ML20212C662

NRC Regulatory Agenda.Quarterly Report,April-June 1986

ML20212C662
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/31/1986
From:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:
References
NUREG-0936, NUREG-0936-V05-N02, NUREG-936, NUREG-936-V5-N2, NUDOCS 8612310130
Download: ML20212C662 (182)

Text

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

l NUREG-0936 Vol. 5, No. 2 1

NRC Regulatory Agenda 1

Quarterly Report April - June 1986 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration pa n%

hYk.

D hhjjjB61231 0936 g PDR

Available from Superintendent of Documents U.S. Govemment Printing Office Post Office Box 37082 Washington, D.C. 20013-7082 A year's subscription comists of 4 issues for this publication.

Single copies of this publication are available from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 e

+ -% ww- -

p-- n,, -- m v -- ,,-cem-,- - - - -,y -

,w----- -

--,---m---- -

NUREG-0936 Vol. 5, No. 2 NRC Regulatory Agenda Quarterly Report April - June 1986 Manuscript Completed: July 1986 Date Published: December 1986 Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 p .... ,,

A

,n- -- ----- - -- .,- , ,,, -.--,~ - , __

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I - RULES P_ age (A) Rules on which final action has been taken since March 31, 1986 Criteria for Reopening Records in Formal Licensing Proceedings 1

(Part2).......................................................

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Nuclear Regulatory ,

Commission Programs (Part 4)................................... 2 Posting Requirements for the Protection of Contractor Employees and Extension of Criminal Penal ties (Part 21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Access Authorization for Licensee Personnel: Implementation of National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 84, " Safeguarding National Security Information" (Part 25)....................... 4 Radiation Surveys and In-House Inspection Systems in Radiography (Part 34)...................................................... 5 Limited Scope Modification to GDC 4 Requirements for Protection Against Postulated Pipe Ruptures (Part 50)..................... 6 Consideration of Earthquakes in the Context of Emergency Preparedness (Part 50)......................................... 7 Protection of Contractor Employees (Part 50)........................ 8 Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material (Part 110)...... 9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Acquisition Regulations (48 CFR 20)... 10 (B) - Proposed Rules Revision to Ex Parte and Separation of Functions Rules Applicable to Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings (Parts 0, 2)................. 11 the Equal Access to Justice Act:

Procedures Involving Implementation (Parts 1,2)..................................... 12 iii

T Page Adjudications -- Special Procedures for Resolving Conflicts Concerning the Disclosure or Nondisclosure of Information (Part2)........................................................ 13

, Commission Review Procedures for Power Reactor Construction Permits; Immediate Effectiveness Rule (Part 2)........................... 14-Modifications to the NRC Hearing Process (Limited Interrogatories and Factual Basis for Contentions) (Part 2)..................... 16 Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level

. Radioactive Waste (Parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 51, 70, 72, 73, 75, 150)............................................................ 17 Possible Amendments to "Immediate Effectiveness" Rules (Parts 2, 50)................................................... 19 Nondiscrimination on Basis of Age in Federally Assisted Commission Programs (Part 4)............................................... 21

Standards for Protection Against Radiation (Part 20)................. 22

~

Improved Personnel Dosimeter Processing (Part 20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities (Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, 72).................................. 26 Medical Use of Byproduct Material (Part 35).......................... 28 i

Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Well-Logging Operations (Part 39)............................................ 30 Communications Procedures Amendments (Part 50)....................... 31 Mandatory Property Insurance for Decontamination of Nuclear Facilities (Part 50)............................................ 33 i

Station Blackout (Part 50)........................................... 35 Operators' Licenses (Parts 50, 55)................................... 37 I

Safeguards Requirements for Nonpower Reactor Licensees Possessing Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material (Parts 50, 70, 73).............................................. 39 3

5 i

i l iv i

4 e.., .

.~e , - ..m..,. - _ _ . , . .. -m._,

. ....u.,---- %...-- ,. .. --.,,,- , m , . - ...,--.y .-..g., ,e-.v-.c,,,,. -,. ,-.,,.m-w,,,u,.e,,--c-.-,-e-,e., . - - - , - - - -

P_ age  :

Personnel Access Authorization Program (Part of Insider Package)

(Parts 50, 73).................................................. 41 Explanation to Table S-3 Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data (Part 51)....................................................... 43 Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories:

Conforming Amendments (Part 60)................................. 45 Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories:

Procedural Amendments (Part 60)................................. 46 Changes to Safeguards Reporting Requirements (Parts 70,72,73,74).. 47 Modification of Protection Requirements for Spent Fuel Shipments (Part 73)....................................................... 49 Miscellaneous Amendments Concerning Physical Protection of Nuclear Power Plants (Part of Insider Rule Package) (Part 73)... 51 Searches of Individuals at Power Reactor Facilities (Part of Insider Package) (Part 73).............................................. 53 Material Control and Accounting Requirements for Facilities Authorized to Possess and Use Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material (Part 74).............................. 55 Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (Part 140).......... 57 (C) - Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings: Role of NRC Staff in Adjudicatory Licensing Hearings (Part 2)......./....... 59 Regulatory Reform of the Rules of Practice and Rules for Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities (Parts 2, 50).......... 61 Financial Responsibility of Materials Licensees for Cleanup After Accidental and Unexpected Releases (Parts 30,40,61,70,72)... 63 Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive Materials Licensees (Parts 30,40,70).......................... 65 Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Ground Water Protection and Other Issues (Part 40).......................................... 66 v

I P. age Emergency Core Cooling Systems; Revisions to Acceptance Criteria (Part 50)....................................................... 67 Degree Requirement for Senior Operators at Nuclear Power Plants (Parts 50, 55).................................................. 69

'(D) - Unpublished Rules Revised Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings (Parts 0, 1, 2, 9, 50).......................................... 71 Effectiveness of an Initial Decision Authorizing Issuance or Amendment of a Power Reactor License or Permit (Part 2)......... 72 Availability of Official Records (Part 2)............................ 73 Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings -- Procedural Changes in Hearing Process (Part 2)............................. 74 Security Requirements for Category II Material at Fixed Sites (Parts 2, 70, 73)............................................... 75 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex - Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as Amended (Part 4)......................... 77 Retention Periods for Records (Parts 4, 11, 21, 25, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35,40,50,60,61,70,71)..................................... 78 Disposal of Low-Level Radioactively Contaminated Waste Oil from '

Nuclear Power Plants (Part 20).................................. 80 Residual Radioactive Contamination Limits for Decommissioning (Part20)....................................................... 81 Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance (Parts 21, 50). . . .. .. . . . . 82 Adjustment to Security Access Authorization Fee Schedule Publication (Part25)....................................................... 84 Registration of Sources and Devices (Parts 30,32,40,70)........... 85 vi

Page Informal Hearing Procedures for Materials Licenses Proceedings (Parts 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 50, 61, 70, 71, 72).............. 86 Financial Responsibility Standards for Long Term Care for Low Level Waste Disposal Sites (Parts 30,40,61,70,72)........... 87 Bankruptcy Filing; Notification Requirements (Parts 30, 40, 50, 61, 70,72)......................................................... 88 Requirements for Possession of Industrial Gauges (Part 31)........... 89

' Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Exposure Devices (Part 34)....................................................... 90 Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors (Part 50).............................................. 92 Safety Related and Important to Safety-in 10 CFR Part 50 (Part 50)....................................................... 94 Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (Part 50)............... 95 Fitness for Duty of Personnel with Access to Nuclear Power Plants (Part 50)....................................................... 96 Broad Scope Modification of General Design Criterion 4 Requirements for Protection Against Dynamic Effects of Postulated Pipe Ruptures (Part 50).............................................. 97 Radon 222 Estimate for Table S-3 (Parts 50, 51)...................... 98 Degree Requirement for Senior Operators at Nuclear Power Plants (Parts 50, 55).................................................. 100 Part 51; Conforming Amendments (Parts 51, 60)........................ 101 Annual Fee for Nuclear Power Reactors Operating Licenses or Applications and Major Materials Licenses and Conforming Amendment (Parts 51, 171)....................................... 102 Definition of High-Level Radioactive Waste (HLW) in 10 CFR Part 60 (Part60)....................................................... 103 Criteria and Procedures for Evaluating Requests for Emergency Access to Low-Level Waste Disposal Sites (Part 62).............. 104 vii i

_ - - _ . - - - , , . - , , ,+

_ _,.- , ,..-,-r,, _ . y _ , .- ,,p3

--- _ _ . , _ , -.. ,,,,y 7,

P_a!Le Reporting of Special Nuclear Material Physical Inventory Summary Results (Part 70)............................................... 105 Rule to Amend the ansportation~ Provisions Pertaining to the Shipment of Low Specific Activity (LSA) Material (Part 71)...... 106 Licensing Requirements for the Export of Tritium (Part 110).......... 107 i

viii

SECTION II - PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING Page (A) - Petitions incorporated into final rules or petitions denied since March 31, 1986 Final Radiation Survey of a Radiographic Exposure Device (PRM-34-3)..................................................... 109 Environmental Assessment for High Burnup Nuclear Fuel (PRM-51-6).... 110 (B) - Petitions incorporated into proposed rules Intervals Between Required Dosimetry System Calibrations (PRM-35-2)..................................................... 113 Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-50-22)................. 115 Exemption of " Low Specific Activity Material" from the Requirements of Part 71 (PRM-71-1, PRM-71-2, and PRM-71-4)..... 117 Elimination of " Pat Down" Physical Searches of Individuals at Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-73-2)................................ 119 Physical Security Requirements at Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-73-3)..................................................... 121 Elimination of Required Log-0ut of Personnel from Vital Areas of Nuclear Power Reactors (PRM-73-7)........................... 123 Elimination of Required Search of Hand-Carried Packages of Personnel at Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-73-8)................... 124 Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (PRM-140-1)........................ 125 (C) - Petitions pending staff review Radiation Protection Standards (PRM-20-6)........................... 127 Standards for Protection Against Radiation (PRM-20-6A).............. 129 Radiation Standards for Uses of Byproduct Material (PRM-30-55).................................................... 130 ix

Page LRegulations Governing Unimportant Quantities of Source Material (PRM 40-25).................................................... 132 Plant Security Information (PRM-50-21).............................. 133 Extension of Construction Completion.Date (PRM-50-25 and PRM-50-25A).................................................... 134 Emergency Preparedness (PRM-50-31).................................. 135 Reporting Requirements in NRC Regulations and Documents (PRM-50-36).................................................... 136 Standards for the Levels of Deuterium and Tritium in Water

. Circulated In and Around Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-50-37)...... 137 Emergency Response Plans for Persons Who Are Both Contaminated with Radioactive Material and Physically Injured (PRM-50-39)... 138 Response to a Reactor Trip for which the Cause Is Undetermined in Eight Hours (PRM-50-40)........................................ 139 Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel (PRM-50-41)............... 140 Implementation of.Certain Environmental Standards Which Have Been Proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (PRM-60-2 and PRM-60-2A)................................................. 141 Transportation of Irradiated Reactor Fuel (Spent Fuel) (PRM-71-10).. 143 Modification of Qualifications for Security Personnel of Nuclear Power Plants and Other Special Nuclear Material Licensees (PRM-73-6)..................................................... 144 (D) - Petitions with deferred action Disposal of Very Low Concentrations of Short-Lived Radionuclides (PRM-20-14).................................................... 145 New Radioactive Methods ofMaterial Disposal fromof Nuclear Waste Oil Contaminated Power Plants by(Low-LevelPRM-20-15)..

146 Licensing the Possession of Uranium Mill Tailings at Inactive Storage Sites (PRM-40-23)...................................... 147 Revised Criteria for Operation of Uranium Mills and Disposition of Tailings or Wastes (PRM-40-24).............................. 149 x

_P, ate Reactor Safety Measures (PRM-50-20)................................. 150

^

Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle (PRM-51-1).......... 152 Population Density Criteria Near Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-100-2).................................................... 154 J

s s

G 4

r 1

d i

xi

Preface The Regulatory Agenda is a quarterly compilation of all rules on which the NRC has proposed, or is considering action as well as those on which it has recently completed action, and all petitions for rulemaking which have been received and are pending disposition by the Commission.

Organization of the Agenda The agenda consists of two sections. Both sections have been updated through June 30, 1986.Section I, " Rules" includes: (A) Rules on which final action has been taken since March 31, 1986, 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 incor-porated into final rules since March 31, 1986, (B) Petitions incorporated into proposed rules, (C) Petitions pending staff review, and (D) Petitions with deferred action.

In Section I of the Agenda, the rules are ordered from lowest to highest part within Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). If more than one rule '

appears under the same part, the rules are arranged within the part by date of most recent publication. If a rule amends multiple parts, the rule is listed under the lowest affected part. In Section II of the. Agenda, the-petitions are ordered from lowest to highest part of 10 CFR and are identified with a petition for rulemaking (PRM) number. If more than one petition appears under the same CFR part, the petitions are arranged by PRM numbers in consecutive order within the part of 10 CFR.

The dates listed under the heading " Timetable" for scheduled action by the Commission or the Executive Director for Operations (ED0) 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 increased notice and public participation in the rule-making proceedings included on the Agenda. The NRC may, however, consider or act on any rulemaking proceeding even if it is not included in this Regulatory Agenda.

Rulemakings Approved by the Executive Director for Operations (ED0)

The Executive Director for Operations (E00) initiated a procedure for the review of the regulations being prepared by staff offices that report to him to ensure that staff resources were being allocated to achieve most effectively NRC's regulatory priorities. This procedure requires EDO approval before staff resources may be expended on the development of any new rulemaking. Furthermore, all existing rules must receive EDO approval prior to the commitment of additional resources.

xiii

-Rules that have received ED0 approval to date are identified as indicated below. 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. ,

Symbols Rules that appear on the agenda for the first time are identified by an asterisk "*". Rules that have been approved by the ED0 are identified by the symbol (+). This agenda contains no major rules as defined in Section 1(b) of Executive Order 12291.

Public Participation in Rulemaking -

Comments on any rule in the agenda may be sent to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. Comments may also be hand delivered to Room 1131, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC between 8:15 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. Comments received on rules for which the comment period has closed will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before the closure dates specified in the agenda.

The agenda and any comments received on any rule listed on the agenda are available for public inspection, and copying at a cost of five cents per page, at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC. Single copies of this agenda may be purchased from the U.S. Government Printing Office (GP0). Customers may call (202) 275-2060 or (202) 275-2171 or write to the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Po.st Office Box 37082, Washington, D.C. 20013-7082.

Additional Rulemaking Information For further information concerning NRC rulemaking procedures or the status of any rule listed in this agenda, conte.::t John D. Philips, Chief, Rules and Procedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone (301) 492-7086, persons cutside 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 " contact" for that rule.

xiv

i il h Bhk 4

o 4

1

(A) Rules on which final action has been taken since March 31, 1986 l

l t

1 = .a-. 4.m.r _- ~ a+

, . _ , _ - v--,

- ~.a - a m 4 a s.a a,, __ u a _,,

I A

I e

f I

I i

n 1

l l f P

6 i

r i.

O b

__ ._ _ _.. -__ m -. , , - -.-- . - , __,-. m.-

TITLE:

+ Criteria for Reopening Records in Formal Licensing Proceedings -

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to codify and improve the standards that apply to motions to reopen records in formal adjudications. This rulemaking affects any party who wishes to reopen an evidentiary record .

TIMETABLE:

Final Action Publisted 05/30/86 51 FR 19535 Final Action Effective 06/30/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Carole F. Kagan Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-1493 1

TITLE:

+ Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Nuclear Regulatory Commission Programs .

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 4 ABSTRACT:

The final rule provides for the enforcement of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicap, in programs or activities conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The final rule makes it unlawful for the NRC to discriminate, on the basis of handicap, in employment or the conduct of its activities. The final rule places the same obligations on the NRC that are placed on the recipients of Federal financial assistance. The final rule was signed by the ED0 on May 23, 1986, and NRC joined with the Department of Justice for its publication in the Federal Register during the week of June 23, 1986.

TIMETABLE:

Final Action 06/23/86 50 FR 22880 Final Action Effective 08/22/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2021; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 29 USC 794; 29 USC 706 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Edward E. Tucker Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization Civil Rights Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7697 2

TITLE:

+ Posting Requirements for the Protection of Contractor Employees and Extension of Criminal Penalties CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 21 ABSTRACT:

This unpublished rule is being withdrawn because the EDO did not approve initiation of it.

The proposed rule would have combined the Extension of Criminal Penalties and Protection of Employees Who Provide Information into the above-titled proposed rule. The proposed rule would have required the posting of the provisions of section 223 (b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act that notify any individual director, officer, and employee of a firm constructing or supplying.the components of a nuclear power plant of the provisions of section 223(b) and 210.

TIMETABLE:

Withdrawn 04/01/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Stanley P. Turel Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7925 3

TITLE:

+ Access Authorization for Licensee Personnel: Implementation of National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 84, " Safeguarding National Security Information" CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 25 ABSTRACT:

The Executive Director for Operations has discontinued activity on this rulemaking at this time pending OMB's approval of Form SF-189.

The proposed rule would have adopted revised National policy, initiated by the National Security Council and approved by the President, Information Nondisclosure Agreement" (SF-189) be completed by all licensees who request NRC access authorization under Part 25.

TIMETABLE:

Withdrawn 04/11/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2165; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Richard A. Dopp Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4549 4

TITLE:

+ Radiation Surveys and In-House Inspection Systems in Radiography CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 34 ABSTRACT:

The final rule requires that the in-house inspection description in a radiography license application specify a method for inspecting each radiographer and radiographer's. assistant's knowledge of applicable regulations, license conditions, and performance of established procedures at intervals not exceeding three months. This action is intended to further ensure that radiographic operations are conducted safely.

TIMETABLE:

Final Action Published 06/16/86 50 FR 21737 Final Action Effective 07/16/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Alan K. Roecklein Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research -

Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4358

}

J i

}

{

( 5 i

[

TITLE:

+ Limited Scope Modification to GDC 4 Requirements for Protection Against Postulated Pipe Ruptures CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The final rule permits licensees and applicants to use newly developed analytical methods involving widely accepted advanced fracture mechanics theories for determining that certain pipe ruptures need not be treated in the design basis for dynamic effects. Implementing the rule facilitates the removal of unnecessary pipe whip restraints and jet shields from existing nuclear power plants and plants under construction as well as future plant designs. This reduces inservice inspection cost and, in addition, reduces inspector radiation exposure.

TIMETABLE: ,

Final Action 04/11/86 51 FR 12502 Final Action Effective 05/12/86 51 FR 12502 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

John A. O'Brien Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7854 1

6

_ _ . . _ _ __ . . _ _ _ _ -_._-_.,_.,___v_m,. __ y , __

- - - . . - ._-____m._-

TITLE:

+ Consideration of Earthquakes in the Context of Emergency Preparedness CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

On June 30,1986, the Commission agreed to withdraw this rule, preferring to adhere to the Diablo Canyon / San Onofre precedent and not to adopt the additional requirements proposed in this rule.

The proposed rule would have considered the need to take into account the complicating effects of earthquakes on emergency preparedness. Existing regulations require that nuclear power plants be designed to safely shut down for most earthquakes. The probability of earthquakes large enough to cause major onsite damage tha would result in a significant radiological release from the plant is low; and for large earthquakes, offsite damage could make prior offsite emergency plans premised on normal conditions marginally useful.

TIMETABLE: Withdrawn 06/30/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Michael Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7615 -

i 7

. t ,

, (f i 1 :l TITLE: e

+ Protection of Contractor Employees CFR CITATION: s b 10 CFR 50 '

ABSTRACT: '

The Executive Director for Operations (EDO) approved termination of this rule on April 1, 1986. The rule is being terminated because there is no health and safety reason for addressing the issue and since Section 210 of the' Energy Reorganizatici Act does not give'the NRC direct authority over contractors and subcsntractors but rather it clearly envisioned that the Department of Labor would be the the principal agency in ensuring the rights of nuclear industry employees.

The proposed rule would have required 10 CFR Part 50 licensees, permittees, and applicants to ensure that procurement documents they issue or modify, specify that contractors and subcontractors post a notice to employees related to employee protection. The required notice would have contained information notifying eraployees that an employer is prohibited from discriminating against an employee engaging in protected activities and that an employee may seek a remedy for prohibited discrimination by filing a complaint with the Department of Labor.

TIMETABLE:

Withdrawn 04/16/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2282; 42 USC 5851 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Anthony J. DiPalo Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7613 8

TITLE:

+ Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 110 ABSTRACT:

The final rule amends regulations pertaining to the export of nuclear material by requiring certain holders of export licenses to notify the Comission in writing at least 40 days prior to reexporting Canadian-origin nuclear material or equipment, expanding the general license for byproduct material to allow the export of Americium-241 contained in industrial process control equipment, and to update the list of countries in the provisions setting out restricted destinations. The final rule is necessary to implement portions of the United States /

Canada Agreement for Cooperation, to correct an oversight in the current regulations, and to continue the policy of facilitating nuclear cooperation with countries sharing the non-proliferation goals of the United States.

TIMETABLE:

Final Action 04/14/86 51 FR 12598 Final Action Effective 05/14/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 2153 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: N/A AGENCY CONTACT:

Elaine 0. Hemby Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of International Programs Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7984 l

9

TITLE:

,, + Nuclear Regulatory Commission Acquisition Regulations CFR CITATION:

48 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would implement and supplement 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) System and specify those agency policies, procedures, contract clauses, solicitation provisions, and fctms governing the contracting process. In publishing the proposed _ rule, the NRC will comply with P.L.98-577 and the FAR 1.303 which requires that agency regulations be published in the Federal Register and codified in 48 CFR. The proposed rule will enable prospective contractors to become familiar with NRC contracting regulations and enable the preparation of contractual documents which protect the interest of the NRC. NRC resources needed for this rulenaking 'are estimated at 1,120 staff hours at an estimated cost of $67,200.

TIMETABLE:

Withdrawn 06/12/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42'USC 2201 1

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Edward L. Halman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration Washington, DC 20555 c, 301 492-4210 10

(B) Proposed Rules

--.,a.- -a.. _mm.-..- e - . h-.a w a,,_m.2A_u_ . _ _ - _ --- _ -- - ---- --- _ _ ___,___.

1. m _m __ 32 s_ A _

I 4

l l

l l

E i

l l

L t

t J

1 I

l t

i 1

TITLE:

Revision to Ex Parte and Separation of Functions Rules Applicable to Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 0; 10 CFR 2 ABSTPACT:

The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations dealing with ex parte communications and separation of adjudicatory and nonadjudicatory functions in formal adjudicatory proceedings to update the agency's rules of practice and to incorporate requirements imposed by the Government in the Sunshine Act. Changes are proposed in both the form and the substance of the existing rules to clarify their meaning and to aid agency adjudicatory officials to maintain effective communication with NRC staff personnel and persons outside the agency while at the same time ensuring that proceedings will be conducted fairly and impartially. This proposed rule supersedes a prior proposed rule entitled, "Ex Parte Communications and Separation of Adjudicatory and Non Adjudicatory Functions," (3150-AA00) published March 7, 1979 (44 FR 12428).

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 03/26/86 51 FR 10393 NPRM Comment Period End 06/26/86 51 FR 19067 Final Action 09/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

5 USC 554(d); 5 USC 557(d)

EFFECTS ON'SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Paul Bollwerk l Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-3224 11

TITLE:

+ Procedures Involving the Equal Access to Justice Act:

Implementation CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 1; 10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule provides new provisions intended to implement the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The provisions would provide for the payment of fees and expenses to certain eligible individuals and businesses that prevail in adjudications with the agency when the agency's position is determined not to have been substantially justified. The basis for these proposed regulations is a set of model rules issued by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) that have been modified to conform to NRC's established rules of practice. The proposed rule would further the EAJA's intent by insuring the development of government-wide " uniform" agency regulations and by providing NRC procedures and requirements for the filing and disposition of EAJA applications. A final draft rule was sent to the Commission in June 1982, but Commission action has been suspended pending a decision by the Comptroller General on the availability of funds to pay awards to intervenor parties, The decision from the Comptroller General has been rendered and is currently the subject of litigation.

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 contains revisions to the EAJA that are being evaluated to determine whether further conforming changes may be necessary in the proposed rule.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 10/28/81 46 FR 53189 NPRM Comment Period End 11/28/81 46 FR 53189 j Next Action Undetermined

LEGAL AUTHORITY

l 5 USC 504 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Paul Bollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Office of the General Counsel l Washington, DC 20555 1 202 634-3224 12 l

TITLE:

+ Adjudications -- Special Procedures for Resolving Conflicts Concerning the Disclosure or Nondisclosure of Information CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering amending its rules of practice to provide special procedures for resolving conflicts concerning the disclosure or nondisclosure of information relating to an NRC investigation or inspection or provided by a confidential source and deemed relevant and material to an adjudication. Prepared at the express direction of the Commission, the proposed amendments apply to all NRC offices that have information relevant and material to an adjudication.

The proposed amendments provide for ex parte in camera presentations and follow guidance contained in the Commission's recent statement of policy on investigations, inspections, and adjudicatory proceedings. As a procedural rule, the proposed amendments are not likely to have a significant cost impact upon the industry.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 05/22/85 50 FR 21036 NPRM Comment Period End 08/23/85 50 FR 30446 Final Action for Division Review 10/01/86 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 01/15/87 Final Action to ED0 02/01/87 Final Action Published 05/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No .

i AGENCY CONTACT:

Jane R. Mapes Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8695 13

~

1 I

TITLE:

+ Comission Review Procedures for Power Reactor Construction Permits; Imediate Effectiveness Rule CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would amend the immediate effectiveness rule with regard to rules of practice for granting a power reactor construction permit to conform to those for granting an operating license. It (1) would retain the requirement that the Comission conduct a limited review of an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's decision to grant a construction permit pending completion of administrative appeals and (2) would delete the requirement that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board conduct a similar review. The proposed rule would not affect the separate Appeal Board and Commission appellate reviews of the merits of icensing Board decisions. It would reduce somewhat the time required for administrative review of construction permit decisions while retaining direct Commission oversight prior to permit issuance.

The comment period closed Noveuiber 24, 1982. Nine comments were received. Half of the comments favored the proposed rule while half opposed it. This proposed rule does not preclude further action on five alternatives for amending the "Imediate effectiveness" rule presented in an earlier notice on May 22, 1980 (45 FR 34279).

The public comment period on the " Regulatory Reform Proposal Concerning the Rules of Practice and Rules for Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities" (49 FR 14698) closed June 11, 1984 As a result of staff evaluation of these comments and further staff review of the "imediate effectiveness" issues, a rule is being proposed that will supersede this proposed rule and another entitled, "Possible Amendments to 'Imediate Effectiveness' Rules."

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 10/25/82 47 FR 47260 NPRM Comment Period End 11/24/82 47 FR 47260

Next Action Undetermined 14

TITLE:

Commission Review Procedures for Power Reactor Construction Permits; Immediate Effectiveness Rule 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 202 634-1465

l i

15

TITLE: .

+ Modifications 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 intervenors in formal NRC hearings to set forth the facts on which contentions are based and the sources or documents usr

• to establish those facts and limit the number of interrogatories that a party may file in an NRC proceeding. The proposed rule would expedite the hearing process by, among other things, requiring intervonors 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 of contentions where there is no factual dispute. Expediting the hearing process should ultimately provide cost savings to all participants in the process. The content of this rule is being considered as part of the regulatory reform rulemaking package.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 06/08/81 46 FR 30349 ANPRM Regulatory Reform Rule 04/12/84 49 FR 14698 Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2239 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Trip Rothschild Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-1465 l

i 16

TITLE:

+ Licensing Requireinents for the Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 19; 10 CFR 20; 10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 75; 10 CFR 150 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would revise existing regulations to establish specific licensing requirements for the storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a monitored retrievable storage installation (MRS). This revision, required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, is intended to ensure that the Commission has in place the appropriate regulations to fulfill the requirements contained in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 concerning the licensing of facilities which could be part of the MRS program.

Paragraph (d) of Section 141 of the NWPA provides that any monitored retrievable storage installation pursuant to Section 141 shall be subject to licensing by the Commission. The Commission could await further development of the MRS option '

before proposing its MRS rules. However, this approach could result in unnecessary delay in reviewing a license application if congress authorizes construction of an MRS.

There is no appropriate alternative to rulemaking, the vehicle used by NRC to establish its licensing procedures.

The basic requirements for storage of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) currently codified in 10 CFR Part 72 are not being changed, thus, no incremental impact on NRC, industry, or the health and safety of the public is anticipated.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 05/27/86 51 FR 19106 NPRM Comment Period End 08/25/86 Final Action Published 06/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

( 42 USC 2021; 42 USC 2071; 42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2077; 42 USC 2093; l 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2099; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2234; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2237; 42 USC 2282 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 17 i

I i

TITLE:

+ Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste AGENCY CONTACT:

William R. Pearson Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7663 t

k 18

TITLE:

Possible Amendments to "Immediate Effectiveness" Rules CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule indicates that the Comission is considering five alternative amendments to the "immediate effectiveness" rule for construction permit proceedings. Under the original "immediate effectiveness" rule (36 FR 828, January 19,1971) construction of a nuclear power plant could begin on the basis of an initial decision by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) even though that decision was subject to further review by the Commission. The Comission is concerned that the rule often prevented it from reviewing a case until construction was well underway and that this might have (1) allowed comitment of large sums of money to altering sites before a final decision was made on site-related issues and (2) promoted piecemeal review rather than promoting early resolution of all licensing issues to be considered. Present rules provide for limited review of ASLB decisions by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (ASLAB) and the Comission prior to issuance of construction permits.

This proposed rule would help to determine whether NRC should return to the former "immediate effectiveness" rule or adopt one of the following alternatives:(1) require the ASLAB to make a separate ruling on the question of effectiveness, or (2) require final ASLAB and Commission decisions on the merits of certain construction-related issues prior to authorizing issuances of the construction permit; (3) require final ASLAB and Commission decisions on the merits of all issues prior to authorizing issuances of the construction permit; and, return to the former "immediate effectivene:s" rule, but relax the standards for obtaining a stay of the ASLAB decisions.

The public comment period on the " Regulatory Reform Proposal Concerning the Rules of Pract :e and Rules for Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities" (49 FR 14698) closed June 11, 1984 As a result of staff evaluation of these comments and

, further staff review of the "immediate effectiveness" issues, a rule is being proposed that will supersede this proposed rule and another entitled, " Commission Review Procedures for Power Reactor Construction Permits; Immediate Effectiveness Rule."

l l

l 19

TITLE:

Possible Amendments to "Immediate Effectiveness" Rules TIMETABLE

i NPRM 05/22/80 45 FR 34279 NPRM Comment Period Begin 05/22/80 45 FR 34279 NPRM Comment Period End 07/07/80 Next Action Undetermined 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 '

l Washington, DC 20555 202 634-3224 o

20

TITLE:

+ Nondiscrimination on Basis of Age in Federally Assisted Commission Programs CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 4 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would implement the provisions of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended. The proposed amendment makes it unlawful for any recipient of Federal financial assistance to discriminate on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the NRC.

The Act also contains certain exceptions that permit, under limited circumstances, continued use of age distinctions or factors other than age that ney have a disproportionate effect on the basis of age. The Act applies to persons of all ages. The proposed rule is necessary to comply with the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, which directs that all Federal agencies empowered to provide Federal financial assistance issue rules, regulations, and directives consistent with standards and procedures established by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).

NRC's proposed and final regulations have been modeled after those HHS guidelines as published in 45 CFR 90.

A copy of.the draft final regulations was transmitted to the Office of the General Counsel of the Civil Rights Division, HHS to comply with the requirement that final agency regulations not be published until the Secretary of HHS approved them. HHS has indicated its approval of the draft final rule in a letter transmitted to the NRC.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 09/21/81 46 FR 46582 NPRM Comment Period End 11/20/81 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 09/00/85 Final Action Package to ED0 10/00/85 Final Action Published 09/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 6101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Edward E. Tucker Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization / Civil Right' ,sWashington, DC 301 492-7697 21

TITLE:

+ Standards'for Protection Against Radiation CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 20 l

ABSTRACT:

Radiation protection philosophy and technology have changed

markedly since the present Part 20 was promulgated nearly thirty years ago. Since Part 20 contains the NRC standards for protection against radiation that are used by all licensees and affects exposures of workers and members of the public, it should be the most basic of the NRC regulations. However, because the present Part 20 has become outdated, most radiation protection actions occur through licensing actions independent of Part 20. A complete revision is necessary to provide better assurance of protection against radiation; establish a clear health protection basis for the limits; reflect current information on health risk, dosimetry, and radiation protectica practices and experience; provide NRC with a health protection base from which it may 4

consider other regulatory actions taken to protect public health; be consistent with recommendations of world authorities (ICRP);

and apply to all licensees in a consistent manner.

3 Alternatives to the complete revision considered were no action; delay for further guidance; and partial revision of the standards. They were rejected as ignoring scientific 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 j reflect the ICRP risk-based rationale; reducing lifetime doses to individuals receiving highest exposures; implementing provisions for summation of doses from internal and external exposures; providing clearly identified dose limits for the public; providing understandable health-risk base for protection; and 4 placing constraints on collective dose evaluations at levels

where risks are trifles.

Initial estimates of the cost of implementing the revision is i

about $33 million for all NRC and Agreement State licensees in the

. the initial year and about $8 million in each subsequent year.

This cost does not include any savings which might also be realized ,

by the revision.

! 22

TITLE:

+ Standards for Protection Against Radiation TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 03/20/80 45 FR 18023 ANPRM Comment Period End 06/18/80 45 FR 18023 NPRM 12/20/85 50 FR 51992 NPRM Comment Period End 05/12/86 51 FR 1092 NPRM Comment Period Extended to 09/12/86 Final Action for Division Review 08/00/86 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 12/00/86 Final Action Package to EDO 03/00/87 Final Action Published 06/00/87 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:

Robert E. Alexander Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4370 23

TITLE:

+ Improved Personnel Dosimeter Processing CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:

The final rule will require personnel dosimetry processors to meet specified performance standards and quality control criteria in order to reduce the widespread variations in both procedures and performance in the dosimetry processing industry.

The rule is necessary since numerous testing programs and dosimetry inter-comparisons have shown that only 25 to 50% of processors are i capable of meeting acceptable performance standards and that I improvements in performance are at a virtual standstill.

The only alternative to rulemaking is no rulemaking and maintaining the status quo, an alternative that has been considered unacceptable for years. Several voluntary programs to improve the accuracy and reliability of dosimetry processing have been failures because of lack of participation by the majority of industry processors. Issuance of a Regulatory Guide alone to assist the processing industy is not considered feasible as an alternative since there is no obligation on the industry to follow such guidance.in the absence of parallel rulemaking.

The issue will be addressed by requiring personnel dosimety processors to become accredited under the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) operated by NBS that among other things, requires proficiency testing against a national concensus standard, ANSI N13:11.

Approximately 90 dosimetry processors and 4500 NRC licensees will be affected by the rule with a total annual cost of accreditation to the processing industry of around $470,000 annually and a corresponding annual increase to licensees of about 6%, from

$24.00 per worker to $25.43 per worker. The public and occupational workers will benefit from the improved accuracy and integrity of dose determinations and records. Other benefits include the continued assurance of personnel dosimetry processor competence and the formulation of a program that can be easily utilized by other State and Federal agencies.

NRC resources and scheduling required for completion of the final rulemaking are estimated to be 0.3 staff-years and an additional 0.3 staff-years will be required to develop a Regulatory Guide to supplement the rule. No additional NRC resources are required.

24

TITLE:

+ Improved Personnel Dosimeter Processing TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 03/28/80 45 FR 20493 ANPRM Comment Period End 06/27/80 45 FR 31118 NPRM 01/10/84 49 FR 1205 NPRM Comment Period End 03/12/84 49 FR 1205 Final Action For Division Review 11/12/85 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 06/25/86 Final Action to ED0 07/31/86 Final Action Published 09/15/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2111; 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:

Don Nellis Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4588 i

[

25

j l

TITLE:

General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rulemaking action is intended to protect public health and safety by providing assurance that licersees fulfill their responsibility to dispose licensed material including any associated contamination when they cease licensed activity. The proposed rule also intends to provide the applicant or licensee with appropriate regulatory guidance for implementing and accomplishing nuclear facility decommissioning. It is necessary to address this issue by amending the regulations in order to achieve appropriate assurances that funds for decommissioning will be available and the decommissioning will be carried out in an orderly manner. The Commission has indicated a not .

for this rulemaking in other previous rulemakings.

The major cost impact of the proposed rule'would involve proper planning at all stages of nuclear facility operation. Proper planning includes providing for (1) financial assurance that funding will be available for decommissioning, (2) maintenance of records that could affect decommissioning, and (3) careful planning of procedures at the time of decommissioning. For non-reactor facilities affected by financial assurance requirements, it is estimated that the major impact will result in an aggregate expenditure of 21 staff-years ($1.6 million) spread over 5 years (or $320,000 peryear).

For the approximately 110 power reactors estimated to be affected (i.e., those with operating licenses and those under construction which are at least two-thirds complete) plus 75 research and test reactors, it is estimated that the major impact will result in an aggregate expenditure of 3.8 staff-years ($288,000) spread over 3 years. These expenditures will ensure that adequate measures have a been taken to protect the health and safety of occupational workers, the public, and the environment within the confines of optimum cost benefit consideration.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 03/13/78 43 FR 10370 NPRM 02/11/85 50 FR 5600 NPRM Comment Period End 07/12/85 50 FR 23025 Final Action for Division Review 11/15/86 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 03/30/87 Final Action to ED0 07/15/87 Final Action Published 10/30/87 26

TITLE:

General Requirements for Decomissioning Nuclear Facilities LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:

Keith G. Steyer/ Frank Cardile Nuclear. Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7739 27 i

TITLE:

+ Medical Use of Byproduct Material

~

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would revise Part 35 to modify the process for licensing and regulating the medical use of radioactive byproduct material. Requirements that apply to medical licensees are scattered in the regulations, license conditions, the individual licensee's application, and licensing branch policy statements.

The purpose of the proposed rule is to consolidate and codify the requirements in the regulation. This rule will result in a clearer understanding of NRC requirements for all medical licensees. This revision is necessary in order to provide a clear consolidated statement of requirement. The only way to impose requirements on all licensees is by license condition or regulation; therefore no alternative action was considered.

Because most of the requirements contained in this regulation are currently imposed by regulation or license condition, there will be no significant cost savings or additional burden; the industry and NRC will benefit by having a clear, concise, complete regulation.

This proposed final rule includes a previously proposed rule requiring that the activity of each radiopharmaceutical dosage be measured before it is administered. (See 46 FR 43840; September 1,1981 RIN 3150-AA12 Patient Dosage Measurement). It also includes the resolution of a petition regarding teletheraphy dosimetry system calibrations (PRM 35-2).

! TIMETABLE:

NPRM 07/26/85 50 FR 30616 NPRM Comment Period End 11/18/85 Final Action for Division Review 04/11/86 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 04/18/86 Final Action Package to ED0 05/20/86 Final Action Published 11/01/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233 L . EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes l

28 l

i l

l TITLE:

+ Medical Use of. Byproduct Material AGENCY CONTACT:

Norman L. McElroy Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4108

'i 1

5 i

29 l

- . . . - - - . . . . - _ . . , . - - - - _ . . . , . . - - - . ~ . , . - . . . - , - . . . - _ - _ - _ - . . . _ _ - , , _ . _ .

TITLE:

+ Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Well-Logging Operations CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 39 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would establish specific radiation safety requirements applicable to licensees who perform operations such as well-logging, mineral-logging, and subsurface use of radioactive materials in tracer studies. The proposed rule is necessary because current NRC regulations address these operations in a general way without providing the specific guidance necessary to ensure that these operations are performed safely. As an alternative to the status quo, the proposed rule would adopt the requirements similar to those in the suggested State Regulations for Control of Radiation Part W as new NRC regulations. The potential costs for industry to implement these requirements would be about $1,300,000/yr. However, because most of the requirements are already imposed by license conditions, the net increase in cost would be about $350,000 per year for the industry or about $2000 per licensee. The rule would establish a proposed consistent, comprehensive set of the requirements that would minimize the effort required to obtain reciprocity for NRC licensees to operate in Agreement States or vice versa. The rule would require about one staff-yeer effort.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 04/08/85 50 FR 13797 NPRM Convrent Period End 07/08/85 50 FR 13797 Comment Period Extended to 10/09/85 50 FR 32086 Final Action for Division Review 01/17/86 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 04/14/86 Final Action Package to ED0 07/15/86 Final Action Published 09/14/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTilER ENTITIES: No

! AGENCY CONTACT:

_ Stephen McGuire Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7776 30

TITLE:

+ Comunications Procedures Amendments CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

This proposed rule would amend the regulations which establish the procedures for submitting correspondence, reports, applications, or other written comunications pertaining to the domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities.

The proposed amendments are expected to resolve confusion regarding submittal procedures and improve the comunication process with the affected applicants and licensees.

The proposed amendments would (1) simplif making Part 50 submittals to the NRC; (2)y the procedures facilitate for the timely dissemination of Part 50 submittals to NRC staff; (3) reduce postage ana copying costs for applicants and licensees by requiring fewer copies of submittals; (4) establish a central NRC receipt point for Part 50 submittals; (5) include the NRC Resident Inspectors in the formal comunications; and (6) supersede all outdated submittal directions contained in other sources of submittal guidance, such as Regulatory Guide 10.1 (Revision 4) and NRR Generic Letter 82-14. Although these documents addressed the problem, they did not entirely resolve the confusion. Moreover, subsequent changes in the organizational structure of NRC were not reflected in the guidance documents.

The current regulations also cause unnecessary delays in the dissemination of information to NRC staff. For example, any document submitted to an NRC Regional Office will not usually be disseminated to NRC Headquarters staff until two weeks later.

4 These problems can be resolved only by amending 10 CFR Part 50, since the current regulations are the source of the problems. The proposed rule is expected to reduce postage and copying costs for licensees and applicants subject to 10 CFR Part 50. An annual savings of $140,000 is estimated. In addition, the NRC'is expected to realize a small savings in postage costs. Preparing l and publishing this rule would cost NRC approximately 320 hours0.0037 days <br />0.0889 hours <br />5.291005e-4 weeks <br />1.2176e-4 months <br /> l of staff time at $60 per hour for a total of $19,200.

l 31

i

' TITLE:

-+ Communications Procedures Amendments TIMETABLE:

NPRM 03/26/85 50 FR 11884 NPRM Comment Period End 05/28/85 Final Action for Division Review 07/01/85 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 04/15/86 Final Action Package to EDO 07/20/86 Final Action Published 07/30/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Steve Scott Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8585 32

TITLE:

+ Mandatory Property Insurance for Decontamination of Nuclear Facilities CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 l l

ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would require nuclear power plant licensees to obtain an increased amount of on-site property damage insurance from the current minimum of $585 million to $1.02 billion. The NRC believes that such insurance should be required so that the financing and pacing of cleanup following an accident does not become a public health and safety problem. Recent studies indicate that as much as $1.06 billion may be required to cover on-site cleanup of the worst reactor accidents if inflation and other factors are included. Other issues addressed in the proposed rule are (1) whether the Federal government can preempt State law that prohibits certain public utilities from buying insurance offered by either mutual companies or requiring payment of a retrospective premium and (2) whether a priority of payment of insurance proceeds for decomtamination and cleanup can be imposed. Action in these areas is required for the same reason as imposition of general insurance requirements, i.e. to remove the financial aspects of recovery after an accident from having an adverse impact on public health and safety.

Alternatives to the proposed rule that were considered included (1) requiring a lower dollar amount and (2) not explicitly requiring insurance above that currently required but rather allowing the necessity for additional insurance to be determined by economic regulators at the State level.

The impact of the proposed rule on licensees would probably not be large. Most licensens currently purchase insurance in excess of $1.02 billion. Approximately 10 licensees would be required to carry more insurance than they otherwise would for an annual incremental premium cost of roughly $1 million per year. Thus the total impact of the rule would be approximately $10 million per year. The impact on the public would generally be positive in that public health and safety would be better protected. The impact on the NRC would be minimal with respect to increasing the amount of insurance. A decontamination priority, if it were invoked, could require additional hearings with attendant costs.

One-half of a staff-year is required by OSP to continue the rulemaking, with minimal impact on other offices expected.

33

.c s .

\- t

\g , %

v TITLE:

+ Mandatory Property Insurance for Decontamination of Nuclear si Facilities *

' TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 06/24/82 47 FR 27371 ANPRM Comment Period End 09/22/82 47 FR 27371 NPRM 11/08/84 49 FR 44645 NPRM Comment Period End 02/07/85 49 FR 44645 Final Action for Division Review 05/17/85 Office Concurrorce on Final Action Completed 03/18/86 Final Action Package to EDO 03/18/86 Final Action Published 10/31/86 1 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Robert S. Wood Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of State Programs

~

Washington, DC 20555 301 492-9885 t

u s

34

- \

TITLE:

+ Station Blackout CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

NRC is proposing to amend its regulations to require light water nuclear power plants to be capable of withstanding a total loss of alternating current (AC) electrical power, called Station Blackout, to the essential and nonessential switchgear buses for a specified duration. A proposed regulatory guide, to be issued at the same time as the proposed rule, would provide guidance on how to determine the duration.

The proposed requirements were developed in response to information generated by the Commission's study of Unresolved Safety Issue A-44, Station Blackout. The proposed rule is intended to provide further assurance that a loss of both off-site, and emergency on-site electric AC power systems will not adversely affect the public health and safety.

A regulatory analysis has been prepared for the proposed rule.

The estimated public risk reduction is 80,000 person-rem over 25 years, and the estimated total cost for industry to comply with the proposed rule is $40 million. This results in an overall cost benefit ratio of about 2,000 person-rem per million dollars.

The alternatives to this proposed rulemaking are to take no action or to provide only guidance for plants to be able to cope with a station blackout period. To take no action would not yield any reduction in public risk from station blackout events. To provide guidance only, since there is presently no requirement for nuclear power plants to be able to cope with a total loss of AC power, would not result in any basis for enforcement. The proposed rule is the recommended alternative based on its enforceability and, in part, on the favorable cost / benefit ratio.The staff discussed this proposal on 09/11/85 and 11/14/85 with the Commission.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 03/21/86 51 FR 9829 NPRM Comment Period End 06/19/86 51 FR 9892 Final Action for Division Review 12/30/86 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 03/30/87 Final Action to EDO 08/00/87 Final Action Published 08/31/87 i

b5

. .c s;. ~

c TITLEi i

.; Static'n ' Blackout - S  !

M ,

. ; ,L, LEGAL' AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL. BUSINESS AND.OTHER ENTITIES: N/A

' AGENCY CONTACT:

~ Alan Rubin Nuclear Regulatory Comission

• Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20555

, 301 492-8303 i

s

)

[

0

'?'

I 7 p -

/

'd, l-36

TITLE:

+ Operators' Licenses CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 55 ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Regulatory Comission was proposing to amend its regulations to (1) require each holder of and each applicant for a license to operate a commercial nuclear power plant to establish and use a systems approach in developing training programs and establishing qualifications requirements for civilian nuclear power plant operators, supervisors, technicians, and, as appropriate, operating personnel; (2) clarify the regulations for the issuance of licenses to operators and senior operators; (3) revise the requirements and scope of written examinations and operating tests for operators and senior operators; (4) codify procedures for the administration of requalification examinations; and (5) describe the form and content for operator license applications.

The proposed rulemaking was in response to Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. A regulatory analysis showed a public risk reduction of 268,000 person-rem at a cost of $240.4 g million dollars resulting in a value/ impact ratio of 1,100 person-rem / $million. Coordinated industry objections to the rulemaking were the subject Sf a Comission meeting on April 9,1984. Industry requested that the NRC issue a policy statement rather than a rule. Consequently, at an October 17, 1984, Comission meeting, the Comission directed the staff to publish the portion of the proposed rule revising 10 CFR Part 55

" Operators' Licenses," and to draft a Policy Statement on programs for training and qualification of nuclear power plant personnel. The proposed revision was published for comment on November 26, 1984, and the effective Policy Statement was published March 20,1985. -

The Policy Statement replaces the portion of this proposed rule that would have added requirements to 10 CFR Part 50 on training and qualification of plant personnel. The training programs are to be developed and implemented by industry during a two-year period. The policy statement provides guidance regarding NRC's support of the industry-managed training accreditation program and states NRC's continuing responsibility to independently evaluate applicants' and licensees' implementation of training programs.

37

TITLE:

Operators' Licenses TIMETABLE:

NPRM 11/26/84 49 FR 46428 NPRM Comment Period End 02/24/85 Final Action for Division Review _ 10/00/85 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 12/00/85 Final Action Package to EDO 04/00/86 Final Action Published 05/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2137; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 10226 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Bruce Boger Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4868 38 l

TITLE:

+ Safeguards Requirements for Nonpower Reactor Licensees Possessing Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material CFR CITATION

10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:

When-the Commission' approved the set of final physical protection requirements for fuel cycle facilities possessing formula quantities (five formula kilograms or more) of strategic special

nuclear material (SSNM), they exempted nonpower reactors from these requirements and, instead specified a set of interim requirements. At that time the staff was directed to develop a set of permanent physical protection requirements for this class of nonpower reactors.

This rulemaking is needed: (1) to replace current interim regulations and establish permanent physical security

requirements for nonpower reactor licensees who possess a

! nonexempt formula quantity of SSNM, (2) to provide protection against insiders, and (3) to arrange for a response by local law enforcement or other agencies in time to prevent a theft of a formula quantity.

The staff is using a performance-oriented regulatory approach which would give affected licensees flexibility in designing cost-effective measures for implementing the requirements of the final rule by allowing licensees to take advantage of existing requirements at an estimated cost increase of $1,100 to $5,100 for improvements and $300 to $7,900 for annual operating costs per facility. Public comments on the new NPRM have been received and analyzed. Further action on this rule has been deferred based

on a February 23, 1984 memorandum from the Office of the

Secretary.

l TIMETABLE:

Interim Final Rule 11/28/79 44 FR 68199

NPRM 07/27/83 48 FR 34056 i NPRM Comment Period End 11/28/83 48 FR 34056 Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY

42 USC 2071; 42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2152; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2239; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No l

i

39 l

i TITLE-

+ Safeguards Requirements for Nonpower Reactor Licensees Possessing Formla Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear ,

Material AGENCY CONTACT:

Carl J. Withee Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4768 i

1 4

40 i

TITLE:

+ Personnel Access Authorization Program (Part of Insider Package)

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would establish a personnel screening program for individuals requiring unescorted reactor facility access, thus providing increased assurance of the trustworthiness and emotional stability of a reactor site population. Study has indicated that disoriented or disgruntled employees (especially ones who might also be psychotic) at nuclear reactors are of primary safeguards concern because of their inside position.

While the Commission has stated that at present it is satisfied with the level of safeguards in place at reactors, it approved publication of the proposed rule for public comment (49 FR 30726) as one means of further assuring protection of public health and safety. The public comment period concluded March 7,1985.

Extensive comments were received and analyzed.

Alternatives to rulemaking that were investigated included endorsing an ANSI standard through a regulatory guide, issuing a policy statement that~ endorses industry developed guidelines, using staff position papers, and implementing license conditions.

The proposed regulation would protect against the " insider" threat at reactors through the use of three components: (1)a background investigation to determine past history, (2) a psychological assessment to determine current emotional stability, and (3) a continual behavioral observation program to detect behavioral changes in an individual once granted unescorted access. ,

Primary benefit to the public and licensees would be an increased assurance of the trustworthiness and emotional suitability of individuals working in a nuclear reactor environment. Benefits to the NRC would result from the use of a codified program that assures that a uniform approach, meeting minimum requirements, will be applied in screening reactor personnel.

The net increase in cost per licensee site for all existing or planned power stations over their remaining useful lives is $2 million per site. The net increase in cost to the NRC due to estimated time in reviewing proposed plans and enforcement activities is $822,700.

This is a one-time implementation cost; yearly operational costs are judged to be negligible.

41

TITLE ersonnel Access Authorization Program (Part of Insider Package)

ABSTRACT CONT:

By affirmation vote on June 18, 1986, the Commission approved the alternative to rulemaking, to issue a policy statement endorsing the industry-developed guidelines for access authorization, this policy statement is under development.

TIMETABLE:

Withdrawn 06/18/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No

, AGENCY CONTACT:

Priscilla A. Dwyer Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington DC 20555 301 427-4773 42

TITLE:

+ Explanation to Table S-3 Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 51 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule provides a narrative explanation of the numerical values established in Table S-3, " Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data," that appears in the Commission's environmental protection regulations. The proposed rule describes the basis for the values contained in Table S-3, the significance of the uranium fuel cycle data in the table, and the conditions governing the use of the table. The narrative explanation also addresses important fuel cycle impacts and the cumulative impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle for the whole nuclear power industry so that it may be possible to consider these impacts generically rather than repeatedly in individual licensing proceedings, thus reducing litigation time and costs for both NRC and applicants.

The proposed rule was published for public review and comment (46 FR 15154, March 4,1981), but the final rulemaking was deferred pending the outcome of a suit (Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v NRC, N0. 74-1486) in the U.S. Court of Appeals.

The U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) decision of April 27, 1982, invalidated the entire Table S-3 rule. The Supreme Court reversed this decision on June 6, 1983.

The proposed rule to provide a narrative explanation for Table S-3 was revised to reflect new developments and the passage of time while the rulemaking was deferred. However, final action on the Table S-3 rule was held in abeyance until new values for radon-222 and technetium-99 can be added to the table and covered in the narrative explanation. On October 7,1984 EPA promulgated new radon standards for inactive uranium mill sites and in October 1985 NRC published revised uranium milling regulations conforming to the new EPA standards. However, EPA received, in August 1985, a court order requiring them to establish radon standards for active uranium mills. EPA's final standards are scheduled to be issued in August 1986. The Commission has directed staff to develop a schedule for completing the narrative explanation of Table S-3 and the new values for radon-222 and technetium-99.

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 narrative explanation will be completed in 1989. A Commission Paper presenting the final rulemaking plan and schedule will be submitted in August 1986.

43 I

TITLE:

+ Explanation to Table S-3 Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data TIMETABLE:

NPRM 03/04/81 46 FR 15154 NPRM Comment Period End 05/04/81 Final Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2011; 42 USC 4321 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Glenn A. Terry Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4283 44

TITLE:

+ Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories; Conforming Amendments CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 directs NRC to promulgate criteria for the licensing of HLW geologic repositories.

Section 121 (c) of this act states that these criteria must be consistent with standards to be developed by EPA for the disposal of HLW in deep geologic repositories. The proposed rule is needed in order to eliminate several inconsistencies with the EPA standards, thus fulfilling the statutory requirement.

Because the NWPA directs NRC to eliminate inconsistencies between Part 60 and the EPA standard, the alternatives to the proposed action are limited by statute.

The public, industry, and NRC will benefit from eliminating inconsistencies in Federal HLW regulations. NRC resources needed would be several staff years but will not include contract resources.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 06/19/86 SI FR 22288 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 11/19/86 Final Action Package to ED0 12/22/86 Final Action Published 02/28/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7668 45

TITLE:

+ Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories: Procedural Amendments CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:

The final rule would revise procedures regarding NRC reviews of license applications for disposal of high-level radioactive ,

wastes in geologic repositories. The procedures will be revised l principally to conform to the provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Specifically, the rule will clarify that NRC begins its review in this licensing process after DOE provides NRC a site characterization plan and that usual rules of practice apply to licensing of these repositories. It would also provide that the NRC may publish a notice of receipt of a site characterization plan and a notice inviting comments on its analysis of a plan.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 01/17/85 49 FR 2579 NPRM Comment Period Begin 01/17/85 49 FR 2579 Final Rule Published 07/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2021a; 42 USC 2071; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2201(o); 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 4332; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846; 42 USC 5851; 42 USC 10141 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7668 46

l l

TITLE: I

+ Changes to Safeguards Reporting Requirements CFR CITATION:

l 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 74 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would amend reporting requirements of section 73.71 for reports of unaccounted for shipments, suspected thefts, unlawful diversion, and other safeguards events. (Conforming amendments are included for 10 CFR Parts 70, 72, and 74). The staff has found the present requirements confusing to licensees and therefore, difficult for licensees to properly implement.

These difficulties have contributed to safeguards event reports that lack unifonnity and contain insufficient data for analysis.

Safeguards event reporting requirements are necessary to permit timely response by the NRC to safeguards incidents and to identify possible generic deficiencies in safeguards systems.

Until the requirements for reporting are clarified and simplified, the problems identified above will continue to exist.

This is considered to be a matter of moderate urgency. An alternative to rulemaking is issuance of additional or revised guidance on the present requirement. However, such guidance would lack regulatory authority. Since the problems have arisen over the abstract nature of the present requirement, it appears the best solution is to correct the source of the problem by amending the existing rule.

The proposed amendments redefine, in clearer terms, the events to be reported and classify certain of these events into different reporting categories. The current 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> telephonic notification is deleted. All events would be either telephonically reported within one hour or logged in licensee records to be submitted to the NRC quarterly. Concurrent with the rule revision, a revised regulatory guide is being developed which provides a format for reporting to the NRC and gives examples of what types of events should be reported.

There is expected to be no cost impact to the public. Benefits to licensees will be clearer, simpler regulations, and a reduction in telephonic and written report making. While the proposed regulations will require more detailed, standardized written reports, the reduction in the number of telephone :nd written reports is expected to result in a net cost decrease to industry of $641,600 incurred on an annual basis.

47 I

TITLE:

+ Changes to Safeguards Reporting Requirements TIMETABLE:

NPRM 08/27/85 E0 FR 34708 NPRM Comment Period End 12/31/85 50 FR 48220 Final Action for Division Review 02/00/86 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 04/30/86 Final Action Package to EDO 07/00/86 Final Action Published 09/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Priscilla A. Dwyer Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4773 l

f I

48

. . - - . . - . _ - ~ _ _ . _ . - - - =. - _ -

L TITLE:

+ Modification of Protection Requirements for Spent Fuel Shipments 2

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would moderate the current requirements for the protection of spent fuel shipments against radiological sabotage.

Current more stringent requirements are based on release assumptions and health effects calculations that were made in the 1970s. Data from recently completed research shows that the release and health effects would be far lower than believed at the time the current requirements were issued. In addition, during 1985, comprehensive i coordination was carried out with States and the Department of Transportation to assura that perceived safety issues were

adequately addressed. The rulemaking is proceeding on a priority basis.

Alternatives to the proposed rule were (1) to leave the current

requirements in place or (2) to eliminate all requirements. ,

Alternative one was rejected because the current requirements, based on the conclusions drawn from recent research, were judged to be overly stringent. Alternative two was rejected because some requirements need to be retained to protect ag!fntt sabotage scenarios even more

< severe than the one postulated for the research, i

The proposed rule provides the level of safeguards deemed essential to the protection of spent fuel shipments while affording an annual savings of j $74,000 to the affected licensees who make approximately 250 shipments l per year. The public would not be affected by the rulemaking because all i needed requirements would be retained. Occupational exposure would not j change significantly. The current annual NRC resource commitment would i be about 1.5 staff years, and the costs for travel expenses would be

! about $8,000. NRC resources for the rulemaking have been set *at 0.5 staff year for FY 1986.

4 TIMETABLE:

NPRM 06/08/84 49 FR 23867

NPRM Coment Period End 09/10/84

Final Action for Division Review 02/24/86 l Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 03/31/86 i Final Action Package to EDO 10/00/86

Final Action Published 12/00/86 i

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2167; 42 USC 2073 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No l

l 49 l

l

1 TITLE:

+ Modificaticn of Protection Requirements for Spent Fuel i Shipments AGENCY CONTACT:

Carl B. Sawyer Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4269 I

l i

e i

50 1

l

. . _ _ _ . _ . . . . . _ . - . . , . . . _ . . . _ ~ . . . . . _ . . . , . _ _ _ _ _ . . - - - - . _ _ _ _ . , _ . , , . _ - _ _ - -, - . . _ _ . - - , . .__-- ,-.--,..,_ _

TITLE:

+ Miscellaneous Amendments Concerning Physical Protection of Nuclear Power Plants (Part of Insider Rule Package)

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would require in Nuclear Power Plants (1) access control to vital areas (2) the protection of certain physical security equipment, (3) revised requirements for key and lock controls, and (4) revised authority to suspend safeguards measures during emergencies. (Years of operating revealed a need for clarification and refinement.) The requirements will clarify policy in these areas and reduce unnecessary burden on the industry while maintaining plant protection. This rule is a revision of the proposed rule entitled, " Access Controls to Nuclear Power Plant Vital Areas." Initial development of a final rule produced significant changes, particularly in the criteria for personnel access controls to vital areas, resulting in the need to publish a revised rule. This proposed rule and the other components of the insider rule package were reviewed by the NRC Safety / Safeguards Review Committee which considered a number of alternative approaches to vital areas and provided recommendations that are reflected in the proposed rule.

Since requirements for protecting Nuclear Power Plant vital areas have been in effect for some time, and modifications to those requirements are needed, alternatives to this rulemaking such as revised guidance would be inappropriate in that they would carry the force of a regulation.

Implemeitation cost for these improvements is $10,200 per site; however, a net annual savings of $15,000 per site is anticipated in the cost of industry operations because of reduced key and local control requirements. The impact on NRC operations will occur in the area of licensing review of amended licensee security plans and Inspection and Enforcement staff support time.

Initial cost to the NRC is estimated to be $175,700. There is no significant NRC operational costs resulting from this rule.

By affirmation vote on June 18, 1986, the Commission approved publication of this rule in final form.

51

TITLE:

+ Miscellaneous Amendments Concerning Physical Protection of Nuclear Power Plants (Part of Insider Rule Package)

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 08/01/84 49 FR 30726 NPRM Comment Period End 03/07/85 Commission Affirmation Vote 06/18/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2101; 42 USC 5841 ,

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Priscilla A. Dwyer Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4773 52

TITLE:

+ Searches of Individuals at power Reactor Facilities (Part of Insider Package)

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would revise the search requirements for individuals entering the protected area of nuclear power plants.

Under the requirements, all persons would be subject to equipment searches for firearms, explosives and incendiary devices. Physical searches would be required only when search equipment is not working properly or when the licensee suspects that an individual is attempting to carry into the plant prohibited devices or material. Random searches were considered ,

as an alternative, but were dismissed as being possibly disruptive. Since licensees already possess the necessary equipment, this rule will affect only licensee procedures at negligible additional cost.

Since requirements for searches have been in effect for some time, and modifications to those requirements are needed, alternatives to this rulemaking such as revised guidance would be inappropriate in that they would not carry the force of a regulation.

The most expensive items in the industry cost have already been absorbed, equipment and search personnel; thus cost to the industry is minimal. This impact on NRC operations will occur in the area of licensing review of amended licensee security plans. Initial cost to the NRC is estimated to be $58,600. There are no significant NRC operational costs resulting from this rule.

By affirmation vote on June 18, 1986, the Commission approved pubication of this rule in final form.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 08/01/84 49 FR 30726 NPRM Comment Period End 03/07/85 49 FR 30726 Commission Affirmation Vote 06/18/86 ,

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 l

EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No l 53 1

l l

TITLE:

+ Searches of Individuals at Power Reactor Facilities (Part of Insider Package)

AGENCY CONTACT:

Priscilla A. Dwyer Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427 4773 54 i

- . . - . . _ _ _ , - - _ . _ . , - . . _ . . _ . _ _ . _ _ . , . . . . , _ = . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ , _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . - - - . - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

TITLE:

l

+ Material Control and Accounting Requirements for Facilities Authorized to Possess and Use Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 74 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rulemaking would replace existing material control and accounting (MC&A) requirements for fuel cycle facilities that are authorized to possess and use formula quantities of strategic special nuclear material (SSNM).

It would establish a performance-oriented regulation that emphasizes timely detection of formula quantity SSNM losses and providas for more conclusive resolution of discrepancies than is currently achievable. Experience with existing regulations has demonstrated weaknesses in the area of alarm resolution principally because of a lack of timely detection of anomalies and poor loss localization capabilities. The rulemaking would alleviate these liabilities by requiring tests on a more timely basis on small plant subdivisions.

An alternative to the rule would be to implement the concepts through license amendments for the four involved licensees; however, such an action would be inconsistent with the Administrative Procedures Act and the direction provided in NRC's Policy and Prcgram Guidance document. The protection of the pubile health and safety will be enhanced through earlier detection and more prompt resolution of anomalies potentially indicative of an SSNM loss.

In response to public comments, the staff has re-evaluated certain technical provisions of the proposed rule and concluded that some modifications were warranted. Concurrent with the rule modifications, the acceptance criteria and regulatory analysis were revised. The revised regulatory analysis reflects estimated implementation costs of $2.5 million for the industry and annual operating costs that vary from virtually no change for two licensees to a $150,000 increase for each of the other two licensees. The cost to the NRC to complete this rulemaking is estimated to be four staff years which includes time for the review of the plans submitted in response to the rule.

55

TITLE:

Material Control and Accounting Requirements for Facilities Authorized to Possess and use Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 11/18/81 46 FR 45144 ANPRM Coment Period End 02/09/82 46 FR 56625 NPRM 02/02/84 49 FR 4091 NPRM Coment Period End 09/05/84 49 FR 4091 Final Action for Division Review 04/00/86 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 09/00/86 Final Action Package to EDO 10/00/86 Final Action Published 02/00/87 AGENCY CONTACT:

C. W. Emeigh Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4769 56

TITLE:

+ Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 140 ABSTRACT:

The final rule will revise the EN0 criteria to eliminate the problems that were encountered in the Three Mile Island ENO determination. It is desirable to get revised c.riteria in place in the event they are needed.

There are no alternatives to this rulemaking, as the current ENO criteria are already embodied in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 140. The only way to modify them, as this rule seeks to do, is through rule making.

There is no safety impact on public health or safety. The ENO criteria provide legal waivers of defenses. Industry (insurers and utilities) claims that a reduction in the EN0 criteria could cause increases in insurance premiums. The final rule would also be responsive to PRM-140-1.

It is estimated that approximately 1.0 man years of NRC staff time will be required to process the final rule. No contract funding is anticipated.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 04/09/85 50 FR 13978 NPRM Comment Period End 09/06/85 Final Action For Division Review 06/30/86 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 09/15/86 Final Action Package to ED0 10/30/86 Final Action Published 02/28/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2210; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Harold Peterson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4354 57

(C) Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking

\

l

m-a --_a .___m as--naw .a-f I

i k

)

'I i

4 i

r i

l I

TITLE:

+ Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings: Kole of NRC Staff in Adjudicatory Licensing Hearings CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The role of the NRC staff in initial proceedings was among the issues discussed in an enclosure to a January 2,1985, memorandum to the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development from Chairman Palladino. This discussion stated that the Commission has decided that the NRC's role in these proceedings should not be changed. Therefore, the action proposed by this advance notice of proposed rulemaking will be terminated.

The Commission is considering amending its Rules of Practice concerning what role the NRC staff should have in adjudicatory licensing hearings to most effectively contribute to the protection of the public health and safety. This notice invites public comments and suggestions on four options and related questions, briefly described below. Option 1 would limit staff participation in contested initial licensing proceedings to only those controverted factual issues it disagrees with on a technical basis or rationale. Option 2 would require the NRC staff to supply the Commission and the Licensing Board with its view and analyses on every substantive issue raised in an initial licensing prcceeding but would prohibit the staff's participation in any procedural matter. Option 3 would retain status quo, i.e., the NRC staff would participate as full party on all issues. Option 4 would expand public involvement in the prehearing stage of initial licensing proceed'ngs, and this i option could be used in conjunction with any of the first three options. The staff would subsequently address each substantive issue raised in the Safety Evaluation Report.

Alternatives to rulemaking could include a policy statement or no action, depending on the option chosen. The possible means of addressing this issue through rulemaking are discussed above. The effects of the rulemaking, including benefits and costs, will

, depend on the option chosen. NRC resources needed for this rulemaking are estimated at 500 staff hours.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 11/02/83 48 FR 50550 ANPRM Comnent Period Extended 01/03/84 48 'FR 54243 ANPRM Comment Period End 01/03/85 48 FR 50550

> Next Action 06/00/86 59

i TITLE:

Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings: Role of NRC l Staff in Adjudicatory Licensing Hearings LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No f AGENCY CONTACT:

Linda Gilbert Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7678 I

60

l u TITLE:

. 9 Regulatory Reform of the Rules of Practice and Rules for v . Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities 1 CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 50 m ,

A8STRACT:

This proposed rule would amend thirty-three sections of two parts i .affecting the hearing process associated with the issuance of all NRC licensesPStreamlining the hearing process would

'. < z ultimately provide cost savings to all participants in the process. However, intervenors may initially be required to  ;

e provide more information than is now required at some added expense.

.InthescNeningprocess,themostsignificantchangeswould (1) establish a screening Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) to act as a clearinghouse for all requests for hearings, petitions for leave to intervene, and proposed contentions, (2) require a participant in a hearing to show that he or she has an 3

interest to protect in the proceeding, and (3) require evidence of a sfactual dispute for a contention to be admitted.

During the conduct of heariks, the nnst signiPcant changes would (1) not hear discovery requests requiring tPe staff to support positions other than its own, (2) permit tha ASLB to 4

decide the case on the basis of written material (3) permit the s

ASLB to appoint a panel of technical experts if needed, (4)

(suaallow sponte F)esiding officers to

'only in unusual raise(5) cases, issues allowon their own sumary motion disposition motions to be filed at any stage of the proceeding, (6) allow the Commission to designate a hearing examiner in lieu of a three-member ASLB, and (7) require the filing of cross i

exami, nation plans.

ut t( -

During the decision-making process, the most significant changes would (1) remove the .ASLB as an independent appeal board but place it organizationally directly under the Comission to (C review, as before, ASLB decisions,'and give its recomendations to the Comission, (2) allow any generic issue resolved in an initial licensin

,6 coment period (g) proceeding 3 allow to be codified, an intarvenor allowing to participate in a 45 day discussing only those items he or she introduced, and (4) i reinstate the imediate effectiveness of an ASLB decision on an

operating license, construction permit, or work authorization.

The proposals, submitted by the Commission's Regulatory Reform

Task Force suggest ways to improve the reactor licensing process.

i i ,

! \s 61 l .

1 - - -

TITLE: ,

Regulatory Reform of the Rules of Practice and Rules for Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities-TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 04/12/84 49 FR 14698 ANPRM Comment Period End 06/11/84 49 FR 14689 Next Action 06/00/87 1 e

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Linda Gilbert Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington, DC 20555 .

301 492-7678 4

4

{

i 62

TITLE:

+ Financial Responsibility of Materials Licensees for Cleanup After Accidental and Unexpected Releases CFR. CITATION:

10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72 ABSTRACT:

The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeks coments on the' advisability of having NRC require a mechanism to assure financial capability on the part of certain NRC materials licensees (e.g., fuel fabricators and users of sealed radiation

. ' sources) to undertake prompt cleanup of accidental releases or contamination, both on and off site. Estimates for cleanup costs in the recent past have ranged up to $2 million for a single event. To date, cleanup has been conducted by the State or

, Federal government, but frequently public monies are used only after lengthy delays.

Use of an alternative, i.e., the 1980 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA),

is effectively blocked by EPA policy. CERCLA provides funds for cleanup if the owner or operator is unable to do so and if the release is not covered by " Price-Anderson" provisions, which address liability but do not provide funds for cleanup per se.

EPA maintains that NRC has full authority to require cleanup of accidental releases by licensees; thus, CERCLA public funds should not be used for this purpose.

Cost to ifcensees of the possible different financial assurance mechanisms is based on proprietary information. Staff is ,

inviting comments in response to the ANPRM to address costs aspects, as well as scope of coverage and availability of alternative mechanisms. After evaluating the comments, the staff will recommend to the Commission if the rulemaking should continue. The estimated NRC resources necessary for the ANFRM in FY86 are 1.2 FTE.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 06/07/85 50 FR 20906 ANPRM Comment Period Begin 06/07/85 50 FR 20906 ANPRM Comment Period End 11/07/85 50 FR 41904 Proposed Action for Division Review 11/15/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 12/15/86 Proposed Action Package to ED0 01/01/87 Proposed Action Published 04/01/87 Final Action Published 12/31/87 63

TITLE:

+ Financial Responsibility of Materials Licensees for Cleanup After Accidental and Unexpected Releases LEGAL AUTHORIT7:

42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Undetermined AGENCY CONTACT:

4 Mary Jo Seeman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4647 64 1

TITLE:

+ Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive Materials Licensees CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would require about 30 fuel cycle and other radioactive materials licensees to submit an emergency plan that would among other actions, require the notification of local authorities in case of 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).

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 06/03/81 46 FR 29712 ANPRM Comment Period End 08/03/81 46 FR 29712 Proposed Action for Division Review 02/08/85 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 09/25/85 Proposed Action Package to EDO 10/30/85 Proposed Action Published 12/13/86 Final Action Published 11/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Stephen A. McGuire Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7636 65

TITLE:

+ Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Ground Water Protection and Other Issues CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 40 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rulemaking is intended to incorporate groundwater standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency for uranium mill tailings into NRC regulations. This action is necessary to make NRC regulations conform to EPA standards as required by the Urn;ium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act.

Alternatives to this action involve timing and scope.

Commer.ts on the ANPRM helped to define the nature and scope of the action. EPA has estimated that compliance with their groundwater standards and with the stability, radon release, and other requirements recently promulgated will cost the industry from about $310 million to $540 million for all tailings generated by the year 2000. The range depends on the eventual cost of groundwater protection for future tailings. The EPA regulations are binding on NRC licensees in the interim.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 11/26/84 49 FR 46425 ANPRM Comment Period End 03/01/85 50 FR 2293 Proposed Rule for Division Revicw 12/06/85 Office Concurrence on Proposed Rule Completed 01/24/86 Proposed Rule Package to ED0 01/30/86 Proposed Rule Published 05/23/86 Final Action Published 04/22/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 7901 Note EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Kitty S. Dragonette Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, D.C. 20555 301 427-4300 66

TITLE:

+ Emergency Core Cooling Systems; Revisions to Acceptance Criteria CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would amend regulations concerning acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems (ECCS) by changing the methods used to demonstrate that an ECCS would protect the nuclear reactor core during a loss-of-coolant accident. This action is proposed because research has shown that calculations performed under current requirements result in estimates of cooling system performance are significantly worse than estimates based on the improved knowledge gained from this research and because the operation of some nuclear reactors is being unnecessarily restricted. This results in increased cost of electricity generation. The proposed rule would allow use of the best information currently available to demonstrate that the ECCS would protect the reactor core during a loss-of-coolant accident.

The proposed rule would apply to all applicants for and holders of construction permits for light water reactors.

Because the proposed rule represents a significant change in a regulatory requirement, the staff is currently preparing a summary of ECCS research performed over the last 10 years which will serve as the technical basis for the proposed rule and a regulatory guide which will provide definition of what constitutes an acceptable best estimate model and acceptable methods of performing the uncertainty evaluation. The estimated cost to the NRC of this rulemaking is 2-3 staff years and

$200,000 of contractor support.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 12/06/78 43 FR 57157 ANPRM Comment Period Begin 12/06/78 43 FR 57157 ANPRM Comment Period End 02/05/79 Proposed Action for Division Review 04/15/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 06/12/86 Proposed Action to EDO 07/00/86 Proposed Action Published 11/00/86 Final Action Published 11/00/87 67

TITLE:

Emergency Core Cooling Systems; Revision to Acceptance Criteria LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2132; 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2239; 42 USC 2282; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Jose N. Reyes Jr.

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 (301)427-4422 4

L d

68

TITLE:

Degree Requirement for Senior Operators at Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 55 ABSTRACT:

The Commission is considering an amendment to its regulations to require, af ter January 1,1991, that applicants for licenses as a Senior Operator of a nuclear power plant hold a baccalaureate degree in engineering or a related science from an accredited institution. Other baccalaureate degrees from an accredited institution may be accepted on a case-by-case basis. This contemplated rulemaking action is due to a Commission decision to enhance the levels of engineering and accident management expertise on shift. The current requirement, for candidates with a baccalaureate degree, of two years of responsible nuclear power plant operating experience, would be amended to require one year of operating experience on a like commercial nuclear reactor operating at greater that twenty percent power. The Commission is also considering issuing a policy statement concurrently with this rule related to utility implementation of the rule.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 05/31/86 51 FR 19561 ANPRM Comment Period End 07/29/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS: No AGENCY CONTACT:

F. H. Rowsome Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4813 69

(D) Unpublished Rules

_,,.u a,._ _ - . m . ---

• c+.--m--

• 4- m - - - - - .--. . - - --A------e.

l i

{

l i

t

{

I D

F l

e v

l 5

a l

4 b

i l

I l

i 1

- - , -- - - . . - - . _--- - - - - --- --- _ .-, .-- ... _ , - .. - - - . -,% w.-,. - - -

TITLE:

+ Revised Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings CFR CITATI06:

10 CFR 0; 10 CFR 1; 10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 9; 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commis31on has deferred further consideration of this proposal which would have revised the Commission's procedural rules governing the conduct of all adjudicatory proceedings, with the exception of export licensing proceedings. The proposed rule would comprehensively restate current practice, retitle the hearing office, and revise and reorganize the Commission's procedural rules. The changes set out in this proposed rule are intended to enable the Commission to render decisions in a more timely fashion and reduce the burden and expense to the parties participating in the proceedings.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841; 5 USC 552 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

B. Paul Cotter, Jr.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7787 71 t

TITLE:

Effectiveness of an Initial Decision Authorizing Issuance or

)

j Amendment of a Power Reactor License or Permit  !

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would amend the Commission's "immediate effectiveness" regulation that specifies when an initial adjudicatory decision authorizing the issuance or amendment of a license or permit becomes effective. Changes are proposed that would (1) remove the existing provision governing the effectiveness of initial decisions regarding power reactor construction permits and (2) revise the Commission's existing practice regarding " effectiveness reviews" for full-power operating licenses. The proposed rule also would delete language in the existing regulation emanating from Three Mile Island-related regulatory policies, action upon which has now been completed.

The proposed rule would supersede two prior proposed rules entitled "Possible Amendments to 'Immediate Effectiveness' Rules," published May 22, 1980 (45 FR 43279), and " Commission Review Procedures for Power Reactor Construction Permits; Immediate Effectiveness Rule," published October 25, 1982 (47 FR 47260).

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 09/00/86 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 202 634-3224 4

i 72

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 purpose of the amendment is to 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 right to withdraw pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790 (c) of the NRC's regulations, i.e., information submitted in a rulemaking proceeding that subsequently forms the basis for the final rule, information which has been made available to an advisory committee or was received at an advisory committee meeting, and information that is subject to a pending Freedom of Information Act request.

TIMETABLE:

Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 'SC J 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTIT*ES: No AGENCY. CONTACT:

Paul Bollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-3224 73

TITLE:

Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings-- Procedural Changes in Hearing Process CFR CITATICN:

10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing amendments to its rules of practice which address the following aspects of the hearing process: admission of contentions, discovery against NRC staff, use of cross examination plans, timing of motions for summary disposition and limitations on matters and issues that may be included in proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law or in an appellate brief submitted by a person who does not have the burden of proof or who has only a limited interest in the proceeding. These proposals were initially developed by the Regulatory Reform Task Force and published for public comment.

The NRC is also proposing related amendments on the process of intervention that were developed by Commissioner Asselstine.

TIMETABLE:

Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Linda Gilbert Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7678 74

1 TITLE:

Security Requirements for Category II Material at Fixed Sites l

CFR CITATION: l 10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would amend the physical protection requirements for special nuclear material of moderate strategic significance (Category II) at fixed sites. Since the publication of Category II safeguards regulations in 1979, there have been several terrorist acts which involved coordinated actions against separate targets, showing an ability and willingness by at least some adversary groups to plan their attacks in advance and to closely coordinate and execute simultaneous acts by geographically separated parties. While there is no available evidence of such acts being directed against US nuclear facilities, multiple thefts of Category II material could result in the accumulation of a quantity of material of high strategic signficance.

The alternatives considered were requiring improvements for only one or two of the three major functions of the security system and continuing with status quo.

The proposed amendments would increase physical protection requirements for those Category II licensees who possess SSNM, including those licensees who possess a formula quantity but implement only Category II requirements because their fuel is irradiated to at least 100 rem /hr at three feet. The amendments also limit the use of the 100 rem /hr exemption to a reduction of one physical protection category with no reduction below the requirements of low strategic significance (Category III). In addition, minor conforming amendments are also being proposed for Parts 2 and 70.

The benefit of the proposed rule is that it is designed to make the measures used to protect Category II quantities of high enriched uranium, plutonium, and uranium-233 more resistant to attempted theft of material by external adversaries as well as by a single internal adversary. The proposed requirements will result in an estimated cost of $6,700 to $11,600 to each affected licensee initially and $1,600 to $2,900 annually thereafter.

About 0.8 staff years will be expended in completing the proposed rule.

75

TITLE:

Secui:ty Requirements for Category II Material at Fixed Sites ABSTRACT CONT:

The NRC staff has proposed that this rulemaking be put on hold until the end of December 1986 to allow time to receive and analyze the results of the potential for sabotage at non-power reactors affected by this rulemaking. If the study shows that sabotage requirements are necessary, the delay will allow for a decision on how to combine these two potential rulemaking actions.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action for Division Review 08/30/85 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 11/20/85 Proposed Action Package to EDO 03/31/87 Final Action Published 08/31/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Carl Withee Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

. Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4768 76

TITLE:

+ Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex - Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as Amended CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 4 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would implement the provisions of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The proposed rule sets out the requirements necessary to comply with the legislation and the procedures to be followed by appropriate officials within the NRC in enforcing the requirements. The requirements of the proposed rule would apply to each recipient of Federal financial assistance from the NRC.

TIFETABLE:

Final Action 09/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 20 USC 1681; 20 USC 1682; 20 USC 1683; 20 USC 1685; 20 USC 1686 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Edward E. Tucker Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization / Civil Rights Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7697 l

l 77

TITLE:

Retention Periods for Records CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 4; 10 CFR 11; 10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 25; 10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 31; 10 CFR 32; 10 CFR 34; 10 CFR 35; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 60; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 71; ...

ABSTRACT:

This proposed rule would establish a specific retention period for certain NRC-required records. It would also provide a uniform standard acceptable to the NRC for the condition of a record throughout a specified retention period. Further, the rule would establish throughoJt NRC regulations, with some exceptions, uniform retention periods of three years, five years, ten years, and the life of a license. This rule would bring NRC regulations into compliance with the Office of Management and Budget's (0MB) regulation (5 CFR 1320.6) that requires a specified retention period for each required record. It also implements NRC's 1982 commitment to 0MB to establish a record retention period of determinable length for each required record.

Amending twenty one parts of NRC regulations to specify clearly what records to retain, how long to retain them, and the condition of a record useful for NRC inspection, will be mutually beneficial to applicants and licensees and to the NRC.

Recordkeeping labor for NRC's approximately 6,700 licensees who would be affected by the rule can be divided into four functions: (1) preparing the report, (2) storing the report, (3) files, and (4) retrieving the report information.

The principal savings to the licensee, dispersed over the period licensed, would be in physical storage space and associated storage equipment and materials. The burden of recordkeeping would be reduced approximately 10 percent annually for these licensees by the proposed rule. An estimated 466,323 hours0.00374 days <br />0.0897 hours <br />5.340608e-4 weeks <br />1.229015e-4 months <br /> associated with recordkeeping or $28,000,000 annually would be saved. Preparing and publishing this rule would cost NRC approximately 500 hours0.00579 days <br />0.139 hours <br />8.267196e-4 weeks <br />1.9025e-4 months <br /> of staff time at $60 per hour for an estimated total of $30,000.

TIMETA3LE:

Proposed Action for Division Review 01/00/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 08/00/86 Proposed Action Package to EDO 10/00/86 Proposed Action Published 12/00/86 Final Action Published 10/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 i 78 l

1

V I

- TITLE:

Retention Periods for Records EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: - No AGENCY' CONTACT:

R. Stephen Scott

. Nuclear Regulato.y Comission Office of Administration Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8585 E

1 i

P 1

79 a

- . - - . , , - - - , - - .n-,- ., - . - - -,--e----m,,--a -.,e., , , , , , , , , - - - - , - - -- ~ - - - -

TITLE:

Disposal of Low-Level Radioactively Contaminated Waste Oil from Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule, which is in partial response to a petition filed by Edison Electric Institute and Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (PRM-20-15) would amend NRC regulations to specify the criteria and limits to allow onsite burning of waste oil. Currently, the only approved disposal method for waste oil contaminated by low levels of radioactive material from nuclear power plants involves absorption or solidification, transportation to, and burial at a licensed disposal site. There is an urgent need for alternative disposal methods which are most cost-effective from a radiological health and safety standpoint and, at the same time, conserve limited disposal capacity at low-level waste burial sites.

Both the public and industry will realized increased savings to ratepayers without undue risk to the public health, and conservation of limited disposal capacity at low-level waste burial sites. Alternatives to rulemaking are to maintain the status quo or to wait until the Environment Protection Agency develops Federal guidance on acceptable levels of residual radioactivity which may be released on an unrestricted basis.

There would be an estimated industry-wide economic savings of approximately $1.3 million to $2.6 million per year. It is estimated that approximately 0.3 person years of NRC staff time will be required to process this proposed rule.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action for Division Review 07/00/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 08/00/86 Proposed Action to ED0 09/00/86 Proposed Action Published 11/00/86 Final Action Published' 12/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Robert E. Alexander Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 427 4370 80

TITLE:

+ Residual Radioactive Contamination Limits for Decommissioning CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would establish residual radioactive contamination limits (including induced and other volumetric radioactivity)as contamination whichwellmust as removable andstructures be met before fixed surface and lands can be released on an unrestricted, unregulated basis. Structures and lands with residual radioactive contamination below these limits would be eligible for unrestricted release without regulatory restrictions from a radioactivity standpoint.

The proposed amendments are necessary to provide licensees with quantitative criteria to use during decommissioning relative to cleanup of structures and lands intended to ensure that structures and lands used in NRC licensed facilities and activities will be decontaminated in a manner that adequately protects public health before being released on an unrestricted, unregulated basis.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action for Division Review 03/15/87 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 08/15/87 Proposed Action to EDO 11/01/87 Proposed Action Published 01/01/88 Final Action 01/01/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Undetermined AGENCY CONTACT:

Robert E. Alexander Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4566 l

l l

81 l

TITLE:

+ Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

This proposed rule would amend Part 21 and sec. 50.55(e) both of which require the reporting of safety defects by licensees. This effort was prompted by TMI Action Plan Task II,J.4 and has as its main objectives: (1) elimination of duplicate reporting among all requirements, (2) consistent reporting among all reporting requirements, (3) establishment of uniform and clear definitions for defects which need to be reported, (4) establishment of uniform time limits within which a defect must be reported and evaluated and, (5) establishment of uniform content for reporting of defects.

Approximately 450 to 500 reports are issued annually under Part 21 and sec. 50.55 (e) respectively. The reports identify plant-specific safety concerns and potential generic safety concerns for further NRC followup. These reports form the basis for numerous NRC bulletins and information notices.

This proposed rulemaking will reduce the potential for duplicate reporting and evaluation that now exists and will establish a more coherent regulatory framework that is expected to reduce industry and NRC burden in this area without sacrificing safety effectiveness.

Alternatives to this approach varied from establishment of a single rule for all reporting to maintaining a status quo for defect reporting. All alternatives were rejected since they would not result in any substantial improvement to the present regulatory framework.

Current costs of reporting under Part 21 and section 50.55 (e) are estimated at $12,400,000 annually for industry and $2,900,000 annually for NRC evaluations . It is anticipated that industry report' g burden with the proposed rulemaking will be reduced by 36,60J hours or $2,208,000 while NRC burden should be increased by $100,000. Additional burden to industry and NRC, while minimal, is anticipated in the areas of adherence to time schedules, and enforcement, recordkeeping respectively.

82

TITLE:

+ P*oposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action for Division Review 05/00/85 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 06/05/85 Proposed Action Package to ED0 11/18/85 Proposed Action to Commission 12/16/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2282; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Rabindra N. Singh Nuclear Regulatory Commission

, Office of Inspection and Enforcement Washington,.DC 20555 301 492-4149 1

1 I

i 83

TITLE:

+ Adjustment to Security Access Authorization Fee Schedule Publication CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 25 ABSTRACT:

The final rule revises current regulatory requirements regarding the frequency of formal publication of changes to the Access Authorization Fees charged by hRC. Currently, section 25.17 states that revised fees will be published in the Federal Register during July of each year. A more accurate and efficient regulatory requirement would be to revise the access authorization fee schedule concurrent with the Office of Personnel Management's (0PM) notification to NRC of its background investigation rate changes since NRC's fees are wholly dependent on the rate charged by OPM. This rulemaking will keep the public and industry promptly informed of current fees while at the same time decrease, to the fullest extent possible, unnecessary future NRC rulemaking requirements. There is no additional burden or cost to the public or industry resulting from this rulemaking. The savings to NRC per year are estimated to be $13,200. NRC resources needed for rule-making are estimated at less than .1 FTE.

TIMETABLE:

Final Action for Division Review 06/19/86 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 07/00/86 Final Action Package to ED0 07/00/86 Final Action Published 07/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2165; 42 USC 5841; 31 USC 9701 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Richard A. Dopp Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4124 84

TITLE:

+ Registration of Sources and Devices CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 32; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70 ABSTRACT:

NRC regulations clearly provide for pre-marketing approval of certain sealed sources and devices, such as smoke detectors and gauges. The regulations are less clear with respect to pre-marketing approval of other products, such as industrial radiographic and in-plant gauging devices. The proposed rule would clearly state the procedures for manufacturers and distributors of sources and devices to obtain pre-marketing approval of products to be used under specific license. Consistent with present practice, the rule would require the applicant to submit for approval specified radiation safety information about the product.

The proposed rule would also assure that all manufacturers / distributors (vendors) are informed of NRC's program for pre-marketing approval of soerces and devices under specific license. The rule, by improving cc munication with the vendors, would assure timely and efficient cons deration of radiation safety features of products and thus reduce i

administrative costs for vendors, users and NRC.

The rulemaking action is not urgent, but is important because it will substantially improve the licensing process and reduce the administrative burden on NRC and licensees. The alternative is to continue in the present status which involves duplication of effort through repetitive submittals and reviews. Required resources for NRC to complete the rulemaking are 1.5 staff years and FY87 and 0.1 staff year in FY88.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action for Division Review 08/00/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action 12/00/86 Proposed Action to ED0 01/00/87 Proposed Action Published 03/00/87 Final Action Published 12/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2071; 42 USC 2092 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:

Steven L Baggett Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-9005 85

l l

TITLE:

+ Informal Hearing Procedures for Materials Licenses Proceedings

.CFR CITATION: .

10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 32; 10 CFR 33; 10 CFR 34; 10 CFR 35; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 71;

-10 CFR 72 ABSTRACT:

This proposed rule, being prepared.at Commission direction would provide comprehensive treatment of hearing procedures to be implemented by the Commission for materials licensing proceedings. In addition, the proposed rule would encompass the objective of the proposed rule, " Jurisdiction of Adjudicatory Boards," identified as 3150-AA53 which is being deleted from OMB's Unified Agenda. There are no reasonable alternatives to rulemaking for implementing these informal hearing procedures.

The procedures are expected to reduce the economic burden imposed on a participant in a proceeding.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 09/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2111 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Paul Rollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-3224 i

+

f 86

TITLE:

+ Financial Responsibility Standards for Long Term Care for Low Level Waste Disposal Sites CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule is designed to provide standards to ensure that each licensee responsible for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste possesses an adequate bond, surety, or other financial arrangement to insure completion of all requirements established by the Commission for decontamination, decommissioning, and site closure. Section 151 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act authorizes the NRC to develop standards for financial arrangements for low-level radioactive waste site closure. Comments on the NPRM will define the nature and scope of the action.

TIMETABLE:

Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 10171 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

John Surmeier Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427 4404 l 87 l

l

TITLE:

+ Bankruptcy Filing; Notification Requirements

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72 ABSTRACT: .

Notification of the NRC in -ses of bankruptcy would alert the Commission so that it may o; , with potential hazards to the

~

public health and safety pos i by a licensee that does not have the resources to properly handle licensed radioactive material or clean up possible contamination. It is necessary to address this issue because instances have occurred in which materials licensees have filed for bankruptcy and NRC has not generally been aware of this. There are no current regulations requiring that licenses notify the NRC in case of bankruptcy filing. Hence, the NRC has no means by which it can be made aware of these situations. The proposed rule would require licensees to notify the appropriate regional office of the NRC in the event of a bankruptcy proceeding involving the licensee. There is no action required of a licensee by these amendments unless and until a bankruptcy petition is filed.

The net overall impact on industry of this rule should be negligible since this rule only consists of one additional notification beyond that already required by the United States Code and that is simply a notification of NRC by mail. The benefit of the rule is that it will assist in protection of the public health and safety by reducing the risk of radiation exposure to the public and workers by enabling NRC to be aware of potential licensee problems in handling and disposing of radioactive materials caused by seveca economic problems. The net effect on NRC should be a reduction in staff resources since it would put NRC in a better reactive mode for proceeding with necessary enforcement actior.s.

TIMETABLE:

, Proposed Action for Division Review 02/06/86 l Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 04/07/86

Proposed Action to ED0 04/23/86 Proposed Action Published 06/20/86 51 FR 22531 NPRM Comment Period End 07/21/86 51 FR 22531 Final Action Published 04/30/87 l

l LEGAL AUTHORITY:

l 42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:

Frank Cardile Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7946 l

88 l

l TITLE:

Requirements for Possession of Industrial Gauges I

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 31 ABSTRACT:

The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeks comment on NRC's intent to modify its requirements concerning the possession of industrial gauges that are used to make hazardous or inconvenient measurements.

Some industrial gauges, which are used to make hazardous or inconvenient measurements, have been improperly maintained, improperly transferred, or inadvertently discarded. The results of a recent NRC study have indicated, in part, that some industrial gauge users ao not adhere to NRC require-ments regarding the possession and use of industrial gauges. The NRC believes this problen shoud be corrected in a timely fashion because of the potential hazard presented by some gauges. The NRC examined the feasibility of an intensive education program for user industries, but does not believe this would provide the requisite assurance of safe disposition of gauges that are no longer in use. The NRC believes that a periodic reporting program established in the regulations would provide the most efficient solution to the problem of industrial gauges that are lost or misplaced due to unfamiliarity with NRC requirements.

At this time, the NRC forsees a requirement for submission of an annual report on which the gauge user would note the identification of the gauge and its location. The NRC estimates that a report would cost each licensee about $15 per year per gauge. Analysis of past events indicates that it cost $2 million to recover contaminated steel each time an industrial gauge or similar device inadvertently enters the scrap metal process. The NRC estimated that followup of lost gauges will require five staff years the first year and two staff years thereafter.

The rulemaking will require two staff years to complete.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM for Division Review 09/00/86 Office Concurrence on ANPRM Completed 10/00/86 ANPRM Action to ED0 11/00/86 ANPRM Published 12/00/86 Proposed Rule Published 09/00/87 Final Action Published 06/00/88

' LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2114; 42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESSES AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:

Norman L. McElroy Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4108 89

TITLE:

+ Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Exposure Devices CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 34 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would amend the present regulations to establish performance standards for industrial radiography exposure devices. Overexposures of radiographers (and occasionally the general public) are more than double that of other radiation workers and have been a concern to the NRC for some time. Approximately 25-35% of the radiography overexposures are associated with equipment malfunction. The issue of safety requirements for these devices is a primary concern since the devices use relatively high intensity, high energy gamma-ray emitting sources with the potential for serious overexposures.

Although a consensus standard for radiographic exposure devices was published in 1981, (American National Standard. N432) it is not clear that all manufacturers are adopting the standard. The alternatives that were considered include (1) taking no action at this time, (2) adopting the consensus standard in the regulations, (3) endorsing the consensus standard in a regulatory guide, and (4) endorsing the consensus standard through incorporation by reference in an amendment to the regulations along with other necessary peroformance standards and simultaneously issuing a regulatory guide in support of the proposed regulation.

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 standards are estimated to be of the order of $250,000 per year or approximately $230.00 per year per licensee. Determination of the monetary value of the benefits gained are difficult, but in view of the potential hazards involved in radiography incidents, the safety benefits far l outweigh the costs involved. NRC resources required for processing this rule to final publication are estimated to be 0.4 person-years.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action for Division Review 05/30/86

, Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 07/23/86 l Proposed Action to ED0 08/08/86 Proposed Action Published 09/15/86 ,

i Final Action Published 12/31/87 l

l LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes 90 l

TITLE:

Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Exposure Devices AGENCY CONTACT:

Donald 0. Nellis Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4588

).

l l

91 l

I e . --- , - - . _ , - - _ - . _ , . _ _

TITIE:

+ Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50, Appendix J ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would update and revise the 1973 criteria for preoperational and periodic pressure testing for leakage of primary containmert boundaries of water-cooled power reactors Problems have doveloped in application and interpretation of the existing rule. These result from changes in testing technology, test criteria, and a relevant national standard that needs to be recognized. It is proposed to revise the rule as noted to make it current and improve its usefulness.

The revision is urgently needed to resolve continuing conflicts between licensees and NRC inspectors over interpretations, current regulatory practice which is no longer being reflected accurately by the existing rule, and 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 containment system boundaries under post-loss of coolant accident conditions. The majority of the effort needed by NRC to issue the rule has already been expended.

Still remaining are presentation of the proposed rule for public comment and integration of appropriate public comments.

A detailed analysis of costs, benefits, and occupational exposures is available in the Public Document Room, and indicates possible savings to industry of $14 million to $300 million and an increase in occupational exposure of less than one percent per year per plant due to increased testing.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action to ED0 03/31/86 Proposed Action Published 07/00/86 Final Action Published 04/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 92 A .____ _ _ _ _ _

a e - * +

1 I

TITLE:

Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors

- AGENCY CONTACT:

Gunter Arndt Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office' of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 '

301 443-7893 l

l l

2 93 s

,w r-+- ,-

-r., -- ,,-- ,,---- - .-,, -,w..,- - - , ,---- ....--.n- ,. - - ---- - - -- - . --------- , ---- -- - - , ..- - , --- , . - . - - - - .,- - - - - - - - - - -

TITLE:

+ Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to clarify its regulations on the use of the terms "important to safety" and

" safety related" by adding definitions of these two terms and of " facility licensing documents" to 10 CFR Part 50 and by discussing how these definitions will be applied in NRC licensing reviews. Significant issues concerning the meaning of these terms as they are used in this part have arisen in Commission licensing proceedings. This proposed rule would define these terms and clarify the nature and extent of their effect on quality assurance requirements, thereby resolving these issues.

A position paper requesting additional guidance for the Commission was signed by the ED0 on May 29, 1986. Future schedule will depend upon guidance from the Commission.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Edward T. Baker Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4874 94

l TITLE:

+ Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The Commission proposes to amend its regulations to incorporate by reference the Winter 1984 Addenda Summer 1985 Addenda, Winter 1985 Addenda, and 1986 Edition of Section III, Division 1, of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code), and the Winter 1983 Addenda, Summer 1984 Addenda, Winter 1984 Addenda, Summer 1985 Addenda, Winter 1985 Addenda, and 1986 Edition of Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME Code. A limitation is placed on the use of paragraph IWB-3640 as contained in the Winter 1983 Addenda and Winter 1984 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1. This limitation requires that for certain types of welds, IWB-3640 be used as modified by the Winter 1985 Addenda. The sections of the ASME Code being incorporated provide rule for the construction of light-water-cooled nuclear power plant components and specify requirements for inservice insepction of those components. Adoption of these amendments would permit the use of improved methods for construction and inservice inspection of nuclear power plants.

TIMETABLE:

Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Gilbert C. Millman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7713 95

l i

i l

TITLE:

+ Fitness for Duty of Personnel with Access to Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

At a Commission meeting, October 17, 1984, the Commission directed the staff to draft a policy statement on programs for training and qualification in lieu of publishing this proposed " Fitness for Duty" rule and other proposed training and qualification amendments. On December 10, 1984, the NRC decided to separate the policy statement on fitness for duty from the policy statement on training and qualifications.

Therefore, this proposed rule is being withdrawn. The policy is being established to allow power reactor applicants and licensees to develop and implement their own fitness-for-duty programs during a 2-year period. Nothing in the policy statement limits NRC's authority or responsibility to follow up on operational events or its enforcement authority when regulatory requirements are not met.

A proposed policy statement was submitted to the Commission on January 1, 1985, as SECY 85-21. A proposed fitness for duty withdrawal statement was submitted to the Commission on April 12, 1985, as SECY 85-21A.

The Commission approved the policy statement and notice of withdrawal for proposed rule on July 7, 1986.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 08/05/82 47 FR 33980 NPRM Comment Period End 10/04/82 47 FR 33980 Withdrawal Notice 07/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

l 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2237 l

l EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Loren Bush ^

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Washington, DC 20555 i 301 492-8080 i

(

96

TITLE:

+ Broad Scope Modification of General Design Criterion 4 Requirements for Protection Against Dynamic Effects of Postulated Pipe Ruptures CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The proposed broad scope modification of General Design Criterion 4 (GDC 4) would allow demonstration of piping integrity by analyses to serve as a basis for excluding consideration of dynamic effects associated with pipe ruptures. A proposed rule published July 1, 1985 (50 FR 27006) was limited to the primary loops of pressurized water reactors (PWRs), whereas this proposed rule would cover all high energy piping in all light water reactors (LWRs). The modification will permit the general but selective removal of pipe whip restraints and jet impingement shields from operating plants, plants under construction and future plant designs, but will not impact other design requirements.

The only alternatives to rulemaking would be the granting of partial exemptions to GDC 4 or reinterpretation of the text of the existing rule. The staff has, however indicated that extensive use of exemptions to authorize the elimination of pipe whip restraints is inappropriate. Therefore, it appears most appropriate to undertake rulemaking at this time.

TIMETABLE:

i Proposed Rule for Division Review 05/03/85 Office Concurrence on Proposed Rule Completed 10/28/85 Proposed Rule Package to ED0 04/00/86 Proposed Rule Published .07/00/86 Final Action Published 12/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 L5C 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

John A. O'Brien Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555

301 443-7854 -

97 l

5

}

TITLE:

+ Radon 222 Estimate for Table S-3 r

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50; l'0 CFR 51

. ABSTRACT:

In a Federal Register notice published on April 14, 1978, the l' Commission deleted the radon-222 value from Table S-3 ber.ause it was recognized to be underestimated. Pending rulemaking action to provide a new estimate for radon-222 in Table S-3, the environmental effects of radon are subject to litigation in individual nuclear power plant licensing proceedings. The proposed rule was to deal with this question generically for all nuclear power plants; however, the NRC-does not expect to receive applications for new nuclear power plant licenses within the near future, and certain regulatory issues related to radon have not yet been resolved. ,

The Commission directed the staff to combine the radon rulemaking with the final rule to add the narrative explanation for Table S-3 and, also to incorporate the chanaes to add a technetium-99 estimate to Table S-3.

, This would complete Table S-3 and would remove all environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle from further consideration and litigation 1 in individual nuclear power plant licensing cases. However, the final rule cannot be formulated until EPA completes the development of additional

radon standards which are scheduled to be issued about the middle of

. '1986, and the Commission completes its review of ALAB-701, which is being held in abeyance for the completion of EPA's radon standards and for

, further resolution of the de minimis argument concerning the effects of i exposure to low levels of radiation. The Commission staff has directed staff to develop a schedule for completion of the work required to provide a new radon-222 value for Table S-3 and to resolve the related matters.

4 The staff's plan and estimate, which will be submitted in August 1986 for Commission approval, will show a completion date in 1989 for final l rulemaking covering the new values for radon-222 and technetium-99 and i the narrative explanation of these values and their effect on public health and safety, i TIMETABLE:

! EPA's New Radon Standards Promulgated 10/08/84 U. S. Court of Appeals invalidates Table S-3 04/27/85 EPA New Radon Standards (active mills) 08/00/86 Commission Paper with Revised Schedule 08/00/86 Final Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842

98 5

---

.-.,,.a. .---,--~-.-,,.,,-..,,.--w--- -

,~...--,.,-,y ww..-r,--,,, , , , , , -,,4.---,.w.--wre,, , , - , - ,------..,--.-,,,.,w,-- -

,- -: -~.-,,,-w..---.,, .,- - - , - , . .

w TITLE:

+ Radon 222 Estimate for Table S-3 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: ha AGENCY CONTACT:

William E. Thompson Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safegr,1rds Washington, DC 20555 301 427-9024 99 l

__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -__ \

TITLE:

+ Degree Requirement for Senior Operators at Nuclear Power Piants CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50, 10 CFR 55 i ABSTRACT:

The Commission is considering amendment to its regulations to require, after January 1,1991, that applicants for licenses as a Senior Operator of a nuclear power plant hold a baccalaureate degree in engineering or a related science form an accredited institution. Other baccalaureate degrees from an accredited institution may be accepted on a case-by-case basis. This contemplated rulemaking action is due to a Commission decision to enhance the levels of engineering and accident management expertise on shift. The current requirements, for candidates with a baccalaureate degree, of two years of responsible nuclear power plant operating experience, would be amended to require one year of operating experience on a like commercial nuclear reactor operating at greater than twenty percent power. The Commission is also considering issuing a policy statement concurrently with this rule related to utility implementation of the rule.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 05/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Frank H. Rowsome Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4813 l

l 1

100

TITLE:

+ Part 51; Conforming Amendments CFR CITATION:

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 which are at variance with the environmental review which NRC perform in licensing other typcs 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. Alternatives are to take no action, issue an ANPRM, or ask Congress for additional legislation.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action for Division Review 01/15/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 01/15/86 Proposed Action to EDO 07/01/86 Proposed Action Published 10/01/86 Final Action Published 06/01/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

James R. Wolf Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8694 101

TITLE:

+ Annual Fee for Nuclear Power Reactors Operating Licenses or Applications and Major Materials Licenses and Conforming Amendment CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 171 ABSTRACT:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a proposed rule that would add a new part to its regulations to prescribe an annual fee for all persons who have applied for a license or who hold a license to operate a nuclear power reactor and for major materials licensees. The annual fec would recover allowable NRC budgeted costs for reactor-related and certain materials-related regulatory services. The annual fee is necessary to comply with the recent Congressional mandate concerning Nuclear Regulatory Commission Annual Charges in the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.

As a result of additional staff review and consideration of public comments on the proposed rule, the final rule has been revised to impose an annual fee on those persons who hold operating licenses and will not alter collections under the existing fee schedule,10 CFR Part 170.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 07/01/86 Final Action 09/00/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

C. James Holloway, Jr.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7225 -

(

C 102

l l

TITLE:

+ Definition of High-Level Radioactive Waste (HLW) in 10 CFR Part 60 CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:

This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeks to revise the definition of HLW in Part 60 to reflect certain changes in the legal definition of HLW contained in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Because of the complex issues involved in revising the definition of HLW, which affects virtually the entire radioactive waste management system, the staff is proposing an ANPRM rather than a proposed rule. A revision of the definition of HLW would affect DOE's plans for a geologic repository, State plans for regional compacts to manage low-level waste, Federal vs. State responsibility for some above Class C wastes, costs of waste disposal for certain waste generators, and the development of new technologies and facilities to dispose of certain types of wastes. A definition of HLW which reduces uncertainty about responsibility for different types of wastes would benefit the radioactive waste management system. NRC staff time for processing this rule is estimated to be 4 staff years.

Alternatives to rulemaking would be to take no action or request Congress to amend the NWPA. The rulemaking would eliminate uncertainty and reduce costs for the public, industry, and NRC.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action for Division Review 07/00/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 09/00/86 Proposed Action to ED0 11/00/86 Proposed Action Published 01/00/87 Final Action Published 10/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4586 103

TITLE:

+ Criteria and Procedures for Evaluating Requests for Emergency Access to Low-Level Waste Disposal Sites CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 62 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule will establish criteria and procedures that will be used in the execution of the NRC responsibilities under Section 6 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste procedures Amendments Act (LLRWPAA). Section 6 of the LLRWPAA authorizes the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to grant emergency access to any non-Federal low-level waste disposal facility, if necessary to eliminate an immediate and serious threat to the public health and safety or the common defense and security which cannot be mitigated by other means. The proposed rule may have a significant impact on the generators of low-level waste, in that it will set the standards high for qualifying for emergency access, and will require them to provide convincing information to the NRC that their being denied access to low-level waste disposal facilities has resulted in an inmediate and serious threat to the public health and safety'or the common defense and security.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action Division Review Office Concurrence on Proposed Action 02/02/87 Proposed Action to ED0 06/12/87 Proposed Action Published 09/04/87 Final Action Published 08/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2021 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:

Janet Lambert Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4009 l

t 104

TITLE:

+ Reporting of Special Nuclear Material Physical Inventory Summary Results CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 70 ABSTRACT:

This proposed rule, previously entitled " Material Status Reports", will amend NRC's regulations on special nuclear material control and accounting to require the reporting of summary results of physical inventories. These amendments would codify the reporting of physical inventory data that licensees have been providing voluntarily since 1975.

Since the affected licensees are already supplying this information voluntarily, there will be no additional costs to these licensees or to NRC.

TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action for Division Review 01/25/85 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 10/30/85 Proposed Action Package to ED0 01/31/86 Proposed Action Published 09/30/86 Final Action Published 05/20/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:

Darrell Huff Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Washington, DC 20555 .

301 492-7077 l

105 l

TTTLE:

- Rule to Amend the Transportation Provisions Pertaining to the

Shipment of Low Specific Activity (LSA) Material CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 71 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would modify the LSA regulations to cover additonal types of low specific activity materials (e.g., materials for decommissioning-operations) and to establish limits on potential hazards from external radiation resulting from accidental release of LSA materials in transit. NRC concerns that failure of a package containing a large quantity of LSA materials in an urban environment could have severe consequences, including protracted loss of public transportaion networks, causes this rule change to be considered urgent. The proposed rule would also propose a number of changes intended to broaden the LSA category while limiting the potential impacts of accidental package failure. The NRC would continue to regulate Type B quantities of LSA material shipped in a single 4 package. The wide applicability of the rules to be imposed make inappropriate the alternative of modifying individual licenses to impose the requirements.

The rule would reduce the risk of loss of public transportation networks as a result of a transportaion accident involving LSA material at a cost of as yet unknown magnitude to be borne by the

, regulated industry. The cost figures to the affected licensees are pending the completion of a Department of Transportation report.

Two staff-years of effort will be required to complete the rulemaking action.

l TIMETABLE:

Proposed Action For Division Review 09/30/86

, Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 11/30/86

! Proposed Action Package to ED0 01/30/87 Proposed Action Published 02/27/87 Final Action Published 02/28/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes l AGENCY CONTACT:

Donald R. Hopkins Nuclear Regulatory Commission j Office of~ Nuclear Regulatory Research t Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7745 106

TITLE:

+ Licensing Requirements for the Export of Tritium CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 110 ABSTRACT:

The final rule will amend the regulations that govern the export of tritium under a general license when the tritium is contained in a luminescent light source. The final rule would impose a more restrictive upper limit on the amount of tritium that may be contained in each light source that may be exported under a general license. This amount would preclude the export of large tritium light sources under a general license unless the tritium light source is installed in an aircraft as a safety device. The final rule is necessary to address the concerns of the Executive Branch and other governments that the current general license provisions governing luminescent light sources containing tritium may permit the export of tritium in large quantities. Because it becomes technically easier to extract bulk tritium when it occurs in large quantities, greater control is needed to prevent it from being diverted to potential proliferation sensitive end uses. It is estimated that this amendment would result in only five additional export license actions per year.

TIMETABLE:

Final Action 08/04/86 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: N/A AGENCY CONTACT:

Elaine 0. Hemby Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of International Programs Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7984 107

1 l

l l

l l

1 1

l 1

l l

t 4

l 4

Il PETl" C WS l

l l

l l

l l

i

'l 1

4 i

i i

. - . - - - - . , . . ,_ __. _m-

I l

l l

(A) - Petitions incorporated into final rules or petitions denied since March 31, 1986

w a-a w - , --

ns.-- - a s- n-- - a - ._..

i l

I i

I

)

i

)

l l

i a

l I

i

. s>

i i

1 I

r

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-34-3 PETITIONER: Chicago Bridge and Iron Company PART: 34 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: November 23, 1982 (49 FR 52722)

SUBJECT:

Final Radiation Survey of a Radiographic Exposure Device

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner proposed an amendment that would require the licensee to survey and record the survey results whenever the exposure device was placed in storage. This is in addition to the survey made at the end of each exposure. Based on comments received on the petition, the staff agrces that this change should be made.

The present 034.11(d) requires that the licensee conduct an in-house inspection of radiographers and radiography assistants egery 3 months. The current regulation is not specific and a clarification of this section is needed.

Obiective. To require that a licensee survey an exposure device after it is placed in storage and record the results of the survey.

Background. A proposed rule addressing these subjects was published October 4, 1984 (49 FR 39168). The comment period expired November 18, 1984.

TIMETABLE: Complete. The final rule was published June 16, 1986 (51 FR 21736).

CONTACT: Alan K. Roecklein Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7986 109

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-51-6 PETITIONER: Catherine Quigg PART: 51 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATIONi April 15, 1980 (45 FR 25557)

SUBJECT:

Environmental Assessment for High Burnup Nuclear Fuel

SUMMARY

. Description. The petitioner requests that the Comission amend its regulations to require the preparation of a generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) for high burnup nuclear fuel as used in commercial nuclear reactors, stored in spent fuel pools or cooling racks, or, poten-tially, processed in reprocessing plants or disposed of in permanent sites. The petitioner states that, with the decision not to reprocess nuclear fuel, the Federal government and the utilities want to use more uranium in existing nuclear fuel in reactors across the country. The petitioner expresses concern that cited experiments in high fuel burnup will lead to a national program of high burnup of nuclear fuel in reactors without adequately considering potential long- and short-term environmental effects.

Objective. The petitioner proposes (1) that the Commission amend 10 CFR Part 51 to require that a GEIS be prepared and (2) that the Comission require a GEIS for high burnup nuclear fuel. The petitioner believes this regulation is necessary to adequately protect public health and safety.

The petitioner believes an environmental statement is neces-sary to adequately examine the following significant effects that use of high burnup fuel could have on the environment:

(1) greater fission gas releases from nuclear reactors; (2) increased fission gas releases from spent fuel pools; (3) production of inferior grade spent nuclear fuel; (4) potential for greater radiological impact in reactor and spent fuel pool accidents; and (5) increased radioactive releases during reprocessing.

Background. The comment period closed June 16, 1980.

Fourteen comments were received, the majority in opposition to the petition. The petitioner believes that studies and reports based on low burnup fuel may not be relevant when applied to high burnup fuel and that the Commission has no adequate basis for its negative declaration that higher burnups would have no significant environmental impact.

l i

110 1

TIMETABLE: Complete. The notice of denial for this petition was published June 26, 1986 (51 FR 32383).

CONTACT: M. R. Fleishman Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7777 111

(B) - Petitions incorporated into proposed rules 1

l

-. e - - .- - a e

l l

I h

l i

I I

.____s._-m_-..__ . _ . ... . _ .,_.. - , , _. .,m.....__- . _ _ _ _ , _ _

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-35-2 PETITIONER: The American Association of Physicists in Medicine PART: 35 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: January 29, 1982 (47 FR 4311)

SUBJECT:

Intervals Between Required Dosimetry System Calibrations

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner proposes that the Connission amend its regulations to permit a longer interval between required calibrations of teletherapy dosimetry systems.

Current regulations require calibration by the National Bureau of Standards or an accredited Regional Calibration Laboratory every two years. The petitioner indicates that the waiting period for instrument calibration is currently about six months and is expected to increase, and.that dosimetry systems do not have to be calibrated that frequently.

Objective. To allow a longer interval between calibrations while providing for suitable dosimetry system constancy checks in order to reduce the six-month waiting period for instrument calibration without adversely affecting dosimetry system reliability.

Background. The comment period closed March 30, 1982. The staff met with representatives of the National Bureau of Standards on January 21, 1982, to discuss the extent of and reasons for the instrument calibration backlog. Pending final resolution, affected licensees will receive relief in the form of case-by-case variances. Medical licensees may benefit by not having to have dosimetry equipment calibrated so frequently. In response to the petition, a proposed rule, similar to that suggested in the petition, is being incorporated into a proposed revision of 10 CFR Part 35, l " Medical Use of Byproduct Material," which was published i

for public comment on July 26, 1985 (50 FR 30616); NRC resources are noted there. The comment period for this proposed rule closed November 18, 1985.

i 113

i I

TIMETABLE: To follow action on PRM-35-2 in this and future i regulatory agendas, see the timetable for the final

. rulemaking, " Medical . Use of Byproduct Material,"

which addresses this petition.

CONTACT: Norman L. McElroy Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-427-4108

\

b E

114

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-22 PETITIONER: Public Interest Research Group, et al.

PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: August 8, 1977 (42 FR 40063)

SUBJECT:

Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request that the Comission amend its regulations to require nuclear plant operators to post bonds before each plant's operation to ensure that funds will be available for isolation of radioactive material upon decommissioning. The petitioners state that their proposal would ensure that power companies that '

operate reactors, rather than future generations, bear the cost of decommissioning. The petitioners also request that the Commission amend its regulations to require that operators of nuclear power plants already in operation be required to establish plans and imediately post bonds to insure proper decommissioning.

Objective. Since decommissioning will not occur until after the 40-year operating license has expired and may require substantial expense for years thereafter, the petitioners seek to ensure that companies which are now financially stable continue to have the capacity to pay decommissioning costs when necessary.

Background. The original comment period closed October 7, 1977, but was extended to January 3, 1978. Sixty-two comments were received, a majority of which oppose the petition. A notice denying the petition in part was published in the Federal Register on June 22, 1979 (44 FR 36523). The partial denial covered that part of the petition seeking an immediate rulemaking requiring the posting of surety bonds. Other issues and funding alternatives raised in the petition have been incorporated into the ongoing rulemaking on decommis-sioning criteria for nuclear facilities. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking for that proceeding was published on March 13, 1978 (43 FR 10370), and the proposed rule was published February 11, 1985 (50 FR 5600). The comment period for this proposed rule ended July <12, 1985.

115

TIMETABLE: To follow action on PRM-50-22 in this and future regulatory agendas, see the timetable for the final rulemaking entry, " General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," which addresses this petition.

CONTACT: Catherine Mattsen Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7661 i

I l

116

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-71-1, PRM-71-2, PRM-71-4

~

PETITIONER: Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA)/ DOE (PRM-71-1)

' American National Standards Inst. Committee N14 (PRM-71-2)

Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. (PRM-71-4)

PART: 71 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: PRM-71-1, September 22,1975(40FR43517);

PRM-71-2, April 15, 1976 (41 FR 15921); and PRM-71-4, January 27, 1977 (42 FR 5149).

SUBJECT:

Exemption of " Low Specific Activity Material" from the

Requirements of Part 71

SUMMARY

Description. The -petitioners requested that the Comission

amend its regulations at il 71.7 and 71.10 to exempt " low

specific activity material," as defined in 9 71.4(g), from .

the requirements of Part 71. The petitioners stated that the Department of Transportation (DOT) Hazardous Materials Regulations, 49 CFR 170-189, provide a specific exemption for "1ow specific activity material" in which these materials are exempted from the normal packaging requirements.

Petitioners further stated that this exemption would make Part 71 more consistent with both the 1967 regulations of j the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and with the j 1972 revised edition of the IAEA regulations. ,.

Objective. To exempt " low specific activity material" from the packaging requirements of 10 CFR Part 71 to achieve compatibility among the regulations of the NRC, DOT, and IAEA.

j Background. Comments were received on these petitions over a period of one and one-half ' years. Altogether, five favorable comments were received. In Jul Commission approved a proposed revision (y 1979, theSECY-79-192) to

the NRC transportation regulations in 10 CFR Part 71 to j make them more compatible with those of the IAEA, including i the requested revision to 9 71.7 to exempt " low specific

! activity material" from the requirements of Part 71. The j proposed rule change was published in the Federal Register

on August 17, 1979 (44 FR 48234). During the development 1 of the final rule, however, the transportation program j office (NMSS) reversed its earlier decision to exempt " low i

l l l

1 I

l 117 i

1 i . . . ~ - . . , ,_ . ,m -,_ . _ . _ , . . . , . . . , _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ , _ _ , . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ , _ . . . . . . _ _

i specific activity material" from Part 71 until a deficiency in the rule is corrected and directed that action on the petitions be delayed until a new rulemaking action is initiated to correct the deficiency. That new proposed rule is scheduled for completion by February 1987.

TIMETABLE: Commission action on the petition is scheduled for April 1987..

CONTACT: Donald R. Hopkins ,

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7690 1

4 4

118

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-73-2 PETITIONER: Wisconsin Electric Power Company, et al.

PART: 73 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: September 15, 1977 (42 FR 46431)

SUBJECT:

Elimination of " Pat Down" Physical Searches of Individuals at Nuclear Power Plants

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request elimination of the requirement for " pat down" physical searches of individuals entering a protected area of a nuclear power plant. The petitioners contend that the requirement is unnecessary in that comparable highly sensitive facilities such as those used to store nuclear weapons do not have such a requirement.

The petitioners state that their petition would permit " pat down" searches and that individuals entering a protected area would be put on notice that they are subject to these searches. Existing requirements for the use of detection equipment would not be affected. The petition includes proposed amendatory text to Part 73. The petitioners also 3

have submitted a memorandum in support of the petition.

Objective. To eliminate the requirement for " pat down" physical searches of individuals entering a protected area of a nuclear power plant.

Background. The comment period closed October 17, 1977.

Approximately 100 comments were received. Eighty comments were from utilities and supported the petition. The other 20 disagreed with the petition. Currently effective regulations require, in part, that licensees conduct physical " pat down" searches of their employees and other persons before allowing them to enter a protected area of a power reactor facility. However, NRC has extended to licensees relief from this requirement while a proposed rulemaking proceeding in physical searches is conducted.

The most recent notice granting a continuation of this i relief was published in the Federal Register on December 1, 1980(45FR79492). The Commission notified the petitioner that action on the petition has been delayed pending resolution of the rulemaking proceeding to modify require-ments for physical searches at nuclear power plants.

Implementation of the proposed revised pat-down search rule would not represent any increased costs to individual licensees.

119

TIMETABLE: Commission action on the petition for rulemaking is pending issuance of the final rule on pat-down searches. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on August 1, 1984 (49 FR 30738), and the comment period for the rule was extended to March 7, 1985 (49 FR 48200). Final rule publication is scheduled for August 1986. The resolution of the petition is scheduled to be published October 1986.

CONTACT: Kristina Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-427-4754 120

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-73-3 PETITIONER: KMC, Inc., et al.

PART: 73 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: .None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: July 10, 1978 (43 FR 29635) .

SUBJECT:

Physical Security Requirements at Nuclear Power Plants

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests amendment of 9 73.55 to include a statement that, if a nuclear power reactor licensee meets the specific requirements for physical protection against an insider threat, as provided for in the Commission's regulations, a licensee will also meet the general performance requirements for physical protection provided in 6 73.55. The petitioner contends that while 6 73.55(a) permits licensees to suggest alternative measures that would achieve equivalent levels of physical protection, experience has shown that these proposed alternatives have not been accepted by the NRC staff. The petitioner states that the NRC has required additional features, beyond the requirements in i 73.55, to meet the general performance requirements for physical security protection. Specifically, the petitioner requests amendment of paragraph (a)(2) of 5 73.55 that provides requirements for protection against

" insider" threat (that is, a threat from an individual inside a plant, including an employee of the utility).

The requested change would state that a utility that meets the specific requirements in paragraphs (b) through (h) of 9 73.55 would satisfy the general performance requirements for physical security in i 73.55. The petitioner provides 1 specific amendatory language in the petition and also has submitted a memorandum ir. support of the petition.

Objective. To limit NRC staff from imposing on utilities additional requirements for physical security protection above those requirements in 6 73.55 by stating that a utility, when it satisfies the specific requirements for physical protection against an insider threat (as provided in the Commission's regulations), will also meet the general performance requirements for physical protection against an insider threat. ,

Background. The comment period closed September 8,1978.

Four comments on the petition were received. On November 11, 1978, the NRC notified the petitioner that action on the petition would be delayed because the currently effective physical security requirements in i 73.55 were under review, 121

i The NRC has extended to licensees partial relief from the physical security requirements in 9 73.55. The most recent notice extending this relief was published in the Federal Register on December 1, 1980 (45 FR 79410). The NRC published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on December 1,1980 (45 FR 79492), which would modify the physical security requirements in i 73.55. Action on the petition is delayed pending resolution of policy questions raised by the petition in current rulemakings.

TIMETABLE: Commission action on the petition for rulemaking was pending issuance of the final " Insider Rule." However, per a conversation with Dr. Knuth, KMC, Inc., action on the petition is no longer needed. KMC intends to withdraw the petition. The notice of withdrawal is scheduled to be published August 1986.

CONTACT: Kristina Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-427-4754 m

1 122 i

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-73-7 PETITIONER: Wisconsin Electric Power Company, et al.

PART: 73 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 16, 1982 (47 FR 6658)

SUBJECT:

Elimination of Required Log-Out of Personnel from Vital Areas of Nuclear Power Reactors SUMMRY: Description. The petitioners request that the Commission eliminate the log-out requirement at nuclear power reactors for individuals given access to normally unoccupied vital areas. The petitioners contend that the requirement is not only unnecessary from a safety standpoint, but may be detrimental to safe plant shutdown and effective plant response to other emergencies. The petitioners also contend that sensitive facilities have no similar requirement. The petition includes proposed amendatory text that would achieve these modified requirements.

Objective. To eliminate the log-out requirement at nuclear power reactors for individuals given access to normally unoccupied vital areas.

Background. The comment period closed April 19, 1982.

Nine comments on the petition were received. Action on the petition is delayed pending resolution of policy questions in current rulemakings.

TIMETABLE: Comission action on the petition will follow publication of the final rule, " Miscellaneous Amendments Concerning Physical Protection of Nuclear Power Plants." The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on August 1, 1984 (49 FR 30735), and the comment period for the rule was extended to March 7, 1985 (49 FR 48200). Publication of the final rule is scheduled for August 1986. Resolution of the petition is scheduled for October 1986.

CONTACT: Kristina Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-427-4754 123

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-73-8 PETITIONER: Wisconsin Electric Power Company, et al.

PART: 73 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 16,1982(47FR6657)

SUBJECT:

Elimination of Required Search of Hand-Carried Packages of Personnel at Nuclear Power Plants

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request that the Commission eliminate the requirement for searches of hand-carried personal effects of screened employees entering a protected area of a nuclear power plant. The petitioners contend that the requirement is unnecessary as demonstrated by the absence of these kinds of searches in comparable Federal programs. The petitioners also contend that the requirement is an ineffective means of preventing insiders from sabotaging the plant. The petition includes proposed amendatory text that would achieve this requested change.

Objective. To eliminate the required search of hand-carried personal effects of screened employees entering a protected area of a nuclear power plant.

Background. The coment period closed April 19, 1982.

Ten comments on the petition were received. Action on the petition is delayed pending. resolution of policy questions in current rulemakings.

TIMETABLE: Commission action on the petition will follow publication of the final " Pat-Down Rule." The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on August 1, 1984 (49 FR 30738), and the comment period for the rule was extended to March 7, 1985 (49 FR 48200). Publication of the final rule is scheduled for August 1986. Resolution of the petition is scheduled for November 1986.

CONTACT: Kristina Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301.427-4754 124

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-140-1 PETITIONER: Public Citizen Litigation Group and Critical Mass Energy Project PART: 140 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: August 28, 1979 (44 FR 50419)

April 9, 1985 (50 FR 13978)

SUBJECT:

Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence

SUMMARY

Descri ation. The petitioners request that the NRC (1) find t1at the accident at Three Mile Island was an extraordinarynuclearoccurrence(ENO)and(2) amend Subpart E of Part 140 to make less stringent the criteria used for determining that an extraordinary nuclear occurrence has occurred. Part 140 of the Comission's regulations provide procedures and requirements for determining the financial protection required of licensees and for the indemnification and limitation of liability of licensees. Subpart E of Part 140 sets forth the procedures the Comission will follow and the criteria the Comission will apply in determining whether there has been an ENO.

Objective. To change the criteria used by the Commission to make a determination that an ENO has occurred.

Background. The comment period closed on December 31, 1979. One coment was received. The petitioners are property owners in the vicinity of TMI and contend that their property was sharply decreased in value as a result of the accident. In addition, the petitioners contend that "the Comission's established criteria have been easily met" in that the damages resulting from the accident exceed those levels necessary to be considered an ENO. This portion of the petition was considered to be a public coment on the Comission's request for information on the TMI EN0 determination and was resolved by the Comission's ENO decision of April 16, 1980. A proposed i

rule revising comment April the ENO criteria was9, 1985

the (50 FR coment 13978) published for pu period expired September 6,1985(50FR32086).

i 125 i

TIMETABLE: To follow action on PRM-140-1 in this and future reculatory agendas, see the timetable for the final rulemaking entry, " Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence," which addresses this petition.

CONTACT: Harold T. Peterson, Jr. 4 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Re:earch 301-443-7691 126

(C)-Petitionspendingstaffreview

(

,_ _ , _ , , , . Aq. -m m-4 =% mm' ' - - - -- -.-.-~..-,4 4 ..e_A ,.

Ase-a._ --.4 4 a_ _ -.#__.,-__m-ap-__. mmm.h_.m-h- -mm_w a m A i

i i

4 l

l l

l 2 I i

l I

j i

, l' l

i i

i i

6 l

l 1

l i

, I t

l I

[

t C  !

i f

I 1

A l

P

--. -~ .

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-20-5 PETITIONER: Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

PART: 20 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: October 29,1975(40FR50327)

SUBJECT:

Radiation Protection Standards a

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Comission amend its radiation protection standards as they Apply to the maximum permissible whole body dose equivalent for occupational exposure. Specifically, the petitioner requests (1) that for individuals under the age of 45, the whole body radiation exposure limit would not exceed 0.5 rem in an calendar year and 0.3 rem in any calendar quarter and (y) 2 that individuals over 45 years of age may receive up to 3 rems per quarter whole body dose as lon dose does not exceed 0.5(M-18) + X(N-M)g as the whole bodyrem(wher less than 45, N equals the individual's age in years and X is calculated to reduce the cumulative somatic risk by a factor of 6 below the cumulative somatic risk associated with exposure at 5 rem / year from age 18). The petitioner also requests that hearings be held to determine the "as low as practicable" extent to which the exposures can be maintained below the proposed regulations.

Objective. To reduce the genetic risk associated with radiation exposure at the occupational level by a factor of 10 and to reduce the somatic risk by a factor of 6.

Background. The initial comment period closed December 29, 1975, but was extended to February 12, 1976. The comments received included three letters supporting the petition, one proposing an alternative set of reduced limits, and 52 opposing the petition. The petitioner filed a supplement to the petition, dated November 4,1977, requesting the consideration of recent epidemiological studies. This issue was included in the hearing on occupational radiation protection that was jointly sponsored by EPA, NRC, and OSHA.

The staff presented a paper to the Commission on August 17, 1978. The tentative staff positiqn was that the petitioner's request to lower the occupational dose limits should be denied, but the staff has deferred its final recomendation sending the following actions. Proposed EPA guidance was pu)lished in the Federal Register on January 23, 1981. EPA /NRC/0SHA 127

hearings were held in April 1981. The question of j occupational dose limits is addressed in the '

revision of 10 CFR Part 20. This petition has been l combined with PRM-20-6A from Rosalie Bertell that addresses the same issues. >

TIMETABLE: To follow action on PRM-20-6 in this and future regulatory agendas, see the timetable for the rule-making entry, " Standards for Protection Against Radiation," a proposed revision of 10 CFR Part 20 that addresses this petition. ,

CONTACT: Robert E. Alexander

• Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7976 1

l l

l l

128

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-20-6A PETITIONER: Rosalie Bertell PART: 20 ,

OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: August 21,1978(43FR37018)

SUBJECT:

Standards for Protection Against Radiation

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission (1) amend its Standards for Protection Against Radiation as they apply to the maximum whole body dose equivalent for occupational exposures to ionizing radiation, (2) include in 10 CFR Part 20 those diseases that indicate above-normal susceptibility to leukemia or radiation damage, and (3) review in one hearing this petition consolidated with the petition (PRM-20-6) filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. The amendment in item (petitioner states that the requested 1) would have th by the reduction of the individual's biological ability to cope with chronic and malignant disease, as would be achieved by reducing the current maximum whole body dose for occupational exposure by a factor of 50.

Objective. To reduce the current permissible whole body dose equivalent for occupational exposure by a factor of 50.

Background. The comment period expired October 20, 1978.

Four comments were received, one favoring and three opposing the petition. This petition (PRM-20-6) petition from has been the Natural combined Resources with Defense an earlier Council, Inc., that addresses the same issues. The question of occupa-tional dose limits was addressed by the staff in work on the revision of 10 CFR Part 20. The question was also addressed by an interagency working group led by the Environmental Protection Agency to develop new guidance to Federal agencies to be issued by the President. The President is expected to issue this guidance soon, and the staff will then make recommendations to the Conunission regarding this petition.

TIMETABLE: To follow action on PRM-20-6 in this and future regulatory agendas, see the timetable for the rulemaking entry,

" Standards for Protection Against Radiation, a proposed revision of 10 CFR Part 20 that addresses this petition.

CONTACT: Robert E. Alexander Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7976 129

< PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-30-55 PETITIONER: State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection PART: 30 i OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: 31, 32, 33 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: August 11,1977(42FR40791)

SUBJECT:

Radiation Standards for Uses of Byproduct Material

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Connission initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the purpose of adopting new national standards for users of radioactive .

byproduct materials. The petitioner states that the Commission Radiation Standards for byproduct material facilities and nuclear power plants differ drastically.

The petitioner states that a nuclear power plant's sophis-ticated control equipment is designed to handle different types of potential accidents and still keep radiation exposure to the public within acceptable limits, while a byproduct material facility (e.g., radiopharmaceutical plant) does not have the same capabilities. Furthermore, the petitioner states that because byproduct material plants have unrestricted siting, more people are in the vicinity of a byproduct facility than a nuclear power plant and would be affected by radiation exposure resulting from an accident.

_ Objective. To reduce unnecessary public exposure to radio-active substances emitted from byproduct material facilities by the following actions: 1. Establish criteria to quantify the "as low as reasonably achievable" emission reduction policy for major facilities using byproduct materials from man-made fission reactions and require existing plants to meet these criteria. 2. Establish siting criteria for these facilities that would form a basis for evaluating the accep-tability of new plant locations in terms of radiation doses l to the public 3. Require new and existing byproduct facili-l ties to develop and implement offsite environmental surveil-

! lance proarams to provide information on levels of radio-activityintheenvironmentaroundthesefacilities.

Background. The connent period closed October 11, 1977.

Six comments were received, all opposing the petition. The staff is developing a final position on the petition. This petition was combined with an earlier petition (PRM-50-10) from the State of New Jersey that dealt with similar issues.

PRM-5010 was withdrawn on September 15,1983(48FR41429).

130 l

TIMETABLE: The petitioner submitted a letter on May 13, 1986, requesting that the petition be withdrawn as the situation has been resolved. The staff is preparing a Federal Register notice to the effect that the petition has been withdrawn by the petitioner. The notice of withdrawal is scheduled for publication in the Federal Register by October 1986. ,

CONTACT: Richard P. Grill Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7670 Y

l 1

r i

131

.-. _ - - - , _ , . - , . . . _ - _ - , _ , , _ . - - , _ . - , ., _. - - - -, . _ , . _ _ _ , . , . , _ _ - __..-_-..y.-., . . . _ . _ - - - - - _ - _ - - - . - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . .

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-40-25 PETITIONER: State of Alabama PART: 40 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: NONE FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: D2cember 31,1985(50FR53335)

SUBJECT:

Regulations Governing Unimportant Quantities of Source Material

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations governing unimportant quantities of source material. The petitioner suggests that the NRC examine the exemption from licensing for products or parts of products fabricated of or containing tungsten or magnesium-thorium alloys whose thorium content is less than 4 percent by weight and either remove the restriction on this exemption or set out the restriction as part of a general license.

The petitioner believes that, in placing a restriction on an exemption, the NRC has created a structurally deficient regulation that may lead to unintentional violations by persons who may receive products covered by the exemption and be unaware of any further restrictions.

Objective. To ensure that a person who obtains an exempt product covered by the exemption is aware of any limitations placed on the use of the product.

Background. The comment period for this action closed March 3, 1986. Only one comment was received, and it opposed the petition. -

TIMETABLE: Staff action on the petition is scheduled to be completed December 1987.

CONTACT: John Hickey Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-427-4093 132

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-21 PETITIONER: Northern States Power Company and Wisconsin Electric Power Company PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: 2 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: July 21,1977(42FR37458)

SUBJECT:

Plant Security Information

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request that the Comission amend its regulations (1) in 9 50.34(c) to include plant security information within the definition of Restricted Data, or, alternatively, within the definition of National Security Information; (2) in 5 2.905 to ensure that discovery of plant security information is subject to the protections of Subpart I of Part 2; (3) in Subpart I of Part 2 to explicitly recognize that the protections required by the Subpart extend to information not under Comission control; and (4) to delete 5 2.790(d)(1) that currently could permit disclosure of plant security information without the protections of Subpart I of Part 2.

Objective. To protect plant security information from unauthorized disclosure and to ensure that licensees' security plans are not compromised.

Background. The coment period closed September 19, 1977.

Twelve coments were received, nine of which endorsed the petition. Consideration to grant the petition was under review based on Pub. L.96-295 (NRC FY 80 Authorization Bill) that amended the Atomic Energy Act by adding Section 147, " Safeguards Information," which directs the Comission to prescribe regulations or issue orders to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of safeguards information that specifically identifies the licensees' or applicants' detailed security measures, etc.

TIMETABLE: OGC is preparing petition denial criteria. Staff response on this petition is scheduled to be completed in September 1986.

CONTACT: Kristina Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-427-4754 133

r l

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-25, PRM-50-25A PETITIONER: State of Illinois and the Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America, Inc., et al.

PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 4,1980(45FR7653)

SUBJECT:

Extension of Construction Completion Date

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners filed essentially identical petitions wnich request that the Comission amend its regulations in Part 50, $50.55, to require that a " good cause" proceeding concerning a requested amendment of a construction permit f o exceed the latest construction completion date must consider whether a permittee has shown good cause for th continued construction of a nuclear power plant in ight of all the circumstances at the time the application is considered. The petitioners further request that the Comission determine that " good cause" is not limited to the reasons why construction was not completed by the latest completion date in the construc-tion permit.

Objective. To prevent frustration of the statutory purposes of Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, which permits the extension of the completion date for construction of a nuclear power plant only for good cause shown.

Background. The comment period closed April 4, 1980. Six comments were received, including two from the petitioners on jurisdictional issues. Comments filed by parties other than the petitioners opposed the petition. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) and the Comission have ruled on the " good cause" issue which is the subject of this petition.

The matter was alluded to in the Bailly case before the U.S.

Court of Appeals. The staff has prepared a draft proposal for the Comission. The state of Illinois has formally withdrawn its petition. The other petitioners have not yet formally withdrawn their petition.

TIMETABLE: Resolution of this petition is delayed until a decision is reached on extension of the construction permit in the Comanche Peak case. Publication of the resolution is scheduled for August 1987.

CONTACT: Barry Pineles Office of the General Counsel 301-492-7688 134

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-31 PETITIONER: Citizens' Task Force PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: 70 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: March 24, 1982 (47 FR 12639)

SUBJECT:

Emergency Preparedness

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to require that (1) the present ten-mile emergency planning zone radius be extended to twenty miles and include any towns bordering on or partially within this zone; (2) all communities with a population in excess of 5,000 persons be provided by the respective utility with the funding to purchase, install, and operate radiological monitoring equipment to reach and maintain the level of preparedness deemed necessary by the affected municipalities; and (3) utilities be required to finance the emergency planning efforts of municipalities located near nuclear reactors.

, Objective. To establish an effective notification and evacuation system in communities located near nuclear reactors.

Background. The comment period closed May 24, 1982.

TIMETABLE: Commission action on the response to the petitioner is scheduled for June 1987 (to be coordinated with the severe accident research program and publication of NUREG-1150).

' CONTACT: Stephen A. McGuire Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7900 135

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-36 PETITIONER: Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group (NUBARG)

PART: 50

~

OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: 73 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: June 21, 1983 (48 FR 28282)

SUBJECT:

Reporting Requirements in NRC Regulations and Documents

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations in 10 CFR Parts 50 and 73 to eliminate what the petitioner believes are duplicative and unnecessarily burdensome reporting requirements. The petitioner also requests that the Commission amend the technical specifica-

i. ions in licenset of nuclear power plant licensees and revise existing NRC guidance. documents to reduce what the petitioner feels are duplicative reporting provisions contained in those documents. The petitioner specifically requests that revisions be made to il 50.54(p), 50.54(q),

50.55(e), 50.59(b), 73.71, and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50; NUREG-0103, -0123, -0212, and -0452; and licensees' technical specifications. In support of its proposed amendments, the petitioner states that the requested revisions would permit licensees to make more efficient use of their personnel resources and allow licensees' employees to concentrate their attention on matters of public health and safety.

Objective. To reduce the regulatory burden on nuclear power plant licensees through amendment of existing reporting requirements to eliminate duplicative and unnecessarily burdensome provisions.

Background. The comment period closed August 23, 1983.

The comments on this petition and the petitioner's request will be considered in the NRC's ongoing evaluation and revision of the reporting and recordkeeping burden required of NRC licensees.

TIMETABLE: The staff proposal in response to this petition is scheduled for completion in September 1986.

CONTACT: R. Stephen Scott Office of Administration 301 492-8585 136

l l

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-37 PETITIONER: Lillian McNally PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: October 31, 1983 (48 FR 50083)

SUBJECT:

Standards for the Levels of Deuterium and Tritium in Water Circulated In and Around Nuclear Power Plants

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that new standards be set for all water circulated in and around nuclear power plants. The petitioner specifically proposes that water circulated in and around nuclear power plants not contain levels of deuterium and tritium which exceed the natural environmental concentration of these elements for a period of one year; that one year later the concentration levels be limited to less than one part by weight in 10,000 parts; and that the level of contaminants be reviewed annually thereafter to determine the attainable purity of circulating water.

Objective. To place a limit on deuterium to reduce the formation of tritium from deuterium by neutron absorption.

Background. The coment period closed December 30, 1983.

A response is undergoing staff review.

TIMETABLE: The response is scheduled to be completed in June 1986.

CONTACT: Harold T. Peterson, Jr.

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7691

! 137

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-39 PETITIONER: Southern California Edison Company PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: May 20, 1985 (50 FR 20799)

SUBJECT:

Emergency Response Plans for Persons Who Are Both Contaminated with Radioactive Material and Physically Injured

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to clarify that onsite and offsite emergency response plans need only include medical arrange-ments for persons who are both contaminated with radioactive material and physically injured in some other manner which requires medical treatment. The petitioner contends that public safety does not necessitate the prearrangement of emergency medical treatment for severely irradiated persons who have not also suffered physical injury requiring immediate treatment in a medical facility. The petitioner also contends that the class of people for whom advance arrangements for medical services are required is not clearly stated in the present wording of 10 CFR Part 50 and proposes revising 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12).

Objective. To establish standards for prearranged emergency medical services which are based upon a scientific and medical understanding of what is necessary to protect the public.

Background. The coment period closed July 20, 1985.

TIMETABLE: Resolution of the petition is scheduled to be published August 1987.

CONTACT: Michael Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7657 138 a . .

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-40 PETITIONER: John F. Doherty PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 11, 1986 (51 FR 5086)

SUBJECT:

Response to a Reactor Trip for which the Cause Is Undetermined in Eight Hours

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to require that, following a power reactor trip, the licensee, if unable to detennine the cause of the reactor trip in eight hours, be required to place the reactor in cold shutdown pending further study of the event. The petitioner contends that the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation commended a utility for adhering to a policy such as his proposed amendment would require in its April 1983 Vol.1 of NUREG-1000, " Generic Implications of ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Pl ant. " He also thinks that requiring such a policy would lessen the severity of any of a number of possible accidents that may otherwise occur.

Objective. To require that a reactor be placed in cold shutdown following a reactor trip for which the cause cannot be determined in eight hours.

Background. The comment period closed April 14, 1986.

TIMETABLE: Resolution of this petition is scheduled to be published July 1986.

CONTACT: William Lahs Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301 443-7632 139

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: FRM-50-41 PETITIONER: Public Citizen PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: May 12, 1986 (51 FR 17361)

SUBJECT:

Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the NRC immediately undertake rulemaking to comply with the statutory mandate of the NRC Training Authorization statute, Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), 42 U.S.C. 9 10226. The petitioner thinks that to comply with this statute, the NRC would have to take appropriate steps to adopt specific regulations, or other Commission guidance setting forth detailed requirements for training and fitness for duty for nuclear power plant licensee personnel. The petitioner contends that the Commission Policy Statement on Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel (50 FR 11147) that was published March 20, 1985, and the proposal of a Policy Statement on Fitness for Duty of Power Plant Personnel are legally insufficient to fulfill the NWPA Section 306 statutory mandate.

Objective. To require that the NRC adopt specific regulations or other Commission guidance setting forth detailed requirements for training and fitness for duty of nu: lear power plant personnel.

Background. The comment period ended July 11, 1986.

TIMETABLE: Resolution of the petition is scheduled to be published November 1986.

CONTACT: Thomas F. Dorian Office of the General Counsel 301-492-8690 140

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-60-2 and PRM-60-2A PETITIONER: States of Wevada and Minnesota PART: 60 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER' CITATION: April 30, 1985 (50 FR 18267)

December 19, 1985 (50 FR 51701)

SUBJECT:

Implementation of Certain Environmental Standards Which Have Been Proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency

SUMMARY

Description. The original petition (PRM-60-2) asked the Commission to revise 10 CFR Part 60 by adopting certain " assurance requirements" previously included in proposed standards published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The NRC had objected to EPA's " assurance requirements" as being outside the scope of EPA's environmental standard-setting authority. Since the NRC's objection to these requirements was principally jurisdictional, the petitioners sought to expedite promulgation of the final EPA standards by petitioning the Commission to incorporate EPA's wording within the NRC's own regulations. Later, following publication of EPA's final standards, the petitioners filed an amended petition (PAM-60-20A) which revised the text of the requested changes consistent with the wording published by EPA. The amended petition continues to seek adoption of EPA's " assurance requirements," which the petitioners believe would lead to a safer high-level waste (HLW) repository, and also proposes requirements and considerations for Comission adoption of DOE's Environmental Impact Statement as required by section 114(f) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

Objective. To amend 10 CFR Part 60 to be consistent with final EPA HLW standards to enhance HLW repository safety.

Background. The original petition (PRM-60-2) was docketed by the Commission on January 28, 1985, receipt was noticed in the Federal Register on April 30, 1985, and public comments were received until July 1, 1985. The amended petitton (PRM-60-2A) was docketed by the Comission on October 3,1985. On June 19, 1986, the NRC published proposed revisions to 10 CFR Part 60 intended to conform Part 60 to the final EPA HLW standards. The proposed amendments are similar, but not identical, to the changes requested in the revised petition.

141

TIMETABLE: The staff plans to finalize its conforming revisions to Part 60 by September 1987. These revisions will respond to the portions of this petition which request adoption of EPA's " assurance requirements." The staff will separately address adoption of the Department of Energy's Environmental Impact Statement in conforming amendments to 10 CFR Part 51. A response to the petition will be prepared following completion of these two rulemakings.

CONTACT: Regis Boyle Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-427-4799 4

l l

i 142 l

I PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-71-10 PETITIONER: State of Wisconsin PART: 71 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 4, 1985 (50 FR 4866)

SUBJECT:

Transportation of Irradiated Reactor Fuel (Spent Fuel)

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission establish a regulatory process that would provide an opportunity for public participation in the evaluation and approval of proposed shipments of irradiated reactor fuel (spent fuel). The petitioner points out that the transportation of irradiated reactor fuel is an increasingly significant activity because nuclear reactor facilities are reaching maximum capacity of their spent fuel storage pools. The petitioner, a State through which numerous shipments of irradiated reactor fuel have passed and through which future shipments are scheduled, has an interest in protecting its citizens by ensuring that transporters of spent fuel have adequately prepared for potential emergencies. The petitioner alleges that there has been no Federal agency considering the risks associated with the shipping routes. The petitioner points

' out that the Department of Energy, Department of Transportatic7, and the NRC could potentially influence transportativn decision-making. The r>c'.itionar concludes that the NRC has the primary responsibility to protect against the risks of radiation exposure and 5. hat the NRC adopt the proposed amendments that will provide the NRC and the public the opportunity to evaluate the propriety of spent fuel snipments.

Objective. To-protect against the risks of radiation exposure associated with the transportation of irradiated reactor fuel and to provide the public the opportunity to evaluate the propriety of spent fuel shipments.

Background. The comment period closed April 5, 1985.

TIMETABLE: Staff action on this petition is scheduled to be completed August 1986.

P J C0pTACT: Donald R. Hopkins i

r Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7690 i

143 l

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-73 PETITIONER: Wisconsin Electric Power Company, et al.

PART: 73 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 16, 1982 (47 FR 6659)

SUBJECT:

Modification of Qualifications for Security Personnel of Nuclear Power Plants and Other Special Nuclear Material Licensees

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request that the Comission eliminate the requirement that armed security personnel at nuclear power plants or other facilities licensed to handle special nuclear material (1) carry an extra pair of eye-glasses and (2) undergo an annual medical examination within the preceding 30 days of an annual physical fitness test.

The petitioners contend that these requirements are

" excessive and unreasonable" when compared to similar requirements for security personnel in other government agencies or in operations with security requirements comparable to those of nuclear power plants. The petition includes proposed amendatory text which would achieve these modified requirements.

Objective. To eliminate requirements for security personnel that the petitioner contends are " excessive and unreasonable."

Background. The comment period closed April 19, 1982.

Nine comments on the petition were received.

TIMETABLE: Commission action on this petition is scheduled for January 1987.

CONTACT: Carl Sawyer Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-427-4269 144

(D) - Petitions with deferred action l

4 l

l l

l l - - _ . . __ . _ . _

,, . _ m a__--.a .A 4 __..a. _ m- ._ .a..-eh.-_ a - _ a _.A.____a- A E u. _o . -- a. _ m, l

l I

I l

, l l

l I

i c .

(

D l

1

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-20-14 PETITIONER: The University of Utah PART: 20 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: January 30, 1984 (49 FR 3667)

SUBJECT:

Disposal of Very Low Concentrations of Short-Lived Radionuclides

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner proposed an amendment of 9 20.306 and the addition of a new 9 20.307 to alleviate a number of problems that many licensees are experiencing under current regulations with the disposal of experimental animal waste material and certain radionuclide components. The petitioner states that the changes would substantially reduce nonradiological risks related to the collection, storage, packaging, and shipping of certain biological and chemical wastes without compromising or reducing radiation protection.

Objective. To obtain additional options for the disposal of very low concentrations of short-lived radionuclides.

Background. A request for information was published with the notice of receipt of the petition. The comment period closed March 30, 1984 Forty-five comment letters were received, including one from the petitioner that revised the initial petition and offered a second version that was based on the petitioner's analysis of the comment letters.

Most of the coment letters favored the petition. Approxi-mately one-fourth of the comment letters contained data that were solicited when the notice of receipt of the petition was published. These data will be used to help evaluate the merit of the petition. The staff analyzed the data, the petition, the revised petition, and other comment letters and has requested guidance on appropriate methodology from the Environmental Protection Agency. The staff proposal in response to this petition is now being coordi-nated with NMSS in connection with recent legislation affecting NRC responses to petitions of this nature.

NMSS plans to use this petition as an example of how NRC compliance with the legislation will be achieved.

TIMETABLE: Resolution of this petition is scheduled to be published August 1987.

CONTACT: Catherine Mattsen Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7689 145

, - , - - ~ _ , _ , , , - - - - - - . , _y..y-_-.-- -- - - --. - , . , ,--- ---

l l

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.

SUMMAPY: Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to license the possession of uranium mill tailings of inactive storage sites. The petitioner proposes the following regulatory action to ensure that the public health and safety is adequately protected: (1) repeal the licensing exemption for inactive uranium mill tailings sites subject to the Department of Energy's remedial programs; (2) require a license for the possession of byproduct material on any other property in the vicinity of an inactive mill tailings site if the byproduct materials are derived from the sites; or, in the alternative, (3) conduct a rulemaking to determine whether a licensing exemption of these sites or byproduct materials constitutes an unreasonable risk to public health and safety. On March 23, 1983, the petitioner filed ar. amendment to the original petition. In the amendment, the petitioner requests that, in the event that NRC denies the earlier requests, NRC take further action to ensure that the management of byproduct material located on or derived from inactive uranium processing sites is conducted in a manner that protects the public health and safety and the environment. The petitioner also requests that the NRC take action to govern the management of byproduct material l not subject to licensing under section 81 of the Atomic Energy Act.

Objective. To license the protection of uranium mill

, tailings at inactive storage sites or take other regulatory l 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.

l l

147

Background The comment period closed April 27, 1981. Three comments were received, all stating the petition should be denied. The comment period on the amendnint 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 I of the Act directs that the Departr.cnt of Energy, in consul-tation with NRC, conduct a remedial action program at certain inactive uranium mill tailings sites. Title V of the Act authorizes NRC to regulate disposal of the tailings at active sites. The staff is preparing a response to the petition.

TIMETABLE: Resolution of this petition is scheduled for August 1987, following publication of the revision to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40, scheduled for April 1987.

CONTACT: Frank Swanberg Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7815 148

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-40-24 PETITIONER: Union Carbide Corporation .

PART: 40 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: November 30, 1982 (47 FR 53889)

SUBJECT:

Revised Criteria for Operation of Uranium Mills and Disposition of Tailings or Wastes

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner proposes that the Commission amend its regulations setting out criteria for the operation of uranium mills and the disposition of tailings or wastes resulting from uranium milling activities. The petitioner suggests specific amendments to the criteria governing the selection of new tailings die posal sites or the adequacy of existing tailings disposal sites, the seepage of toxic materials into the groundwater, the earth cover to be placed over tailings or wastes to prevent the surface exhalation of radon, and the charge imposed on each mill operator to cover the cost of long-term surveillance.

The petitioner supports its suggested amendments with information it says was not available to the Commission at the time the regulations were issued.

Objective. To significantly reduce the compliance costs incurred by the petitioner in the operation of its uranium milling facilities while continuing to adequately protect public health, safety, and the environment.

Background. The comment period that originally closed January 31, 1983, was extended until May 2, 1983. The petitioner is a New York-based corporation engaged in uranium exploration, milling, and mining. The regulations the petitioner seeks to amend were issued as part of NRC's regulations' implementing the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (Pub. L.95-604, 42 U.S.C.

7901,etseq.). These regulations were published in the Federal Register on October 3, 1980 (45 FR 65531).

TIMETABLE: Resolution of this petition is scheduled for August 1987, following publication of the revision to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40, scheduled for April 1987.

CONTACT: Frank Swanberg Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7815 149

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-20 PETITIONER: Free Environment, Inc., et al. '

PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: 100 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: May 19, 1977 (42 FR 25785)

SUBJECT:

Reactor Safety Measures

SUMMARY

Descri) tion. The petition requested that the Commission amend ' art 50 before proceeding with the processing of license applications for the Central Iowa Nuclear Project ,

to require that (1) all nuclear reactors be located below ground level; (2) all nuclear 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.

Objective. To ensure that additional safety measures are employed in the construction and siting of nuclear power plants. The petitioner seeks to have recommendations and procedures practiced or encouraged by various organizations and some current NRC guidelines adopted as mandatory requirements in the Commission's regulations.

Background. 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 February 2,1978 j (43 FR 4466). A notice of denial for the first two parts

of the petition was published April 19, 1978 (43 FR 16556).

NRC staff work on the fourth part of the petition will be carried out in connection with the ongoing Part 100 rulemaking on demographic criteria. Petitioners were notified by letter on January 26, 1982, that the proposed l rule on siting criteria will be delayed until summer 1983, to await safety goal information and source term reevaluation.

l 150 l

l l .. -- _ _- - _

Recent events, including the reactor accident at Chernobyl in the USSR,-continued uncertainty over certain aspects of the accident source term work, and the lack of projected Construction permit Applications have led the Commission's Executive Director for Operations to conclude that this rulemaking should be terminated. When the Commission decides that further rulemaking on demographic criteria should be undertaken, the unresolved portions of the petition will be considered in the context of that rulemaking.

TIMETABLE: Resolution scheduled for completion in August 1987.

CONTACT: Michael Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7657 i

~ s i

151 l

l I

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-51-1 PETITIONER: New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution PART: 51 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: January 16,1976(41FR2448)

SUBJECT:

Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioner requests that the Comission initiate a rulemaking to amend its sumary of environmental considerations in the uranium fuel cycle presented in Table S-3 of Part 51. The petitioner declares that (1) the current Table S-3 seriously underestimates the impact on human health and safety by disregarding the long-term effects of certain radionuclides, particularly thorium-230 which decays into radon gas; (2) the health effects of krypton-85 and tritium releases from fuel reprocessing plants are underestimated; (3) releases of carbon-14 from the fuel cycle should be included; (4) the term " man-rems" does not provide a meaningful representation of health effects, at least in terms of radionuclides involved in this petition, and that human deaths from man-rem exposures provide a more comprehensible consequence of fuel cycle activities; and (5) the magnitude of the potential death toll from mill tailings alone alters previous judgments and requires a reassessment of previcus conclusions to authorize construction and operation of nuclear reactors and the post-ponement of all pending applications for construction or operating authority until final resolution of the issue by the Comission.

Objective. The petitioner proposes action to amend Table S-3 in ways that they claim will more accurately reflect the impact of the long-term effects of certain long-lived radionuclides on human health and safety. The petitioner also proposes to suspend all activities related to nuclear power plant construction and operation until the Comission reassesses the health and safety effects of mine tailings.

Background. The Comission acted on all items of the petition on April 14, 1978 (46 FR 15613) except for a future rulemaking proceeding to aniend the Table S-3 value for radon. The Federal Register' notice of April 14, 1978, removed the radon value from Table S-3 and made it subject 152

- , .. . - -.- - . ._-=. - .. - . _. - - -_

l

'l i ' to litigation in individual licensing proceedings.

Litigation on the radon environmental impacts in. cases pending before the Conunission's Atomic Safety and. Licensing -

Appeal Board was heard in a combined hearing in February 1980. The Appeal Board's initial decision (ALAB-640 May

- 13,1981). upheld the staff's estimates of radon releases from the nuclear fuel cycle, and the final decision (ALAB-701, November 19, 1982) affirmed the staff's conclusion-that radon releases would not cause significant health

• i effects. This decision was appealed to the Comissioners i

for review, and the Consnissioners deferred their review until the new EPA standards for radon have been analyzed 4

and the NRC's milling regulations revised as necessary to conform to them.

! Rulemaking to add the new value for radon-222 in Table S-3 will be affected by the new EPA standards for radon. On October 7, 1984, EPA promulgated new radon standards for inactive uranium mill sites, and, in October 1985, NRC ,

published revised uranium milling regulations conforming I to the new EPA standards. However, the matter is not yet completely settled, because EPA received, in August 1985, a court order requiring them to establish radon standards for active uranium mills. These standards are expected to be issued in August 1986,.and the final estimates of total

. radon releases frcm uranium milling can then be developed. -

l The Commission plans a single rulemaking to cover the

! narrative explanation of Table S-3 and the new values for

. radon-222 and technetium-99. The staff sent to the .

l Commission a paper suggesting a schedule on which this L i rulemaking can be accomplished.

! TIMETABLE: The Staff sent to the Commission a paper, in August 1986, i suggesting a schedule for completing the rulemaking. This l rulemaking will complete NRC response to the petition of i the new England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution. The staff's i estimate is that 2.5 years will be required to resolve all issues related to Table S-3 and its narrative explanation and that the final rulemaking action will take place in 1989. -

CONTACT: William E. Thompson

! Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards  ;

301-427-9024 .

153

-w v--t+** wv--e-- v--, v w-vu,n,oer-ww---wwr==.w- iw-*--w, r~-*e-e' e-w r s v -------=w----ge-a-w---mwe-t-+=*-g w--y---y-~vr--w-' y -----w--u-m-s-wir s v- m---ras-ie---

PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-100-2 ,

PETITIONER: Public Interest Research Group, et al.

PART: 100

OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None a

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: July 1, 1976 (41 FR 27141)

SUBJECT:

Population Density Criteria Near Nuclear Power Plants

SUMMARY

Description. The petitioners request that the Connission 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 perimeter. The petitioners state that they regard these proposed criteria as interim standards to be used until the Commission is able to generate its own numerical standards on population density.

Objective. To restrict utilities from building nuclear reactors too close to metropolitan areas.

Background. The comment period clcsed August 30, 1976.

Twelve comments were received. An NRC staff paper (SECY-78-624) was submitted to the Commission on December 4, 1978. In a memorandum to the Executive Director for Operations dated February 15, 1979, the Connission deferred action on the population density siting criteria issue pending submission of the Siting Policy Task Force report. The petitioners were notified of this deferral by

. letter dated March 9, 1979. The petitioners were notified l by letter (in July 1980) that the petition would be considered in the context of the rulemaking on siting

criteria. Petitioners were notified by letter on January 26, 1982, that the proposed rule on siting criteria would i be delayed until sumner 1983 to await safety goal .'

implementation and source term reevaluation.

Recent events, including the reactor accident at Chernobyl in the USSR, continued uncertainty over certain aspects of the accident source term work, and the lack of projected Construction Permit Applications have led the Connission's Executive Director for Operations to conclude that this rulemaking shauld be terminated. When the Commission i

154 l

decides that further rulemaking on demographic criteria should be undertaken, the unresolved portions of the petition will be considered in the context of that rulemaking.

TIMETABLE: Resolution scheduled for completion in August 1987.

CONTACT: Michael Jamgochian Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7657 f

4 s

155

l . . . .

c- .-w m _

py, - - - - " -

_3r s i r i UNITED STATES i -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY CoMMISSloN *EstE NeEOIO"-

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 -

g{$g, _

8 l-RU L,E S Section 1 - Rules peuxty,Tain,g,N E E.4300 A Action Completed Rules I

B Proposed Rules

( ,

C Advance Notice - Proposed Rulemaking D Unpublished Rules ecdon 11 - Pamions for Rulemaking ETl IONS A Petitions - Final or Denied t

l B Petitions - Incorporated into Proposed Rules .

C Petitions - Pending i

D Petitions Deferred Action 1