-level radioactive waste (LLW) unless an alternative has been approved by the Commission. This would accomplish the objective of establishing suitable disposal reovirements for radioactive waste with a minimal impact on cost burdens.: -The Commission instructed' the staff to analyze the need to revise the' definition of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) in Part 60 to conform uith the definition in the Nuclear Waste Policy-Act (NWPA). An ANPRM 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 ANPRM, and alsoLtaking 'into account- '
recent information, the' staff is now recommending against any revision of the definition of HLW. '
Alternatives are: (1) revise the definition of HLW so that additional' above Class C LLW.is-reclassified as HLW; or-(2) proceed to develop.
a waste classification' system like that outlined in the ANPRM.
The.publie and industry would benefit from this clarification of waste disposal op; ions for above Class C LLW. NRC staff time for preparing this rulemaking is-estimated at 2 staff-years.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM Action Published 02/27/87 52 FR 5992 AMPRM Comment Period Ends 04/29/87 ANPRM Comment Period Extended to 06/29/87 52 FR 16403 Proposed Action Published 05/18/88. 53 FR 17709 Proposed Action. Comment Period Ends 07/18/88 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 01/11/89 Final Action to CRGR/ACRS 02/23/89 Final Action to EDO Or/18/89 Final Action to Commission 05/15/89 Final Action Published 06/15/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10101 l
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Melvin Silberberg/ Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3810/3884 38
TITLE:
Transportation Regulations: . Compatibility With the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
-CFR CITATION:
ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would, in conjunction with a corresponding rule change by the U.S. Department of Transportation, make the United States Federal regulations for the safe transportation of radioactive material consistent with those of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA regulations can be found in IAEA Safety Series No. 6, " Regulations for the Safe. Transport of Radioactive Material," 1985 Edition. Consistency in transportation regulations throughout the world facilitates the free movement of radioactive materials between countries for tedical, research, industrial, and nuclear fuel cycle purposes.
Centistency of transportation regulations throughout the world also contributes to safety by concentrating the efforts of the world's experts on a single set of safety standards and guidance (those of-the IAEA) from which individual countries can develop their domestic regulations. In addition, 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 progran. The action will be. handled as a rootine updating of.HRC transportation regu'itions. There is no reasona51e alternative to rulemaking action. These changes should result in a minimal increase in costs to affected licensees. Proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 71, based on current IAEA regulations, have been issued for public comment. The task will be 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.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 06/08/88 53 FR 21L50 Proposed Action Comment Period Extended to 03/06/89 53 FR 51281 Final Action to E00 Undetermined Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2232; A2 USC 2233; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS OM SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Donald R. Hopkins Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Huclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3784 39
L.
i TITLE:
Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 140 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would revise the EN0 criteric to eliminate the problems that were encountered in the Three Mile Island EN0 determination. It is desirable to get revised criteria in place in the event they are needed.
There are no alternatives to this rulemaking, as the current EN0 criteria are already embodied in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 140. The only way to modify these criteria, as this rule seeks to do, is through rulemaking.
There is no safety impact on public health or safety. The EN0 criteria provide legal waivers of defenses. Industry (insurers and utilities) claims that a reduction in the EN0 criteria could cause increases in insurance premiums. The final rule woeld also be responsive to PRM-140-1.
It is estimated that approximately 1.0 staff year of NRC time will be required to process the final rule.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 04/09/85 50 FR 13978 Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 09/06/85 Final Action For Division Review 02/17/87 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 11/25/87 Final Action Packaoe to ED0 Undetermined Final Action to Commission Undetermined Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2210; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Harold Peterson Nuclear Reculatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3640 i
i 40
TITLE':
Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements; Miscellaneous Amendments Necessitated by Changes.in the Price-Anderson Act' CFR' CITATION:
10 CFR 140 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would implement the statutory requirements of. the -
Price-Anderson Act of 1988. The proposed rule would.anend NRC
-regulations to coincide, as statutorily required, with the increase in the level of the primary layer of. insurance provided by private nuclear liability insurance pools. The proposed changes'would provide additional insurance to pay public liability claims arising out of a nuclear incident. Because this rule'is necessary to
-implement the recent statutory requirement of the Price-Anderson amendments Act of 1988, there.is no suitable alternative to rulemaking for this action.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Astion Published 12/2C/88 53 FR 51120 Proposed Action Comment Period Ends 01/04/89 Final Action Published C4/00/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
.42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2210; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY LONTACT:
Ira-Dinitz Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1289 l l 1
41 l
TITLE:
Reasserting NRC's Sole Authority for Approving Onsite Lou-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 150 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would establish the NRC as the. sole authority for approving onsite disposal of low-level uaste at all NRC-licensed reactors and at Part 70 fuel cycle facilities.
There is a need to amend 10 CFR 150.15 to authorize one agency (the MRC) to regulate all onsite disposal of low-level waste in order to provide a more comprehensive regulatory review of all onsite waste management activities and to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. Uniform review by the NRC will provide for greater assurance that the radioactive material will not present a health hazard at a later date after the site is decommissioned.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to EDO 06/10/88 Proposed Action Published C8/22/88 53 FR 31880 Proposed Action Comment Period End -10/21/88 Final Action for Office and Agreement State Concurrence C2/15/89 Final Action to ED0 03/29/89 Final Action to Commission 04/12/89 Final Action Published 06/30/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2021; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL DUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
John Telford Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3796 42 i
- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _______________-_-__n
(C) Advance flotices of Proposed 'Rulemaking l
l l
I i
J
l
s TITLE: .
Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern; Generic Rulemakinc CFR CITATION: . .
ABSTRACT:
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) scoght comments on.
a proposal to amend NRC regulations to address disposal of radioactive-wastes that contain sufficiently low quantities of-radionuclides that their disposal does not need to be' regulated as radioactive.
The NRC has already published a policy statement providing guidance for filing petitions for rulemaking to exempt individual weste streams (August 29, 1986; 51 FR 30839). It is believed that generic rulemaking could provide a more efficient and effective means'of dealing 'with disposal of wastes below regulatory concern.
Generic rulemaking would supplement the policy statement which was a response to.Section 10 of the Lou-Level Radioactive Waste Policy.
Amendnents Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240). The public was asked to comment on 14 questions. The.AtlPRM requested public comment on several alternative approaches the NRC.could take. The evaluation of public conment together with the results from a proposed research contract will help to determine whether and how NRC should l
. proceed on the matter.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM'12/02/86 51 FR 43367
'ANPRM Comment Period Ends 03/02/87 51 FR 43367 Final Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
Pub. L.99-240 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AtID OTHER ENTITIES: Undetermined
. AGENCY CONTACT:
I William Lahs Nuclear Regulatory Commmission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3774
.i 43 i
TITLE:
..,6 ~ Medical use of Byproduct Material: Training and Experient iCriteria CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 35-ABSTRACT:
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) would amend the.
Commission's regulations concerning training and experience criteria for individuals involved in medical use of byproduct material.
Rulemakinn may be needed to reduce the chance of misadministration.
The Commission may proceed with rulemaking, assist in the development '
of national voluntary training standards, or . issue a policy statement '
recommending increased licensee. attention to training. If the Commission proceeds with rulemakinc, the NRC could publish criteria in its regulations or recognize medical specialty certificates. The NRC is not able to project costs or benefits at this time, and has requested cost / benefit conments in an AllPRM published May 25, 1988. l The NRC has hired a contractor to study trainins . accreditation and certification programs that are now in place. The NRC staff will analyze the study results, due in November 1989, and the comments received to determine whether regulatory action is necessary.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM Published 05/25/88 53 FR 18845 l ANPRM Comment Period Ends 08/24/88 l Proposed Action Undetermined L LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 22C1; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS At:D OTHER ENTITIES: No l AGENCY CONTACT:
Terry A. Johnson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 492-0635 l
l l
l i
44
TITLE:
Comprehensive Quality Assurance in Medical Use and a Standard of Care CFR CITATI0ft:
10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT:
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (AtlPRM) would amend .
the Commission's regulations governing the medical use of byproduct material to require a comprehensive quality assurance program for
'aedical licensees using byproduct materials. The purpose of this rulemaking action is to address each source of error that can lead to a misadministration. An ANPRM was published to request public comment on the extent to which in addition to the basic quality assurance steps (being addressed by another rulemakina action, entitled " Basic Quality Assurance for Medical Use of Byproduct Material") a more comprehensive cuality assurance requirement is needed, and invites advice and recommendations on about 20 questions that will have to be addressed in the rulemaking process.
TIMETABLE:
AtlPRM Action Published 10/02/87 62 FR 36919 Af!PRM Comment Period Ends 12/31/87 52 FR 36949 Options Paper to Offices for Concurrence 05/13/88 Options Paper on QA Rulemaking to ED0 05/20/88 Revised Options Paper on Ruleuaking to EDO 05/31/88 Option Paper Completed 06/03/88 SECY-88-156 Staff Requirements Memorandum Issued 07/12/88 Proposed Action Published Undetermined Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL SUSINESS AND OTHER EtlTITIES: Yes AGENCY C0flTACT:
Anthony Tse fluclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3797 45 l
t TITLE:
Criteria for Licensing the Custody and Long-Term Care of Uranium Mill Tailings Sites CFR CITATIO!1:
10 CFR 40 ABSTRACT:
The advance Licensing 40 (Domestic notice of proposed of Sourcerulemaking)wouldMaterial , to include amend a procedure10 CFR Part 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 1976 (UMTRCA). This amendment would establish a general license for custody and long-term care of uranium mill tailings by the Department of Energy, other designated Federal agencies, or States when applicable. The general license would be formulated so that it would become effective for a particular site when (1) NRC concurs in the determination that the site has been properly reclaimed or closed and (2) a Surveillance and Maintenance Plan that neets the requirements of the general license has been received by NRC. No significant impact to the public or industry is extected as a rescit of this proposed action.
TIMETABLE: i Proposed Action for Division and Office Review 11/09/87 :
Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 02/10/88 '
Proposed Action to E00 02/10/88 Proposed Action to Consission (SECY-88-83)03/17/88 ANPRM to SECY 08/12/88 ANPRM Published 08/25/88 53 FR 32396 ANPRM Coument Period Ends 10/24/88 Proposed Action for Division and Office Review C3/06/89 Proposed Action to EDO G4/14/89 Proposed Action to Commission 04/28/89 Proposed Action Published 06/30/89 Final Action Published 03/30/90 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 5841; 42 USC E842; 42 USC E846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS A!!D 0111ER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Mark Haisfield Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3877 46 1
TITLE:
Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant' Structures, Systems, and Components CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) would develop revelations requiring enhanced receipt inspection and testing of products purchased for use in nuclear power plant structures, systems, and components. These regulations are believed to be ,
necessary to provide an acceptable level of assurance that products (
purchased for use in nuclear power plants will ,nerform as expected to protect the public health and safety. This ANPRM is published to solicit public comments on the need for additional reaulatory requirements and to obtain an improved understanding of alternatives f to regulatory requirements.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM Published 03/06/89 54 FR 9229 ANPRM Comment Period Ends 07/0E/09 Final Action Undetermined I
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Max J. Clausen ,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20555 ,
301 492-0969 l
l l
47
l l
TITLE:
fluclear Plant License 'enewal CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule is sct.eduled 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. Timely completion of the rule is critical for establishing standards for continued safe operation of power reactors during the license renewal term and providing the regulatory stability desired by utilities in determining whether to prepare for license renewal or pursue alternative sources of generating capacity. This rulemaking has been identified by the Chairman as a najor topic to be monitored.
License renewal rulemaking to provide regulatory requirements for extending nuclear power plant licenses beyond 40 years was initiated in response to the Connission's 1986 and 1987 policy and planning guidance. Current regulatory provisions permit license renewal but do not provide requirements for the form and content of a license renewal application nor the standards of acceptability against which the application will be reviewed.
TIMETABLE:
AI:PRM Published 08/29/88 53 FR 32919 Af;PRM Comment Period Ends 10/28/88 Proposed Action to CRGR/ACRS 05/31/89 Proposed Action to EDO 06/16/89 Proposed Action to Commission 06/30/89 Proposed Action Publisheo 09/29/89 Final Action Published 12/31/90 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSil4ESS AND OTHER EllTITIES: lio AGEtlCY CONTACT:
Donald Cleary Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, UC 20555 301 492-3936 48
a TITLE:
Regulation of Uranium Enrichment Facilities
~
-(FR' CITATION:
.10 CFR 76 ABSTRACT: .
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking would amend the Commission's regulations to create a new part that would pertain to uranium enrichment' facilities. The construction and operation of.these facilities are currently. licensed under the regulations for other production and utilization facilities (e.g., nuclear power plants)
- in 10 CFR Part 50. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking requested comments.on.uhether a separate set'of regulations for uranium licensing is desirable. Comments have been received and are being reviewed.- The staff recommendation on regulatory approach was due to the Commission at the end of March 1989.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM Published 04/22/88 .53 FR 13286 Af;PRM Comment Period Ends 10/22/88 Prcposed Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 Uh?'S841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Peter Loysen Nuclear. Regulatory Commis;i%
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards l
Washington, DC 20555 301 492-0685 49 l
(p) Unpublished Rules 1
i
\
l i
k
(
i i
i
{
1 i l j l
l l
I
)
1 l
1
TITLE:
- Conduct of Employees; Miscellaneous Amendments CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 0 ABSTRACT:
The rule would clarify and correct typographical errors in 10 CFR Part 9 concerning acts affecting a personal financial interest; confidential statement of employment and financial interests; and restriction against ownership of certain security interests by Conimissioners, certain staff members, and other related personnel.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Karla Smith Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1606 I
l 1
l i
si l
1 l
h TITLE:
Revised Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 0; 10 CFR 1; 10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 9; 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would shorten and sinplify existing Commission procedural rules applicable to domestic licensing proceedings by comprehensively restating the current practice, and' revising and reorganizing the statenent of those rules to-reflect current practice. The changes in this. proposed rule would enable the Commission, directly and through its adjudicatory offices, to render
. decisions in a more timely fashion, eliminate-the stylistic complexity of'the existing rules, and reduce the burden and exrense to the parties participating in agency proceedings. Chairman Zech has requested ,
re-submission of this-proposed rule for possible re-consideration i by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. .The Commission had deferred j further consideration of this proposal which would have revised the Commission's procedural rules governing the conduct of all adjudicatory proceedings, with the exception of export licensing proceedings under 10 CFR Part 110.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841; 5 USC 552 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
C. Sebastian Alcot Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7787 l
l l
52 l
l
TITLE:
- Informal Hearino Procedures for Nuclear Reactor Operator Licensing Adjudications CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend HRC regulations to provide rules of procedure for informal adjudicatory hearings in nuclear power reactor operator licensing proceedings. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 requires that the NRC, in any proceeding for the cranting, suspending, revoking, or amending of an NRC license, including licensing as an operator or senior operator at a nuclear power plant, afford an interested person, upon request, a " hearing."
This proposed rule would amend an existing rule which provides for informal hearing procedures for materials licensing proceedings to include reactor operator licensing proceedings as well.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to Commission 03/01/89 Proposed Action Published Undetermined Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Karla Smith Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1606 l
l l'
53
TITLE:.
Availability of Official Records CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2-ABSTRACT:
The proposed amendment would conform the NRC's' regulations pertaining to the availability of. official records to existing case law and agency practice. .The amendment would reaffirm that the terms of 10 CFR 2.790(c). provide submitters of information a qualified right to have-their information returned upon request. This amendment informs the public of three exceptions to the the right to withdraw pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(c) of the NRC's regulations, i.e.,
information submitted in a rulemaking proceeding that subsequently i
-forms the basis for'the final rule, information which has been made available to an. advisory committee or was received at an advisory i committee meeting, and information that is subject to a pending Freedom of Information Act request.
i Additionally, the proposed amendment would add a notice statement to 10 CFR Part 2 that submitters of documents and information to the NRC should be careful in submitting copyrighted works. The agency in receiving submittals and making its normal distributions routinely photocopies'submittals, makes microfiche of such submittals .
and insures t':at these fiche are distributed to the PDR, LPDRs, all appropriate internal offices, and to the National Technical Information Service Center. This broad distribution and reproduction is made to satisfy the congressional mandate of Section 142(b) of the Atomic Energy Act by increased public understanding of the peaceful uses of atomic energy. Accordingly, copyright owners are on notice that their act of submitting such works to the agency will be considered as the granting to the NRC an implico license to reproduce ano distribute according to normal agency practice. Naturally, this notice does not prevent submitters from applying 10 CFR 2.790(b)(1) procedures to information that contains trade secrets or privileged or confidential commercial or financial information (proprietary information) and it is recognized that some information in those categories may be copyrighted. The key factor is that it is their proprietary information status that exempts them from public disclosure and not their copyright designation. Lastly, this 1aplied license is not applicable to fair use of copyrighted works or the incorporation by reference of coprighted works in agency submittals, e.g., the referencir.g of a copyrighted code or standard in a submittal does not affe ' 'he copyright of that standard.
f TIMETABLE: i Next Action Undetermined I LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 54 l
TITLE:
Availability of Official Records EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Mary Kathryn Hembree Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1559 1
I 55
TITLE:
Revision of Definition of Meeting CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 9 l
1 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule nauld return the definition of " meeting" to its ;
pre-1985 wording. ihe proposal is based on a study of comments ,
submitted on an interim final rule published on May 21. 1985 "
(50 FR 20889) and the 1987 recommendations and report of the American Bar Association (ABA). Since the pre-1985 wording cf the definition of meeting is fully adequate to permit the types of non-Sunshine Act discussions that the NRC believes vould be useful, the proposal calls for the NRC to reinstitute its pre-1985 definition of meeting, with the intention of conducting its non-Sunshine Act discussions in accordance with the guidelines recommended by the ABA.
TIMETABLE:
Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AtlD OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Peter G. Crane
!!uclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-1634 56
TITLE:
Twenty-Four Hour Notification of Incidents CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:
This rulemaking would amend 10 CFR Part 20.403(a) and (b) to clarify the licensees' reporting requirements. While 10 CFR 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 operation" and " damage to nroperty." " Loss of operation" should be clarified in terms of ;
loss of use of facilities, devices or equiprient. " Damage to '
nroperty" should be clarified to include contamination clean-up if the corrective action is equal to or greater than a certain cost.
In addition, the rulemaking should also define "immediate" in ,
actual time, e.g., within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />, for reporting requirements. '
This rulemaking action will clarify a current Commission regulation; there is no other appropriate procedure to accommodate ;
the clarification. This rulemaking activity is considered to be a high priority item by HMSS.
The health and safety of the public will be better protected because improved reporting requirements will reduce the potential I risk of exposure to radiation from damaged or contaminated material. Clarifying the reporting requirements will also simplify regulatory functions and free the staff from unnecessary additional l investigation and, at the same time, protect the industry from I
unnecessary and unexpected fines.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 03/31/89 Proposed Action to ED0 05/15/89 Proposed Action Published 06/15/89 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 01/15/90 Final Action to ED0 06/15/90 Final Action Published 07/16/90 l LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSIMESS AllD OTHER ENTITIES: Nc l
l AGENCY CONTACT:
Joseph J. Mate l !!uclear F,egulatory Commission Office of Uuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555
, 301 492-3795 57
TITLL:
- Palladium-103 for Interstitial ~ Treatment of Cancer CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations coverning the medical uses of byproduct material. The proposed regulation would add Palladium-103 sealed source as' seeds to the list of sources permitted in 10 CFR Part 35 for use in cancer. treatment. Under-current HRC 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.Palladien-103 seeds by each potential. user (about 700 licensees) with either a simplified amendment or no !
amendment, depending upon the individual. license. An evaluation of potential radiation hazards to hospital personnel and the public 1 showed a' minimal risk if the seeds are used in accordance with the manufacturer's radiation safety and handling instructions.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 02/14/89 Proposed Action to E00- 03/23/89 Proposed Action Published 04/00/89 Final Action Published 0/,/09/90 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Dr. Anthony N. Tse Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3797 l
l l
58
TITLE:
Licensing and Radiation Safety Requirements for Large Irradiators-CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 36 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would develop regulations to specify radiation safety requirements and license requirements for the' use of . licensed radioactive naterials in large irradiators. .Irradiators use gamma .
radiation to irradiate products to change their characteristics in some way. The requirements would apply to large panoranic
'irradiators (those in which the radioactive sources and the material being irradiated are in a room that is accessible to personnel while-
.the source is shielded) and certain large.self-contained irradiators in which the source always remains under water. The rule would not cover small self-contained irradiators, instrument calibrators, medical uses of sealed sources (such as teletherapy), or non-destructive testing (such as industrial radiography).
The alternative to a regulation is continuing to license irradiators on a case-by-case basis using license conditions. The formalization would make the NRC's requirements f>etter understood ar.d possibly speed the licensing of irradiators. Development of the rule will require 2 staff-years. .
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to ACRS 01/18/89 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed. 03/0G/89 Proposed Action to E00 04/05/89 Proposed Action to Connission 05/0f,/89 Proposed Action Published 06/05/89 Final Action Published 05/05/90 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS 0!; SnALL BUSI!!ESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY C0!iTACT:
Stephen A. McGuire Nuclear Regulatory Connission Office of fiuclear Re0ulatory Research Washington, DC. 20555 301 492-3757 59 l
TITLE:
Codes and Standards for iluclear Power Plants (ASME Code, 1986/1987/
1988 Addenda)
CFR CITATION:~
10 CFR 50 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, Division 1, of the'American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code'
-(ASME Code). In addition, an editorial revision is proposed that would separate the requirements for inservice testing from those for inservice inspection-by placing the requirements for inservice testing in a' separate paragraph. The ASME Code provides rules for 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, Division 1.
The proposed rule would update the existing reference 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 / licensees and the NRC-staff both. i time and effort by providing uniform detailed criteria against which the staff could review any single submission.
This action will be handled as a routine updating of 10 CFR 50.55a of the NRC regulations. There is no reasonable alternative to rulemaking action. The proposed amendment will be issued for public comment. The task to develop and publish the proposed dmendment is scheduled for a period of 7.5 months with an estimated staff effort of 400 p-hrs. This is a priority A rulemaking.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Submitted for Division Review 09/27/88 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 07/17/89 Proposed Action to ED0 09/19/89 Proposed Acticn Published 10/20/89 Final Actier Published 06/20/90
)
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201, AP USC SS41 EFFECTS Oil SMAli. BU51flESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: ilo AGENCY CONTACT:
Gilbert C. f:illman fluclear Regulatcry Commission l Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research i Washington, DC 20555 301 49P-3848 60
L TITLE:
Codes and Standards for iluclear Power Piants (ASME Code,Section XI,_ Division 1,SubsectionIWE)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 j ABSTRACT:
The~ proposed rule would incorporate by reference Subsection IWE,
" Requirements for Class MC Components of Light-Water Cooled Power Plants," of Section XI (Division 1) of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code).
Subsection IWE provides the rules and requirements for inservice inspection, repair, and replacement of Class MC pressure retaining components and their integral attachments and of metallic shell and penetration liners of Class CC pressure retaining components and their integral attachments in light-water cooled power plants.
Incorporation by reference of Subsection IWE will provide systematic examination rules for containment structure for meetina Criterion 53 of the General Design Criteria (Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50) and Appendix J of 10 CFR Part 50. Ace-related degradation of
- containments has occurred, and additional and potentially more serious degradation mechanisms can he anticipated as nuclear power plants age.
If the NRC did not take action to endorse the Subsection IWE rules, the NRC position on examination practices for containment structure would have to be established on a case-by-case basis and improved examination practices for steel containment structures might not be implemented. The other alternatives of incorporating these detailed examination requirements into the American National Standard ANSI /ANS 56.8-1981 or into Appendix J are not feasible.
Incorporating by reference 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 inspection.
TIMETABLE:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 06/09/88 Proposed Action for Division Review 07/01/88 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 11/14/88 L
Proposed Action to CRGR 03/31/89 L Proposed Action to E00 C4/14/89 Proposed Action Published 05/15/89 Final Action Published 04/15/90 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 61
i TITLE:
Codes arid Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (ASME Code,Section XI, Division 1,SubsectionIWE)
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No i AGENCY CON 1ACT:
Wallace E. llorris Nuclear Regulatory Consission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3805 i
62
1 TITLE:
Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 CFR CITATION:
~
ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would clarify in the Commission's regulations 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 assurance requirements. thereby resolving these issues.
Rulemaking was chosen as the method of resolving this issue as a result of the Commission's directive to resolve the issue by rulemaking contained in the Shoreham licensing decision (CLI-84-9, 19 HRC 1323, June 5, 1984).
A position paper requesting approval of the staff proposed definitions and additional guidance from the Commission was signed by the ED0 on May 29, 1986. In addition to .rulemaking, the position paper discusses the alternative of the Commission issuing a policy statement concerning the definitions and their usage.
Since the proposed rule is only clarifying existing requirements, there is no impact on the public or the industry as a result of this rulemaking. It is anticipated that the NRC will expend 3.2 to 4.4 staff years in developing the final rtile over a two-year period. The nanpower and time frame will depend on Commission guidance received on the extent to which 10 CFR iisage of the terms is to be consistent, i.e., 10 CFR Part 50 only or all of 10 CFR.
The timetable is on hold based on a decision by the Commission.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to Commission 05/29/86 Commission Decision on SECY 86-164 Undetermined l.
l LEGAL AUTHORITY:
t2 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 i l
63
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ ______ _ _ ____ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___ _ _____________ _ ___________ _ J
l l
TITLE:
! Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Jerry N. Wilson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3729 l
I 1
I 64 i
i
TITLE:
Amendment of the Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule-CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule revises the Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) rule, published on July 23, 1985, which 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 PTS rule crescribed how to calculate the degree of embrittlement as a function of the. copper and nickel contents of the controlling material an(' the neutron fluence.
The proposed amendment revises the calculative procedures to be consistent with that given in Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.99.
This guide, which was published in final form on June 8, 1988, provides an updated correlation of embrittlement data.
The need to amend the PTS rule to be consistent with the guide became apparent when it was found that some medium-copper, high-nickel materials embrittlement is worse now than predicted using the PTS :'
rule. A number of PWRs will reach the screening criterion sooner than previously thought, and three plants will need to make plant-specific analyses in the next 10 years. Therefore, a high priority is being given to this effort.
L An unacceptable alternative to this amendment from the safety
' standpoint is to leave the present PTS rule ir, place. A plant-by-plant analyses by the NRC staff found four plants whose reference temperatures are 52 to 68 F higher than previously thought, based on l
the present rule. This is beyond the uncertainties that were felt I to exist when the present rule was published. Another unacceptable alternative that has been evaluated is to change the calculative l procedure for the reference temperature and also change the screening criterion. Failure probabilities for the most critical ,
accident scenarios in three plants, when recalculated using !
the new embrittlement estimates, were somewhat lower, but were quite i dependent on the plant configuration and the scenario chosen.
l
' Furthermore, the screening criterion was based on a variety of considerations besides the probabilistic analysis. Reopening the { '
question of where to set the screenino criterion was not considered productive because of plant-to-plant differences. It is better to i have a conservative " trip wire" that triggers plant-speci#ic analyses, j 1
J 1
I l
l 65 l
l l
TITLE:
Amendment of the Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule ABSTRACT CONT.
Immediate costs to industry will be those required for each utility to update the January 23, 1986, submittal required by the PTS rule,
- i. using fluence estimates that take account of flux reduction efforts in the interim and using the new procedure for calculating RT/ PTS.
In addition, three to five plants will need to make the expenditure
' of an estimated 2.5 million dollars for the plant-specific analysis in the 1990s instead of 10 to 15 years later.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to ED0 05/30/89 Proposed Action Published 06/30/89 Final Action to EDO 04/15/90 Final Action to Comission Undetermined Final Action Published 06/15/90 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 58t.1
\
EFFECTS OF 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 l
l I
1 l
66 l
. TITLE:
Personnel Access Authorization Program CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:
The Commission has concluded that it is appropriate for:each licensee that operates a nuclear power plant to establish an access authorization program to ensure that individuals who require unescorted access to protected areas or vital areas of their facilities are trustworthy, reliable, emotionally stable, and do not pose a threat to commit radiological sabotage. . Accordingly, the NRC published a proposed rule on August 1,.1984, that would require an access authorization program at nuclear power plants (49 FR 30726).
An' alternative proposal by the Nuclear Utility Management and Resource Committee (NUMARC) was submitted as a public comment on this proposed rule. The alternative proposed a voluntary industry commitment to implement an access authorization program at nuclear power plants based upon industry guidelines. Major provisions of this program include background investigation, psychological evaluation, and behaviorial observation.
On June 18, 1986, the Commission approved developing a policy statement endorsing industry guidelines as an alternative to the propos'ed rulemal;ing. Commitments to adhere to these guidelines would be formalized-through amendments to the physical security plans and be subject to inspection and enforcement by MRC.
On March 9,1988, the NRC published a proposed policy statement endorsing the NUMARC guidelines. In the Federal Register notice, the Commission specifically requested public comments as to whether the access authorization program should be a rule or a policy statement.
TIMETABLE:
Office Concurrence on Proposed Policy Statement Completed 10/30/87 Proposed Policy Statement / Guidelines to ED0 12/07/87 i Proposed Policy Statement / Guidelines to Commission 12/15/87 Proposed Policy Statement Published 03/09/88 53 FR 7534 Proposed Policy Statement Comment Period End 05/09/88 Options Paper to ED0 03/22/89 Final Policy Statement to ED0 Undetermined Final Policy Statenent Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AMD OTHER ENTITIES: Ho 67 l
1
TITLE:
Personnel Access Authorization Program AGENCY CONTACT:
Sandra Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research L
Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3773 1
l l
i 2
68 l
TITLE:
Minor Amendments to Physical Protection Requirements CFR CITAT10!!:
10'CFR 70; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 75 ABSTRACT:
The Proposed rule amends the Commission's regulations dealing with physical protection requirements that are out of cate, susceptible to differing interpretations, or in need of clarification. These problems were identified by a systematic review of the agency's safeguards regulations " ' quidance documents conducted by the Safeguards Interoffice 'w Group (SIRG). In addition, the staff has-identified other art.- a the regulations where ninor changes are warranted. In respon, to these efforts, specific amendments to the regulations are being proposed. .The proposed changes would:
(1) limit the use of the 100 rems per hour at 3 feet dose. exemption-to a reduction of no more than one physical protection category and not allow a drop below the lowest category, (2). add definitions for common terms not currently defined by frequent use,.(3) delete action:
dates that no longer apply, (4) correct outdated terms and cross references, (5) clarify wording that is susceptible to differing interpretations, (6) correct typographical errors, and (7) make
- l. -other minor changes.
1
.The alternative to rulemaking would be to allow the status cuo to continue. Except for the change in the impact of a high radiation field on physical protection requirements, these minor amendments affect the public, industry and the NRC only in so far as they make the regulations easier to understand, inplement, and enforce.
Limiting the ese 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 lovest category, corld affect two
- l. non-power reactor licensees. It is estimated that 0.4 staff-years of NRC effort over 2 years will be required for the rulemaking.
This is a low rriority rulemaking.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to E00 03/30/89 Proposed Action Published 05/30/89 Final Action Published 04/04/90 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSIllESS AND OTHER EllTITIES: No I I
AGENCY C0t! TACT:
Stan Dolins l iluclear Regulatory Commission L Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 l- 301 492-3745 1 i
69 )
I 1
l
- -_ - - . - _ _ _ _ - - - - _ - _ _ - - _ _____ a
TITLE:
Storage of Spent-Huclear Fuel in NRC Approved Casks at Civilian Nuclear Power-Reactor Sites CFR CITATION:
10.CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 74; 10 CFR 170' ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule is in response to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) section 218 (a) which states, in part, that the Secretary of.00E 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 reauires that the URC establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under section'218(a) for.use.at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.
The staff anticipates a significant increase in the demand for use of dry spent fuel storage casks starting in the early 1990s, thus processing of this nroposed rule would be timely. PRC resource requirements are anticipated to be about two staff years.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action for Division Review 03/02/88 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 07/26/88 Proposed Action to ED0 02/14/89 Proposed Action to Commission (SECY-89-084) 03/08/89 Proposed Action Published C4/14/89 Final Action Published 03/09/90 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42'USC 10153; 42 USC 10198 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
William R. Pearson Huclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reculatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3764 70
a,s :'
-( l TITLE:
Night Firing Qualifications for Security Guards at !!uclear Pouer Plants CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would ensure that security force effectiveness at nuclear power plants is not dependent on the time of day. Security guards currently are required to perform night firing for familiarization only. There is no requirement for standards to measure.their effectiveness. The proposed rule would chance 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 r,roposed amendment will standardize training and qualification in night firing and prepare power reactor cuard forces to respond more effectively 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 qualification facilities and programs. The costs to NRC will also be minimal because it will only require minor licensing, inspection and other regulator; 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.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published Undetermined Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Dr. Sandra D. Frattali l Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Huclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3773 71
TITLE:
Access to Safeguards Information CFR CITATI0ft:
10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:
The final rule would amend the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's requirements for access to Safeguards Information to conform with a provision of Pub. L.99-399, "The s mnibus Diplcmatic Security and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1986." The provision of the law requires nuclear power reactor licensees and applicants to conduct Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal history chect:s of certain individuals with access to information protected as safeguards Information.
This technical amendment conforms $9 73.21 to 73.57 with respect to individuals authorized access to safeguards information by power reactor applicants and licensees.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action for Division Review 01/30/89 '
Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 02/17/89 Final Action to EDO 03/28/89 Final Action Published 05/08/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS AMD OTilER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
M. L. Au Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3749 l
1 72 4
- _ _ _ _ _ ~
TITLE:
- Export of Heavy Water to Canada CFR-CITATION:
. ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations
'concerning the import and export of nuclear equipment and material in 10 CFR Part 110. Current regulations require that license applications:for the export of 1000 kilograms or more of heavy water to any country require review by the Commission. The Commission has reviewed.its processing of nuclear export license applications and has determined that license applications for the export of any quantity of heavy water to Canada do not raise issues that require Commission review. There is no acceptable alternative to rulemaking because an amendment to the regulations is necessary to identify the classes of export license application which require Commission review. The proposed rule should benefit'the NRC, the industry, and the public by. expediting the review process for these
- kinds of applications.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 07/00/89 Final Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
44 USC 3201; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Elaine 0. Hemby Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Governmental and Public Affairs Washington, DC 20555 301 492-0341 L
73
I TITLE:
Indemnification of Licensees that Manufacture, Produce Possess or Use Radiopharmaceuticals or Radioisotopes for Medical Purposes l
l CFR CITATION:
l
, ABSTRACT:
l The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is required to conduct a nerotiated rulemaking to determine whether to enter into indemnity agreement with persons licensed by the Commission or by an Agreement State for the manufacture, production, possession, or use of radioisotopes or radiopharmaceutical for medical purposes. The l l
Price Anderson Amendments Act requires the NRC to conduct the negotiated rulemaking proceedings. Upon completion of proceedings, the designated convenor for the proceedings will provide
- recommendations on whether the HRC should enter into indemnity agreements with radiopharmaceutical licensees. If the convenor recommends that the NRC idemnify any of the licensees, a proposed rule will be draf ted to set forth the terms and conditioris of indemnification.
TIMETABLE:
)
Notice of Intent Published 10/14/88 53 FR 40233 Convenor Report to the Commission C3/16/89 Proposed Action Published 05/00/89 Final Action Pubiished Undetermined L LEGAL AUTHORITY:
Price Anderson Act, Pub. L. 100-408 l
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AUD OTHER ENTITIES:
l AGENCY CONTACT:
Francis X. Cameron Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washinoton, DC 20555 301 492-1623 I
74 l
1 l
l TITLE: l
!. NRC Acquisition Regulation (!;RCAR)
CFR CITATION:
48 CFR Chapter 20, Parts 1-02 l
ABSTRACT The proposed rule would amend the Commission's re;ulations to establish provisions unique to the !!RC concerning the acquisition of goods and services. The NRC Acquisition Regulation is necessary to !
implement and supplement the government-wide Federal Acquisition Regulation. This action is necessary to ensure that the regulations governing the procurement of goods and services within the NRC satisfy the needs of the agency. The HRC Acquisition l Regulation implements the Federal Acquisition Regulation within the '
agency and includes additional policies, procedures, solicitation provisions, or contract clauses needed to meet specific NRC needs.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published C9/00/89 Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 41 USC 401 et seq.
I EFFECTS ON SitALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No l i
AGENCY CONTACT:
Ronald D. Thompson Huclear Regulatory Commission
( Office of Administration and Resources Managenent Washington, DC 20555 301 492 4275 75
1 1
I ll PETITIONS t
I l
l l '
(A) Petitions incorporated into final rules or petitions denied since December 30, 1988 i
J s
si h
k
(
I i
1 i
l
)
i 1
l i
4
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-31-4 PETITIONER: Gene-Trak Systems PART: 31 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: flone FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 2. 1988 (53 FR 2853)
SUBJECT:
Use of Phosphorus-32 in Salmonella arid Listeria Assays Sut1 MARY: The petitioner requested that the Commission amend its regulations to establish that 100 microcuries of phosphorus-32 used-in Salmonella and Listeria assays by a food laboratory be included under the 10 CFR 31.11 general license. The petitioner requested this action because the presence of phosphorus-32 in amounts exceeding currently exempt quantities would require those desiring to use DNA probe assays to apply for and obtain a specific license from the NRC that would authorize this use. The petitioner asserted that authorizing the use of the assays under a general license would assist food manufacturers and food laboratories by eliminating the licensing procedure. The petitioner stated that the paperwork burden on both the NRC and the industry would be reduced. A letter dated Febr"ary 28, 1989, was received by the NRC from G. Parsons, Radiation Safety Officer at Gene-Trak Systems, requesting that the petition be withdrawn due to the introduction of new products r.d resultant changes in their marketing strategy.
TIMETABLE: A document announcing the withdrawal of the petition was published in the Federal Register on March 14, 1989
.(54 FR 10550) 1 CONTACT: Harvey Scott Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301 492-3632 i
t i l l 77 l
f i
PETITION-DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-100-2 i PETITIONER: Public Interest Research Group, et al.
PART: 100 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: July 1, 1976 (41 FR 27141)
SUBJECT:
Population Density Criteria Near Nuclear Power Plants
SUMMARY
- The petitioners requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission amend its regulations to prohibit the construction of nuclear reactors where the population in the surrounding area exceeds or will exceed specified numerical limits. The petitioners' proposed criteria would limit permissible population density to 400 people per square mile within a 40-mile rerimeter.
The petitioners stated that they regard these proposed criteria as interim standards to be used until the Commission is able to generate its own numerical standards on population density.
TIMETABLE: A notice denying this petition was published in the Federal Register on December 14, 1988 (53 FR 50232).
CONTACT: John Stewart Nuclear Reculatory Commission l Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l 301 492-3618 78
(B) Petitions for which a notice of denial has been prepared and is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register next quarter l
l i
1 i
I
__ .__ ._ ---- -'-----________ N
. PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-20 PETITIO!!ER: Free Environment, Inc., et al.
.PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: 100 FEDERAL. REGISTER CITATION: May 19, 1977 (42 FR.25785)
SUBJECT:
Reactor Safety Measures
SUMMARY
- The petitioner requests that the Commission amend Part 50 before proceeding with the processing of license applications for the Central Iowa Nuclear Project to require that (1) all nuclear reactors te located below ground level; (2) all nuclear reactors be housed in sealed buildings within which permanent heavy vacuums are maintained; (3) a full-time Federal employee, with full authority to order the plant to be shut down in case of any operational abnormality, always be present in all nuclear generating stations; and (4) the Central Iowa Nuclear Project and all other reactors be sited at least 40 miles'from major population centers.
The objective of the petition is to ensure that additional safety measures are employed in the construction and siting of nuclear power plants. The petitioner seeks to have recommendations and procedures practiced or encouraged by various organizations and some current !!RC guidelines adopted as mandatory requirements in the Conmission's regulations.
The comment period closed July 18, 1977. Three comments were received. The first three parts of the petition (see Description section above) were incorporated with PRM-50-19 for staff action purposes. A notice of denial for the third part of the petition was published in the Federal Register on l' February 2, 1978 (43 FR 4a66). A notice of denial for the first two parts of the petition was published April 19, 1978 (43 FR 16556).
l TIMETABLE: The staff is preparing a Federal Register package which will contain a denial for the remaining issue in this petition.
The notice is expected to be published by May 1989.
CONTACT: John Telford fluclear Regulatory Commission Office of tiuclear Repelatory Research 301 492-3796 79
1 i
i i
i
)
(C) Petitions incorporated into proposed rules i
1 1
I 1
i
---__-._______u_________ _ _ _ _m
I C
)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l
E y:.
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-35-7
~
PETITIONER: Theragenics Corporation PART: 35 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Not yet published
SUBJECT:
Palladium-103 for the Interstitial Treatment of Cancer-
SUMMARY
- The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations governing the medical use of byproduct material by adding, Palladium-103 sealed source as seeds to the list of sources-permitted for use.in cancer treatment under 10 CFR'35.400.
Under current NRC regulations, a potential user would be required to request and obtain a license amendment before using Palladium-103-in brachytherapy treatments. The retitioner requests this amendment so that each potential user would not have to obtain a specific license' amendment. The NRC has l.- accepted this petition for fast-track processing and is develop.ing a proposed rule'on.this matter.
TIMETABLE: To. follow action on PRM-35-7 in this and future regulatory agendas, see the timetable for the relemaking entry, Palladium-103 for-Interstitial Treatment of Cancer," a proposed revision of Part 35 that addresses this petition.
CONTACT:- Anthony Tse Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (301) 492-3797 1
i 81
(D) Petitions pending staff review l
I
.1 i
l l
1 j
i l
i 1
!I D
i
-l x
q PETITION DOCKET HUMBER: PRM-20-17 PETITIONER: The Rockefeller' University PART: 20 l
OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None 'j FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: October 21,1988(53FR41342)
Correction published November-1, 1988.
SUBJECT:
Disposal of Animal Tissue Containing Small Amounts of Radioactivity
SUMMARY
- The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations under which a licensee may dispose of animal tissue containing smalliamounts of radioactivity without regard to its radio-activity by expanding-the list of radioactive isotopes for which unregulated disposal is permitted. Specifically, the petitioner requests that.the !!RC add Sulfur-35, Calcium-45, Chroraium-51, Iodine-125, and Iodine-131 in concentrations not exceeding 0.01 microcurie /g to the list of radioactive isotopessetoutin10CFR20.306(b). The petitioner also-requests that the NRC make the unregulated disposal of these wastes a matter'with which all jurisdictions must conply.
TIMETABLE: Resolution of the petition is scheduled for !!ovember 1989.
CONTACT: Catherine Mattsen Nuclear Regulatory Comaission Office of Iluclear Regulatory Research l 301 492-3638 i
i 1
83 L__----- - _ _ - - - - - _ - - - - - _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PETITION DOCKET HUMBER: PRM-20-18 PETITIONER:. The Rockefeller University PART:- 20 0THER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: October 31,1988(53FR43896)
SUBJECT:
Disposal of Solid Biomedical Waste Containing Sma'11 Amounts of Radioactivity
SUMMARY
- The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations to permit a licensee to dispose of solid biomedical waste containing small-amounts of radioactivity without regard to ;
its radioactivity. .The petitioner. requests that the NRC expand the provisions of 10 CFR 20.306 to classify'the i disposal of wastes such as paper, glass, and plastic trash- .
containing small amounts of Hydrogen-3 and Carbon-14 as below I regulatory concern. The petitioner would then be,able to i dispose of this material on-site'in a currently operating,- I controlled-air. incinerator. 'The petitioner believes this to {
be a reasonable, cost-effective alternative to burial of these wastes at a c0mmercial low-level radioactive waste site.
TIMETABLE: Resolution of the petition is scheduled for November 1989.
CONTACT:' Catherine Mattsen Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301 492-3638 i
l 84 i
. PETITION: DOCKET' NUMBER: PRM-20-19*
PETITIONER: GE Stockholders' Alliance PART: 20 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: 50 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 1, 1989 (54 FR 5089)
SUBJECT:
Injection of Detectable Odor in Nuclear Power Plant Effluents
SUMMARY
- The petitioner requests that the Commission amend Part 20 to require that a detectable odor be injected into the emission of nuclear power plants and other nuclear processes.over which the NRC has jurisdiction. The petitioner believes that this action would improve the health and safety of the public by-providing for early detection of radiation" leaks. A detectable odor would give the public notice of the need to take health protective measures.
The public comment period closes April 3, 1989. The NRC
.will review public comments, prior staff work on this issue, and develop recommendations regarding resolution of the petition.
TIMETABLE: Resolution of the petition is scheduled for December 1989.
CONTACT: Alan K. Roecklein Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301 492-3740 i
85 i
PEllTION DOCKET MUMBER: PRM-50-31 PETITIONER: Citizens' Task Force PART: 50 l OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: 70 l
FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: March 24, 1982 (47 FR 12639) f
SUBJECT:
Energency Preparedness
SUMMARY
- The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to require that (1) the present ten-mile energency planning zone radius be extended to twenty miles and include any towns bordering on or partially within this zone; (2) all communities with a population in excess of 5,000 persons be provided by the respective utility with the funding to purchase, install, and operate radiological monitoring equipment to reach and maintain the level of preparedness deemed necessary by the affected municipalities; and (3) utilities he required to ,
finance the energency planning efforts of municipalities located near nuclear reactors.
The objective of the petition is to establish an effective notification and evacuation systen in communities located near nuclear reactors. The comment period closed May 26, 1982. I TIMETABLE: Resolution of the petition is scheduled for April 1989.
CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301 492-3918 86
1 1
l PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-45 i 1
PETITIONER: Kenneth G. Sexton PART: 50 1
t OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None-FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: October 6, 1986 (51 FR 3E518)'
SUBJECT:
Extending the Emergency Planning Zone
SUMMARY
- The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to require that current methodologies and analytical techniques be used to reevaluate the' established Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) for nuclear power plants.
The petitioner is concerned that emergency planning for areas within and beyond the 10-mile distance provided in the Commission's regulations is inadequate because the current ~10-mile EPZ was determined with what the petitioner considers outdated methodologies and data.
The petitioner points out that advanced techniques ann new information obtained through research in the last 10 years have produced improved calculations for determining the size of an EPZ.
The petitioner believes that there is overwhelming justification to request that the size of the EPZ be I reevaluated on a site-specific basis, after allowing for-l review of the determination report by any interested parties. ;
The comment period for this' petition, originally to ;
expire on December 5, 1986 was extended to April 15, i 1987.
[ TIMETABLE: Resolution of the petition is scheduled for April 1985.
l CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian l Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301 492-3918 l
87
, PETITION DOCKET NUMBERi PRM-50-46'
[
-PETITIONER: State of-Maine' PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: Hone FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: Decenber 30, 1986 (51 FR 47025)
SUBJECT:
Emergency Planning
SUMMARY
- The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its
. emergency planning regulations to (1) expand the emergency planning zone for the plume exposure pathway and for the ingestion pathway; (2) require that emergency -
planning be done before any construction of a nuclear facility is permitted and that the Governor of each affected State approve the emer construction; and (3)require gency that plans as aemergency offsite precondition to 1 preparedness-findings be made before any. fuel loading and/or low power operations are permitted.-
I The objective _ of the petition is to expand the emergency planning zone around nuclear power plants to ensure the protection of the public.- The comment period expired' March 2, 1987.
TIMETABLE: Resolution of the petition is scheduled for April 1989.
CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 4 301 492-3918 i
88 ,
l 1,
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-48 PETITIOMER: University of Missouri l
(
PART: 50 i
OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None l 1
l FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: March 1,1988(53FR6159) l-l
SUBJECT:
Redefine " Testing Facility" Based on the Function of the Facility Instead of its Pot.er Level
SUMMARY
- The petitioner requests that the Commission adopt a regulation that would add a definition for the term "research reactor" and redefine the term " testing facility" based on the function of the facility instead of its power level. The retitioner requests this action because the current definition of " testing I facility" results in excessive and unnecessary routine regulatory requirements being applied to research reactors which is contrary to the intent of Concrecs in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
TIMETABl.E: Resolution of the petition is scheduled for April 1989.
CONTACT: Mark Au Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301 492-3749 I
1 1
1 I
l l
- l l
1 89
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-50 PETITIOMER: Charles Young PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: August 26, 1988 (53 FR 32024)
SUBJECT:
Technical Specifications
SUMMARY
- The petitioner requests the Commission to amend its regulations to rescind the provision that authorizes nuclear power plant operators to deviate from technical specifications during an emergency. The retitioner believes that nuclear power plants should be operated in accordance with the operating license and appropriate technical specifications and that requiring a senior operator to follow the technical specifications during an energer.cy enhances plant safety.
TIMETABLE: Resolution of the petition is scheduled fLe At; gust 1989.
CONTACT: Morton R. Fleishman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301 492-3794 i
l ,
i f
4 90
._______ a
~ PETITION' DOCKET IlUMBER: PRM-50-51, PRM-50-51A, PRM-50-51B PETITIONER: American Nuclear Insurers and MAERP Reinsurance Association, Edison Electric Institute, Nuclear Utility Management and
' Resource Council, and Nuclear Mutual Limited and Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: September 19, 1988 (53 FR 3E335)
SUBJECT:
Changes in Property Insus ine.e 9tquirements
SUMMARY
- The petitioners request-that-the Commission amend, after notice and opportunity for comment, certain insurance provisions which require that: (1) any insurance claims be paid first for the stabilization of the reactor facility and secondly, for decontamination of the facility, and (2) any insurance proceeds be paid to a trustee who would disburse the proceeds according to the priorities.
Four comments were received on this petition and are under office review.
TIMETABLE: Resolution of this retition is scheduled for November 1989.
CONTACT: Robert Wood Nuclear Reculatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 301 492-1280 l
l 91 i
L
R
.j E
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-52.
PETI 110NER: LMarvin Lewis ,
PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL' REGISTER CITATION: August 29,1988(53'FR32913)-
SUBJECT:
Financial Qualifications, 4
SUMMARY
- 'The petitioner requests that the Commission.' reinstate. financial qualifications as:a consideration in the' operating. license hearings for electric utilities. The petitioner believes that. ]
the financial condition of a utility should be investigated-during the licensing hearings. lThe petitioner;also believes that the current. rule requires the assumption of financial' adequacy. and that this assumption has resulted in several-problems.that could pose a danger to the public health:
and safety.
TIMETABLE: Resolution of this petition is scheduled for October.
1989.
CONTACT: James Petersen ,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 301 492-1265 i
1 l
!2 .
i
- ______-__________- _ _ - _ _ D
I 1
l l
I i
l (E) Petitions with deferred action 1
b ,
1 j
E
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-40-23 PETITIONER: Sierra Club PART: 40 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 25, 1981 (46 FR 14021);
May 2, 1983 (48 FR 19722)
SUBJECT:
Licensing the Possession of Uranium Mill Tailings at Inactive Storage Sites.
SUMMARY
- The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to license the possession of uranium mill tailings of inactive stcrage sites. The petitioner proposes the following regulatory action to ensure that the public health and safety is adequately protected: (1) reeeal the licensing exemption for inactive uranium mill tailings sites subject to the Department of Energy's remedial programs; (2) require a license for the possession of byproduct material on any other property in the vicinity of an inactive mill tailings sita if the byproduct materials are derived from the sites; or, in the alternative, (3) conduct a rulemaking to determine whether a licensing exemption of these sites or byproduct materials constitutes an unreasonable risk to public health and safety. On March 23, 1983, the petitioner filed an amendment to the original petition. In the amendment, the petitioner requests that, in the event that HRC denies the earlier requests, URC take further action to ensure that the management of byproduct material located on or derived from inactive uranium processing sites is conducted in a manner that protects the public health and safety and the environment. The petitioner also requests that the NRC take action to govern the management of byproduct material not subject to licensina under section 81 of the Atomic Energy Act. l The objective of the petition is to license the protection of uranium mill tailings at inactive storace sites or take other regulatory action to protect the public health and safety and the environment from the radiological and
, nonradiological hazards associated with the tailings. The petitioner believes that this action is necessary if NRC is to adequately fulfill its statutory responsibilities under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act.
1 93 l
The comment period closed April 27, 1981. Three comments were' 1 received, all stating.the petition should be denied. The comment period on the amendment to the petition closed June 30, 1983. Uranium mill tailings are regulated under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of ,
1978 (Pub. L.95-604, 42 U.S.C. 7901, et seq.). Title IJof the Act directs.that the Department of Energy, in consul-tation with NRC, conduct a remedial. action program at j inactive uranium mill tailings sites. Title II of.
the Act authorizes NRC to regulate disposal of the tailings at active sites.
TIMETABLE: Resolution'of this petition is on~ hold pending amendments to Part 40 dealing with the custody and long-term care of.
~
reclaimed mill tailings. sites.- Completion of this
~
rulemaking is scheduled-for 1990. Resolutionlof :
the petition will be completed following this action.. j h
CONTACT: Mark Haisfield Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research' j
301 492-3877 1
1.-
1 1
94 U______-______
NRC 80Cu 336 U.S. NUCEggs agGUL AToRY CoMM1$$10N 1-v1 h, L2,*5h sio2 3201,3202 BIBUOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET ts instructions on the neerse) NUREG-0936,
- 2. TO LE AND SUBitTLg Vol. 6, No. I NRC Regulatory Agenda Quarterly Report 3. DATf REPORT PUBLISHED
== t a uAn i January - March 1989 j May 1989 j
- 4. FIN oR GRANT NUMBER I
- b. AUTHOR (Si 6. TYPE of REPORT Quarterly
- 1. PE R lOD COM E R E D tenetusour Derest January - March 1989
~
B. PERF oRMlNG ORGAN l2 AT ton - N AME AND ADDR ESG for Nnc.orovno ouvuron, onwe er nerion, u.s Nuckor neguktory commswan. and mentone addmu: so contrecror, provuor narro end merI6ng eddresL)
Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ;
Washington, DC 20555 l
- 9. SPONSORING oRG ANIZ ATloN - N AME AND ADDR ESS tat knC. rppe %me ss ebove" it connector. provide NnC Osukoon, Onwe er neelon v.s. Nucker neguntary commonoon.
and meitbng addresL)
Same as item 8. above.
- 10. SUPPLEMENT ARY NOTES
- 11. ABST R ACT (soo weres or kut The NRC Regulatory Agenda is a compilation of all rules on which the NRC has proposed or is considering action and all petitions for rulemaking which have been received by the Commission and are pending disposition by the Commission. The Regulatory Agenda is updated and issued each quartere I
i l
- 13. KE Y WORDS/DESCR TT oR$ (tur words or parem ener witieusse reseerrnert sa tocerms ene nrport.: 13. AVAsLAtnuiV M AltM4N1 Unlimited Compilation of rules i..ucunav uA e cA w .
t ra,s ene.,
Petitions for rulemaking Unclassified (ran neporrt Unclassified
- 16. NUMBER OF PAGEb f
i 16 PRICL NQC 9OMM 3351249)
NUCLEAR RE U TORY MMISSION N T EUSNRC "nicN IS*
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 PERMIT No, G-67 Section I - Rules _ g ; g 'g usy j g ,, ,,,,
Action Completed Rules 12o33323,33, US NRC-0ADM 1 1AN187 DIV p
pogg g p_s 99 pon.nugyyLICArgonggygg WASHINGTON
' DC Proposed Rules 20555 j
Advance Notice - Proposed Rulemaking Unpublished Rules I Section ll - Petitions for Rulemaking Petitions - Fina; cr Denied Petitions - Scheduled for Publication in the Federal Register Petitions - Incorporated into Proposed Rules Petiti .,ns - Pending Petitions - Deferred Action