ML20247L144
| ML20247L144 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/17/1989 |
| From: | Beckjord E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247L104 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-89-200 NUDOCS 8906020096 | |
| Download: ML20247L144 (69) | |
Text
. - _ - _ _ - . ._
- . %%; . UNITED STATES Il
.[
[.1 -[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-
' WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655 h #
4 ,
f e..e*
APR 171989 MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations FROM: Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. ,
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF RULEMAKING AND ITS TIMELINESS
SUMMARY
. REPORT FOR JANUARY-MARCH 1989 AND REGULATORY AGENDA UPDATE In accordance with the June 12, 1985, memorandum, " Control of Rulemaking i
.and Its' Timeliness," RES has conducted a. review of schedules of final' action.
dates for those rules under the purview of the EDO.' In addition, RES is transmitting its updated pages for the NRCLRegulatory Agenda for January
.through March 1989 in response. to the March 8, .1989, memorandum from the
- Director of Administration..
-The " Control of Rulemaking and Its. Timeliness" review was based on' dates for:
. milestones and actions for ongoing rulemakings provided..by directors of.
responsible offices for the latest NRC Regulatory Agenda update. These
. dates were compared with those provided by EDO schedule decisions. The
. review covers information current to March 28, 1989.
< In this. review, a sumary is provided on the status of 42 scheduled.
rulemakings. Of these, 6 final rules and 2. proposed rules were published; 4 final rules and 2 proposed- rules are nearing completion. There are 9 rulemakings on hold and 13 rulemakings on schedule; 6 rulemakings have final action dates that are not being met. A sumary of the status of- !
. scheduled rulemakings being conducted by offices under EDO purview is j
shown in Enclosure 1. A detailed sumary of these rulemakings is provided q
in Enclosure 2. 1 l
1 8906020096 890530 ~
FELTON89-2OO- PDR ft !
2 APR111gsg In. response to the ADM request of March 8,1989, revised NRC Regulatory -)
Agenda pages for rulemakings being conducted by RES are contaisied in j Enclosure 3.
O n
EricS.Beckjord, Director-j Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research a
Enclosures:
- 1. Sunrnary Status of Scheduled Rulemakings
- 2. Detailed Status of Scheduled Rulemakings l 1
- 3. RES Regulatory Agenda Pages for January-March 1989 cc-(w/o Enci 3):
P. Norry, ADM
' T. Murley, NRR E. Jordan,:AE0D i
'I R.-Scroggins, OC. t W. Kerr, SDBU/CR R. Bernero, NMSS I
i f
1 1
i
, t .
.. (
4,' l
SUMMARY
. STATUS OF SCHEDULED RULEMAKINGS ,
Tr
--__--____._---------_ --------__--______________ _- --__---_____.____ 1 RESPONSIBLE OFFI'CE RES ADM NRR AEOD OC SDBU TOTAL'
.i A. Rulemakings Completed l
Final Rules Published 2* 2 1 1 O O .6
.. Proposed Rules Published O O 1 'O 'O 1. 2 V
B. Rulemakings Nearly Completed' Final Rules 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 Proposed Rules 2 O O O O O 2 i C. -Rulemakings On Hold 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 )
1 D. Rulemakings On Schedule 11 1 1 O O O -13 j i
E. Rulemakings With Final 4 0 0 1 1 0 6 Action Dates Deing Slipped' TOTAL- 32 3 3 2 1 1 42 ;
- 0ne of the final rulemakings was a joint RES/NMSS effort.
Enclosure 1 1
- _ _ - - ---__m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._
-)
o.-
K L
S DETAILED STATUS OF SCHEDULED RULEMAKINGS L .
I Ai BULgd$$1NGS_CQUELEIgD .
EiDal_B91es_E9b11sbed 90 Criteria and Procedurer, for. Emergency Access to RES Non-Federal and Region 21' Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities (Part 62) 163 Licensee Action During National Security .AEOD Emergency (Part 50) 168 Extension'of Time for the Implementation.of the NRR Decontamination Priority and Trusteeship Provisions of Property Insurance Requirements gs
- (Part 50) 183 ' Reorganiz ation of Functions Within the' Office' ADM of Administration and Resources Management and Minor Corrective Amendments (Parts 1, 2, 9, 73) 191 Freedom of Information Act; Appeal Authority' ADM for Deputy Executive Director (Part 9) 192 Centralization of Material Control and RES/
Accounting Licensing and Inspection Activities NMSS for Non-Reactor Facilities (Parts 70, 74)
EC9R93gd_89tes_Euklighed 181 . Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity NRR Agreements, Miscellaneous Amendments Necessitated by Changes in the Price-Anderson Act (Part 140)
Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 190 SDBU Handicap in Federally Assisted Programs (Part 4)
Enclosure 2 ,
. - _ - _ _ ._____-_________-_-_______-D.
(
f l .
2 ,
B. EULEd8 SINGS _dg686Y_GQUELEIEQ -
- Etnet_8uteE 24 Emergency Preparedness for Fuel-Cycle and Other ~ RES Radioactive Materials Licensees (Parts 30, 40, 70) l The final rulemaking package was approved by the Commission on 02/23/89 and is expected to be published in the Federal Register on 04/03/89.
33 Standards for Protection Against Radiation .RES (Part 20)
The final rulemaking was forwarded to the e
Commission on 11/04/88 (SECY-88-315).
4 109 . Amendment of 50. 62 (c ) ( 4 ) to Clarify Equivalent RES Control Capacity for Standby Liquid Control Systems (Part 50)
The final rulemaking was forwarded to the EDO .
I on'03/16/89.
182 Access to Safeguards Information (Part 73) RES The final rulemaking was forwarded to the EDO on 03/28/89.
ECQR95Ed_6ulEE 112 Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC Approved RES Casks at Civilian Nuclear Power Reactor Sites (Parts 72, 73,.74, 170) i The proposed rulemaking was sent to the Commission on 03/08/89 (SECY-89-084).
186 Palladium-103 for Interstitial Treatment-of RES Cancer (Part 35) ;
l The proposed action was submitted to the EDO on 03/23/89. j l
Enclosure 2
i
{ .
I
' 3 1
C. Plj6EMAGINGS_QN_HQLD E 51 Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrenc RES (Part 140) i The final action is on hold pending resolution of contractor and task leader availability.
68 Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for RES Water-Cooled Power Reactors (Part 50)
The schedule for the final action was placed in hold pending EDO approval of continuation of rul emaki ng . The EDO approved continuation on 02/15/89, with expeditious resolution of public comments recommended. A proposed schedule has been developed and will be finalized when agreement has been reached with NRR on NRR staff support needed to meet such a schedule.
77 Personne! Access Authorization Program RES (Parts 50, 73)
The rulemaking action is on hold pending a Commission decision regarding the final policy statement. An Options Paper was submitted to the EDO on 03/22/89.
79 Elimination of Inconsistencies Between NRC RES Regulations and EPA Standards (Part 60)
The rulemaking action is on hold pending the need for an EPA revision of the high-level waste standard to comply with a Court decision.
98 Transportation Regulations: Compatibility RES With the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (Part 71) l The final rulemaking is on hold pending j publication of a corresponding DOT-proposed {
rule.
102 Di sposal of Waste Oil by Incineration from RES Nuclear Power Plants (Part 20) !
l This final action is on hold pending completion of higher priority work on DRC policy I development. l Enclosure 2
I 4
.103' Saf ety Rel ated and .Important- to Saf ety 'in -
i RES I 10'CFR Part 50 (Part 50) ;.
~
This rulemaking action is on hold.pending a
- Commission deci sion on SECY-86-164. !
125 Night Firing Qualifications f or Security RES Guards at . Nuclear Power Plants (Part 73)
The proposed rulemaking is on hold pending completion of higher priority work on the Fitness
- f or. Duty rulemaking and Access Authorization.
162 Comprehensive Quali ty Assurance in Medical Use RES and a Standard'of Care (Part 35)
This actian is'on.hol'd pending.the outcome of t' another. rul emaking, entitled " Basic Quality Assurance Program for Medical Use of Byproduct.
.Materi al . "
D. .RULEMAKINQg_QN_SGHEDULE 34 Disposal of Radioactive Wastes; Part 61 RES Amendments (Part 61) 95 Basic Quality Assurance Program for Medical Use RES I of Dyproduct Material (Part 35) 100 Criteria for Licensing the Custody and Long-Term RES Care of Uranium Mill Tailings Sites' (Part 40) 104 Education and Experience Requirements for RES Senior Reactor Operators and Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants (Parts 50, 55) 105 Reasserting NRC 's Sole Authori ty f or Approving RES l i
l: Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement {
L Ctates (Part 150) o 128 Licensing and Radiation Saf ety Requirements f or RES Large Irradi ator s ' (Part 36) 129 Amendment of the Pressuri:ed Thermal Shock Rule RES
-(Pert 50) 133 Ensuring the Effectiveness of Maintenance RES Programs for Nuclear Power Plants (Part 50) .
Enclosure 2 i
__j
a .
l 135 Minor Amendments to Physical Protection L RES Requirements (Parts 70, 72, 73, 75) j 136 Codes and Standards for Nuclear. Power Plants RES (ASME Code,Section XI, Division 1, Subsection IWE) (Part 50) 138 Fitness for Duty Programs (Part 26) NRR 148 Nuclear Plant License Renewal (Part 50) RES i
170 NRC Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR 20) ADM E. 89( g M9KJ NGS_ WJ Id_ EJ NBL _991] QN_ pglg g_ pg] NQ_ g6] P Pgg .
25 Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of AEOD Defects (Parts 21, 50)
I 8Eas90_19C_Sliggggg: The proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on 11/04/88 (53 FR 44594). The public comment period closed 01/03/89. The final rule was l previously scheduled to be published by 1 I
04/30/89; however, because of the number and substance of comments received, additional time is needed to analyze the comments and incorporate necessary changes.
lOllittlGG_Qate: 06/12/85 litgg(_Ggmg[qtige_Qgtg: 07/31/89 53 Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic RES Equipment (Part 34) 8EB590_iGC_@liggggg: Division and regional comments on the final rulemaking were received in early January. Resolution of the comments took somewhat longer than expected. The final rulemaking package is currently expected to.be f orwarded to the EDO and the Commi ssion in May 1989.
10111Bli90_paig: 12/31/85 leCggi_ggmD191190_paig 06/30/89
~
Enclosure 2 L 4 L - ._ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .
_______.____________j
A 6
116 Tables S-3 and S-4, Addition of Radon-222 and ,
RES Technetium-99 Radiation Values, and Addition of Appendix B, " Table S-3 Expl anatory Analysi s" -
(Part 51) .
Be2590_f9t_Silggggg Division review of the proposed rulemaking was completed in June 1988.
It was determined that significant rewrites of certain sections of the appendix to Table S-3 had to be performed to. correct conflicting information and to recalculate many of the i examples to reflect updated dose-to-risk i coefficients. Meetings with NMSS are being held to obtain assistance with the rewrite. Staff currently estimates that the proposed rule will be published by 09/29/89 and the final rule will '
be published by 08/30/90.
a i 1011191190_D31g: 07/30/87 Tgtggi_Ggeglgligg_Dgig: 08/30/90 119 Twenty-Four Hour Notification of Incidents RES (Part 20)
SEe590_i9C_Sliggggg: Division review of the proposed rulemaking was completed on 02/28/89.
The proposed rulemaking, previously expected to be sent to the EDO for action on 04/02/89, is t now expected to be forwarded on 05/15/89. The reason for the slippage is that the package required coordination with the Agreement States and this was not considered in the original schedule. The final rulemaking action is slipping accordingly.
I i
10iti!Ii90_Dgie: 02/17/88 Tatget_Cgeglgligo_Deig: 07/16/90 l
1 l
l
. Enclosure 2
7 141 Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants 'f RES (ASME Code, 1986/1987/1988 Addenda) (Part 50) v BResgD_fgr_gliggggg: The proposed action, -
incorporating by reference the 1986 Addenda and 1987 Addenda, was prepared by staff and forwarded for division review. However, a memorandum was received from NRR requesting inclusion of the 1988 Addenda in the proposed rulemaking effort. The schedule for this-rulemaking must be expanded in order to accommodate this request.
IO11121190_pptg: 07/25/88 IfC9El_ggsgigtigo_p319: 06/20/90 169 Debt Collection Procedures (Part 15) OC 8ee590_fGC_Sliggage: This final rulemaking will amend the regulations concerning the procedures that the NRC uses to collect the debts which are owed to it. Additional time is needed to conf orm the' rul emaking procedures wi th an update _
I of NRC's system of ret.ords being perf ormed by ADM.
IOitigtigg_pgig: 10/07/88 19Cget_ggggigtigg_pgig: 04/28/89 i
Enclosure 2
f 4 li I
~
RES REGULATORY AGENDA PAGES FOR b 5 1 JANUARY-MARCi1 1989 ;
ADM RDB
- # Title 1
1 PRM-20-17: Disposal of Animal Tissue Containing Small- ;
Amounts of Radioactivity l l
2 PRM-20-18:. Disposal of Solid Biomedical Waste Containing Small Amounts of. Radioactivity ;
1 2a PRM-20-19: Injection of Detectable Odor in' Nuclear Power Plant Effluents ]
3 PRM-31-4: Use of Phosphorus-32 in Salmonella and i Listeria Assays
- 4. PRM-40-23: Licensing the Possession of Uranium' Mill Tailings at Inactive Storage Sites-5 PRM-50-20: Reactor Safety Measures 6 PRM-50-31: Emergency Preparedness 7 PRM-50-45: Extending the Emergency Planning Zone 8 PRM-50-46: Emergency Planning 9 PRM-50-48: Redefine " Testing Facility" Based on the i Function of the Facility Instead of Its Power Level 10 PRM-50-50: Technical Specifications 11 PRM-100-2: Population Density Criteria Near Nuclear Power Plants 12 182 Access to Saf eguards Inf ormation (Part 73) 13 125 Night Firing Qualifications for Security Guards at j Nuclear Power Plants (Part 73) 14 112 Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC Approved Casks at Civili an Nuclear Power Reactor Sites (Parts 72, 73, 74, 170) 1 Enclosure 3
2
'ADM' RDB '.
- - # Title }l 15 135 Minor Amendments to Physical Protection Requirements (Parts 70, 72, 73,.75) 16 77 Personnel Access Authorization Program (Parts 50, 73) 17 136- Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power. Plants (ASME Code,Section XI, Division 1, Subsection IWE) (Part 50) 18 141. : Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (ASME Code, 1986/1987/1988 Addenda) .( Part 50) 19 129 Amendment of the Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule A (Part 50)
[
-20 119 ' Twenty-Four Hour Notification of Incidents (Part 20) 21 128 ' Licensing and Ra'diation Safety Requirements for Large Irradiators (Part 36)
.22 .103 Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 (Part 50) 23 148 Nuclear Plant License Renewal (Part 50) 24 100 Criteria for Licensing the Custody and Long-Term Care of Uranium Mill Tailings Sites (Part 40) 25 162 Comprehensive Quality Assurance in Medical Use and a Standard of Care (Part 35) 26 108 Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern; Generic Rulemaking (Parts 2, 20) 27 51 Criteria f or an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence
-( Par t 140) 28 105 Reasserting NRC's Sole Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States (Part 150) 29 98 Transportation Regul ati ons: Compatibility With the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (Part 71) 30 90 Criteria and Procedures for Emergency Access.to 4 Non-Federal and Regional Low-Level Waste Disposal f 1
Facilities (Part 62)
Enclosure ~
3 5
-ADM. RDB }
- # Ti tl e g
31- 34 Disposal of Radioactive Wastes; Part 61 Amendments (Part 61) 32 79 Elimination of Inconsistencies Between NRC Regulations and EPA Standards (Part 60) 33 116 -Tables'S-3 and S-4, Addition of Radon-222 and-Technetium-99 Radiation Values, and Addition of. Appendix B, "Tabl e: S-3 Expl anatory Analysi s" (Part 51) 34 104 Education and Experience Requirements f or Senior Reactor Operators and Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants (Parts 50, 55) 4 r
35 133 Ensuring the Effectiveness c.vf Maintenance Programs for Nuclear Power Plants (Part 50) 36 109 Amendment lof 50. 62 (c ) (4) to Clari f y Equivalent Control Capacity for Standby Liquid Control Systems (Part 50) 37 68 Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors (Part 50) 38- 95 ' Basic Quality Assurance Program f or Medical Use of Byproduct Material (Part 35) 39 53 Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Equipment (Part 34) 40 24 Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive Material s Licensees (Parts 30, 40, 70) 41 102 Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration from Nuclear Power Plants (Part 20) 42 33 Standards for Protection Against Radiation (Part 20) 142a: 186 Palladium-103 for Interstitial Treatment of Cancer I
(Part-35) 42b 192 Centralization of Material Control and Accounting l
Licensing and Inspection Activities for Non-Reactor l Facilities (Parts 70, 74) '
{
L 1
l Enclosure 3
P -
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-20-17 PETITIONER: The Rockefeller University PART: 20 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None tf' FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: October 21,1988(53FR41342)
Correction published November 1, 1988 (53FR44014)'
SUBJECT:
Disposal of Animal Tissue Containing Small Amounts of Radioactivity
SUMMARY
- The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations under which a licensee may dispose of animal tissue containing small amounts of radioactivity without regard te its radio-activity by expanding the list of radioactive N topes'for which unregulated disposal is permitted. Specifically, the petitioner requests.that the NRC add Sulfur-35, Calcium-45 Chromium-51, lodine-125, and Iodine-131 in concentrations not exceeding 0.01 microcurfe/g to the list of radioactive isotopessetoutin10CFR20.306(b). The petitioner also requests that the NRC make the unregulated disposal of these wastes a matter with which all jurisdictions must comply.
TIMETABLE: The resolution of the petition is scheduled for November 1989.
CONTACT: Catherine Mattsen Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-492-3638 l
81 G
6
. PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: RM-20-18 PETITIONER: The Rockefeller University PART: 20
.h 9
OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None .
FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: October 31,1988(53FR43896)
SUBJECT:
Disposal of Solid Biomedical Waste Containing Small Amounts of Radioactivity
SUMMARY
- The petitioner requests-_that the NRC amend its regulations to permit a licensee to dispose of solid biomedical waste containing small amounts of radioactivity without regard to' -;
its radioactivity. -The petitioner requests that the NRC "
t expand the provisions of 10 CFR 20.306 to classify the disposal of wastes such as paper, glass,.and plastic trash containing small. amounts of Hydrogen-3 and Carbon-14 as below regulatory concern. The petitioner would then be able to.
dispose of this material on-site in a currently operating, controlled air incinerator. The petitioner. believes this to-be a reasonable, cost-effective alternative to burial of these wastes at a commercial low-level-radioactive waste site.
TIMETABLE: The resolution of the petition is scheduled for November 1989.
CONTACT: Catherine Mattsen Nuclear Regulatory hmission Office of Nuclear Regulatory hsearch 301-492-3638 G /
l l
m 82
Is t-s .
1 PETITION-DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-20-19 PETITIONER: GE Stockholders Alliance i PART: 20 -
OTHER AFFECTED. PARTS: 50 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 1, 1989 (54 FR 5089)
SUBJECT:
Injection of Detectable Odor in Nuclear Power Plant Effluents
SUMMARY
- Desctigtign. The petition requested that the Commission amend Part 20 to require that a detectable odor be injected into the emission of nuclear power
.o plants and.Other nuclear processes over which the NRC l' has jurisdiction.
Qbiective. The petitioner believes that this action would improve the health and safety of the public by providing for early detection of radiation leaks. It-is proposed that a detectable odor would give the public notice of the need to take health' protective measures.
Backgtgund. The public comment period closes April 3, 1989. The Commission staff will. review public comments, prior staf f work on this issue, and develop recommendations regarding resolution of 'the petition..
TIMETABLE: The staff plans to _ develop a Federal Register notice resolving this petition by December 1989.
I CONTACT: Alan K. Roecklein Nucl ear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research ;
301-492-3740
L PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:- PRM-31-4 PETITIONER: Gene-Trak Systems - .
.4 PART: 31 Y
\
f OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None i FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 2,1988(53FR2853)
SUBJECT:
Use of Phosphorus-32 in Salmonella and Listeria Assays )
d k
SUMMARY
- The petitioner requestt that the Commission amend its l regulations to establish that 100 microcuries of l phosphorus-32 used ' n $g,mp,nf,p and Listeria assays by ahe, io CFG i a food laboratory 5:% . . .d qi,;r. tit under 4rgeneral license.;;;;rding tv it C." ? ! . ! ! . The petitioner requestgad.3i,ll I this action because the presence of phospherus-32 in ascunts
. exceeding currently exempt quantities would require those
- k. desiring to use DNA probe assays to apply for and obtain a-specific license from e NRC-that would authorize this use..
I The petitioner asser hat authorizing the use of the assays under a general license would assist food manufacturers and food laboratories by eliminating the licensing procedure, g syd+hst9he paperwork burden on both the NRC and the.. industry would {
be reduced. g i TIMETABl.E: I'saktMa is schet!:d f:r Tcbetracy-4989.
-1he. withdrawa\ a+ %e. peMwn was pobtish d in
- be.
CONTACT: Harvey Scott FadeM %Wske m Ma% W, tii I ( 54 PR, IoSS0),
.; Nuclear Regulatory Commission L Office of Nuclear. Regulatory Research
-( 301-492-3632 A leter dawd Fc.broag 28 19 89, wo.s received by 3
b NRC. Freen G. Parsons 3 %diaMon Sag OMe.er at Gene. Tu SyWms, rgocturg +bo.t 4he- peMMon be. w Abdraw o do
- the. inwedoevow as new products and reso t+an+ ~
changes in $ heir rnark.e%ng tArateg.
83
, .q b PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-40-23 PETITIONER: Sierra Club I PART: 40 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None t
FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 25,1981(46FR14021);
May2,1983(48FR19722) 1 3
SUBJECT:
Licensing the Possession of Uranium Mill Tailings at !
Inactive Storage Sites.
j 2
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to Ifcense the possession of uranium
- mill tallings of inactive storage sites. The petitioner proposes the following regulatory actica to ensure that the public health and safety is adequately protected: (1) repeal
'g the Itcensing 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 0
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 an amendment to the original petition. In the amendment, the petitioner requests that, in the event that NRC denies the earlier requests, NRC take further action to ensure -
that the management of byproduct material located on or derived from inactive uranium processing sites is conducted in a manner that protects the public health and safety and-the environment. The petitioner also requests that the NRC take action to govern the management of byproduct material not subject to licensing under section 81 of the Atomic Energy Act.
Objective. To license the protection of uranium mill I tallings at inactive storage sites or take other regulatory action to protect the public health and safety and the environment from the radiological.and nonradiological hazards associated with the tailings. The petitioner ,
believes that this action is necessary if NRC is to adequately fulfill its statutory responsibilities under the Uranium Mill Tallings Radiation Control Act. l
, W 91 eq l
1 Background. The comment period closed April 27, 1981. Three !
coerents were received, all stating the petition should be i denied. The connent period on the amendment to petition.
closed June 30, 1983. Uranium mill tailings a gulated .i under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Cont Act of 1978-(Pub. L.95-604, 42 U.S.C. 7901, et seq.). tle I of the Act directs that the Department of Energy, consul- i tation with NRC, conduct a remedial action prograai at inactive ur.inium mill tailings sites. Title !! of .
the Act autiiorizes NRC to regulate disposal of the tailings at active sites.
TIMETABLE: Resolution of this petition is on hold pending amendments to Part 40 dealing with the custody and long-term care of ;
reclaimed mill tailings sites. Completion of this rulemaking is scheduled for 1990. Resolution of the petition will be completed following this action.
[
d CONTACT: Mark Haisfield Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-492-3877 j
t a
i
?.
k tE y
92 l
],
)
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRN-50-20 Free Environment, Inc., et 41.
PETITIONER:
PART: 50- +
.P OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: 100 .
FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: May 19,1977 (42 FR 25785)
SUBJECT:
Reactor Safety Measures
SUMMARY
- Descri stiun. The petition requested that the Comission 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 groundlevel;(2)allnuclearreactorsbehousedinsealed t
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 1
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 frce, 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
.f requirements in the Comission's regulations.
Background. The coment period closed July 18, 1977.
.l Three coments' were received. The first three parts of thepetition(seeDescriptionsectionabove)were :
incorporated with PRM-50-19 for staff action purposes.
A notice of denial for the third part of the petition was p(43FR4466).ublished in the A notice of Federal denial Register for the first twoonpartsFebruary 2,1978 of the petition was published April 19,1978(43FR16556).
TIMETABLE: The staff is preparing a Federal Register package which will
' contain a denial for the remaining issue in this petition.
The notice is expected to be published by.Heeck 1989.
CONTACT: JohnfMa.LT4Gord Nuclear Regulatory Comission -
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research .
l 301-492-3822 y1q(,
77 L
PETITION DOCKET IRM8ER: PRM-50-31 r
PETITIONER:~ Citizens' Task Force PART: 50
-OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: 70 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION:' March 24,1982(47-FR12639).
SUBJECT:
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
-g f 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 affectedmunicipalitie;and(3)utilitiesberequiredto s
finance the emergency planning efforts of municipalities located near nue ear reactors.
Objective. To establish an' effective notification and evacuation system in communities located near nuclear reactors.
Background. The corsnent period closed May 24, 1982.
f AprM -]
l:' TIMETABLE: Staff action on the r$ponse to the petitioner is scheduledforha**mhee1989.(t: i: -:::-f' -...^ m ... ....
g
-gg.gj% ff,,i%. 0. i=TQ Pri..P: ( e% Mi = Uvr' vI
.s g w r, .... v
,y........~,,.... __, _
L
_ __..... . . w i.6i ves . . . v., ........,s..,7 y ......... ,
n?sm CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-492-3918
.\
b
I L
- PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-45 l
I PETITIONER: Kenneth G. Sexton PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None 4 '
l, FEDERAL ?EGISTER CITATION: October 6,1986(51FR35518)
SUBJECT:
Extending the Emergency Planning Zone '
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioner requests that the Comission amend'its regulations to require that current methodologies and analytical techniques be
.used to reevaluate the established Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ)fornuclearpowerplants.'Thepetitioner
, is concerned that emergency planning < for areas within
.1 and beyond the 10-m11e distance provided in the Commission's regulations is inadequate because the current'10-mile EPZ was determined with what the petitioner considers outdated methodologies and data.
The petitioner poir.ts out that advanced techniques and new information obtained through research in the last 10 years have produced improved calculations for determining the size of an EPZ. !
Objective. =The petitioner believes that there is overwhelming justification to request that .
the size of the EPZ be reevaluated on a 1
site-specific basis, after allowing for. review
.. of the determination report by any interested
, parties.
i
- Backqround. The comment' period for this
' petillon, originally to expire on December 5, 1986 has been extended to April 15, 1987.
TIMETABLE: Staff action on the petition is scheduled to be completed 4evember 1989.
Aprii CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-492-3918 i l
<,l L
PETITION DOCKET NLN83ER: PRM-50-46 PETITIONER: State of Maine' '
PART:50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None, FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: December 30,1986(51FR47025)
SUBJECT:
Erergency Planning
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioner requests that the Coenission amend its emergency planning regulations to.(1) expand the emergency planning zone for the plume exposure pathway and for the ingestion pathway; (2) require that emergency .
planning be done before any construction of a nuclear facility is permitted and that the Governor of each affected.
State approve the emergency plans as a precondition to construction; and (3) require that offsite emergency
-[ preparedness findings ~ be made before any fuel loading and/or low power operations are permitted.
Objective. To expand the emergency planning zone around nuclear power plants to ensure the protection of the public.
Background. The consnent period expired March 2,1987.
f April ;
TIMETABLE: .Staffactiponthepetitionisscheduledtobecompleted in . L .1: 1989, h t dep.nd; e,; th: C:---f::f ^ pelf:y
.i:::e &; in th; :::r;;;;y p1;unia; ;r::.
CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,
~ Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 1 301-492-3918 l
{
r
! 86
k r
a' PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-48 PETITIONER: University'of Missouri l PART:. 50' OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION:- March 1,1988(53FR6159)
SUBJECT:
Redefine " Testing Facility" Based on the Function of the-Facility Instead of its Power Level
SUMMARY
- The petitioner requests that the Comission adopt a regulation that would add a definition for the term "research reactor" and redefine the term " testing facility" based on the function of the facility instead of. its power level.- The petitioner requests this action because the current definition of " testing facility" results in excessive and unnecessary routine replatory requirements being. applied to research reactors which is contrary
[ to the intent of Congress in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
TIMETABLE: .The resolution of the petition is scheduled for 1989.
CONTACT: Mark Au Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301'-492-3749 l
87 g.
1 m ________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _!
L PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-50 PETITIONER: Charles Young i
PART: 50 -
OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None 1 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: August 26,1988(53FR32624)
SUBJECT:
Technical Specifications i i
SUMMARY
- The petitioner requests the Comission to amend its regulations to rescind the provision that authorizes l nuclear power plant operators to deviate from technical i specifications during an emergency, The petitioner believes that nuclear power plagts should be operated in accordance with the operatigaPlicense and appropriate i technical specifications and that requiring a senior <
operator to follow the technical specifications during h an emergency enhances plant safety.
?
TIMETABLE: The resolution of this petition is scheduled for i August 1989. ;
CONTACT: Morton R. Fleishman Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-492-3794 88
'O:
J
b ,
Ccmple&c2/ Denied PETITION DOCKET NUM8ER: PRM-100-2 PETITIONER: Public Interest Research Group, et al.
PART: 100 j
, 4 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: July 1,1976 (41 FR 27141)
]
SUBJECT:
. Population Density Criteria Near Nuclear Power Plants-
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioners request that the Cossnission 4 amend its regulations to prohibit the construction of i nuclear reactors where the population in the surrounding
' . area exceeds or will exceed specified numerical 1 faits.
j 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 l reactors too close to metropolitan areas.
Background. The comment period closed August 30, 1976.
Twelve cossnents were received. An NRC staff paper j (SECY-78-624) was submitted to the Cossnission on December 4,1978. In a memorandum to the Executive Director- 1
.{'
' for Operations dated February 15, 1979, the Commission deferred action on the population density siting criteria
! issue pending submission of the Siting Policy Task Force j report. The petitioners were notified of this deferral by letter dated March 9, 1979. The petitioners were notified 4 by letter (in July 1980) that the petition would be I 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 be delayed until summer 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 Cosmission's Executive Director for Operations to conclude that this i rulemaking should be terminated. However, if the Cosnission :
decides that further rulemaking on demographic criteria :
should be undertaken, the unresolved portions of the petition would be considered in the context of that J rulema king.
78 l 1
TIMETA81.E:
p;5,.njiajoT
- e. ,u. tne exM,will
. . . ...u.., um. be published in the reoerti '
CONTACT: John' Stewart
- Nuclear Regulatory Connission I' " '98118* ry Research 9 f$236 .
The, resolWan of -this peSten l l
u;as comptekd Decc.mber IM, li e 8.
A noiice d enying 4his peHHan I
} Was publie hd tn the I edeco l Regiske on 'D eeember 14, Iq og (53 FR So p 3Q ,
79
TITLE:.
Access to Safeguards Information CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 73
'ALSTRACT: -
This-final rule would amend the Connission's requirements for access' to Safeguards Information.to conform with a provision of:
Pub. L.99-399, "The Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1986." The provision of the law requires nuclear' power reactor licensees and applicants to conduct Federal Bureau-of.-
Investigation criminal history checks of certain individuals with access to information as Safeguards InforR tion.
agro eg:eThis technical amendment SL. 9..
.. ::: 10 CFR 73.21 abIr 10 CFR 73.57 with respect to individuals authorized access to safeguards-information by power reactor applicants and licensees, !!9:e tM:
. :-^ 9 0 t cent:fas ac ar re; W e eat ::d 5:: i::n d:'; !:;:d
- 01:ly to ::hi '!: '9ternel consistency bett:::n ,00 wgio uv,.. - --
=:nd Fed:r:1 12::, estic; cf prep ::d relo... eking : d ;d!i pre;;dsre; ti cicun ar e unnece>>ery under 5 v.5.C. ;;0,-
TlHETABLE:.
Final-f.ction Fir,sl Action fortoDivision Of fices Review for Concurre 01 0 ce/89 Final Action to-EDO E"1 " '^? 02/1789 [c3/o8/8q N
FinalActionPublished'U5f08/89 LEGAL. AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
M. L.'Au Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3749 71 s
.'x
.T ITLE : - . .
Night Firing Qualifications for Security Guards at Nuclear. Power
' Plants
.CFR CITATION:
10.CFR 73 ABSTRACT:-
The proposed rule would ensure that security force effectiveness at nuclear power plants is not dependent on the time of day. Security-guards currently are required to perform. night firing for familiarization only. There is no requirement for standards to measure their effectiveness. The proposed rule would change that by requiring that security guards'at nuclear power plants qualify for !
night firing. The only alternative to rulemaking is to retain ~ the
. current status.
Part 73, Appendix B, Part IV, will be amended to require reactor . !
security guards to qualify annually in an NRC-approved night firing course with their assigned weapons. The proposed amendment will !
standardize training and qualification in night firing and prepare .
power reactor guard forces to more effectively respond in the event !
of an incident occurring in' limited lighting conditions. The cost '
to -industry should be relatively modest since licensees already operate daylight. firing training and qualification facilities and programs. -The costs to NRC will also be minimal because .it will only. require minor licensing, inspection and other regulatory actions.- There is no occupational exposure.
It 1.s estimated that 0.4 staff-years of effort over 2 years by the NRC will be required for the rulemaking.
TIMETABLE:.
--Prepe5ed Acticr f0* "4"4e 40" Review 03/00/07 Jreposed A:ticr. to Offi;ee fer C:::"~ea" n'/?f/99-
-Prep m d Adlun iu EDC 06/07/69 Proposed Action Published 07/12/00- Urwic W Wnecl '
Final Action Published 05/1S/9} ~ UndetrWned LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No l AGENCY CONTACT: i l Dr. Sandra D. Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Commission L Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 ,
301 492-3773 l
l
.,4 i
TITLE:
Storage of Spent Nuclear fuel in NRC Approved Casks at Civilian Nuclear
.P(wer Reactor Sites CFR CITATION:
l- .10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 74; 10 CFR 170 ABSTRACT: .
The proposed rule is in response to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act l (NWPA) section 218 (a) which states in part. that the Secretary l
of DOE shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation .
i with the private sector for dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at !
civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of -
establishing one or more technologies that the Commission may, by rule, approve for use at sites of civilian nuclear power reactors. 1' The NWPA also requires that the NRC establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under section 218(a) for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.
)
The staff anticipates a significant increase in the demand for use of I dry spent-fuel storage casks starting in the early 1990s, thus i processing of this proposed rule would be timely. NRC resource
. requirements are anticipated to be about two staff years.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action for Division Review 03/02/88
. Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 07/26/88 Proposed Action to EDO =01/'^ '"- 0 3/14j e9 Proposed Action to Commission 02/25/5F oslos/si sEcy-89-ogy Proposed Action Published c '^ ^ 'M eqllqlgg i Final Action Published 03/09/90
- LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10153; 42 USC 10198 EFFECTS 0N SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
William R. Pearson Nuclear Regulatory Commission I Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 1 301 492-3764 j 69
/41
t TITLE:
Minor' Amendments _to Physical Protection Requirements I
CFR CITATION: 4 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 75 ABSTRACT:
The Safeguards Interoffice Review Group (SIRG) of the~NRC has been .
conducting a systematic review of the agency's safeguards regulations and guidance documents. This review has identified areas in the regulations that.cre out of date -susceptible to i differing interpretations, or'in need of clarification. In addition, the staff has identified other areas in the regulations where minor changes are warranted. In response to these efforts, ;
specific amendments to the regulations are being proposed. The proposed changes would: (1) limit the use of the 100 rems per hour ,
at 3 feet dose exemption to a reduction of no more than one ;
physical protection category and not allow a drop below the lowest !
category, (2) add definitions for common terms not currently defined by frequent use, (3) delete action dates that no longer apply, (4) correct outdated terms and cross references, (5) clarify wording that is susceptible to differing interpretations, (6) correct typographical errors, and (7) make other minor changes.
The alternative to rulemaking would be to al. low the status quo to continue. Except for the change in the impact of a high radiation i field on physical protection requirements, these minor amendments affect the public, industry and the NRC only in so far as they make the regulations easier to understand, implement, and enforce.
Limiting the use of the 100 rem per hour at 3 feet dose exemption
.to a reduction of no more than one physical protection category, and not allowing a drop below the lowest category, could affect two non-power reactor licensees. It is estimated that 0.4 staff-years of NRC effort over 2 years will be required for the rulemaking.
-This is a low priority rulemaking.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to EDO 03/30/89 proposed Action Published 05/30/89 Final Action Published 04/04/90 l
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMAll BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No ;
AGENCY CONTACT:
Stan Dolins J Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3745 68 5
)
m . .
TITLE:. 4 E ,
.. Personnel Access Authorization Program
, CFR CITATION:
ABSTRACT: .
The'Comission has concluded that it is appropriate for each '
licensee.who operates a nuclear power-plant to establish.an access authorization' program to ensure that individuals who require unescorted access to protected areas or' vital areas of their facilities are trustworthy, reliable, emotionally stable, and do not pose a threat to comit radiological sabotage'. Accordingly, the NRC published a proposed' rule on August 1, 1984,.which would require an access authorization' program at. nuclear power plants (49 FR30726).
An alternative Resource proposal Comittee (NUMARC by)the wasNuclear submittedUtility as aManagement public coment on and this proposed rule. The alternative proposed a voluntary industry-comitment to implement an access authorization program'at nuclear pnwer plants based upon industry guidelines. Major provisions'.of
.this program include background investigation, psychological evaluation, and behaviorial' observation.
- On June 18, 1986, the Comission approved developing a policy statement endorsing industry guidelines as an alternative to the-
! proposed rulema king. Comitments to adhere to these: guidelines
.would be formalized through amendments to the physical security plans and be: subject to inspection and enforcement by NRC.
7 TIMETABLE:
' Office Concurrence on Proposed Policy Statement Completed 10/30/87 Proposed Policy Statement / Guidelines to'EDO 12/07/87 Proposed Policy ' Statement / Guidelines to Comission 12/15/87 Proposed Policy Statement Published 03/09/88 53 FR 7534 Proposed Policy Statement Comment eriod End 05/09/88 OptioroFaper to ED0 :0EpMpet. OS/c9a/ 89 Final Policy Statement to EDO Undetermined Final Policy Statement Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Sandra Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3773 .- -
. On March %,19fb8, the.19 94 pobiitheci n. pc6&poged potteg sta4eme t l [
endoronoj 4be McH Anc godeunes. In1he_ Federai Repswe no+ ice + 3 miu %
speciRecat3 reguetied pobite commeME % 4e Whe ther- +he acecas aehort zawm jpt% ram; shootd be. A Nle er o. po Veg stcWrnerd.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ____-__--__-_______-_____-_--___-_D
i
,Y. ;
a TITLE;/ .
@ Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (ASME Code Section XI Division 1, Subsection -lWE) .
.] 1 CFR CITATION:-
< ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would incorporate by reference Subsection IWE,
" Requirements for Class MC Components of Light-Water Cooled Power Plants," of Section XI'(Division 1)L of the American Society of Mechanicel Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code).
Subsection-lWE provides the rules and requirements for inservice inspection, repair, and replacement of. Class MC pressure retaining components and their integral attachments, and of metallic shell and penetration liners of Class CC pressure retaining components and their integral attachments in light-water cooled power plants.
Incorporation by reference of Subsection IWE will provide systematic examination rules for containment-structure for meeting Criterion
- 53 of the General Design Criteria (Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50)'
and Appendix J of 10 CFR Part 50. Age-related degradation of
- containments has occurred, and additional and potentially more serious degradation mechanisms can be anticipated as nuclear power plants age.
If the NRC did not take action to endorse the Subsection IWE rules,
'the NRC position on examination practices for containment structure would have to be established on a case-by-case basis and improved examination practices for steel containment structures might not be implemented. The other alternatives'of incorporating these detailed examination requirements into the American National Standard ANSI /ANS 56.8-1981 or into Appendix J are not feasible.
Incorporating by reference the, latest edition and addenda of Subsection IWE will save applicants / licensees and the NRC staff both time and effort by providing uniform detailed criteria against which the staff can review any single submission. Adoption of the proposed amendment would permit the use of improved methods for containment' inservice inspection.
TIMETABLE:
Rulemaking Initiation Date (EDO Approval) 06/09/88 Proposed Action for Division Review 07/01/88 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 11/14/88 ,
i Proposed Action to CRGR 10/00/00 casIDEQ85 calan / Bel Proposed Action to EDO 05/15/69- o91p(189 l Proposed Action Published Ot/10/00 oS}l5/Bi l Final Action Published 04/15/90 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 65
{O
L TITL odes and Standards' for Nuclear Power Plants (ASME Code,'Section XI, Division 1,SubsectionIWE)
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Wallace E. Norris Nuclear Regulatory Consnission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3fBfk 3 8 0 6 4
i 66
4 4 TITLE:: .
Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (ASME Code, 1986/1987/1%g.
Addenda) ,
CFR. CITATION:
. ABSTRACT:
..The proposed rul would incorporate by reference the:1986' Addenda the and 1987 Addenda, o the 1986 Edition of Section III, Division 1, j !
and Section XI.- Division 1, of the American Society of Mechanical J" Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code).- In addition, an editorial revision _is proposed that would separate
'the requirements for inservice testing from those for inservice inspection by placing the requirements for inservice testing in a separate paragraph. The ASME Code provides rules for the construction of light-water reactor nuclear power plant components in Section III, Division 1, and provides rules for the inservice inspection and inservice testing of those components in Section XI, Division 1.
The proposed rule would update the existing reference to the ASME Code and would thereby permit the use of improved methods for the construction, inservice inspection, and inservice testing of nuclear power plant components. Incorporating by reference the latest addenda of the ASME Code would save' applicants / licensees and the NRC staff both time and effort by providing uniform detailed criteria against which _ the staff could review any single submission.. i This action will be handled as a routine updating of 10 CFR 50.55a of the NRC regulations. There is'no reasonable alternative to ,
rulemaking action. The proposed amendment will be issued for i public comment. The task to develop and publish the' proposed amendment is scheduled for a period of 7.5 months with-an estimated
-staf,f effort of 400 p-hrs. This is a priority A rulemaking. 1 TIMETABLE:
Proposed g--- m ^ t Submitted for ision Review 09/27/88 Office Congge on Proposed '._. _ _ A Completed 02/10/0^- o 1ln l 6j Proposed .' M M+ to EDO 04/14/0^ oM M l89 Proposed A t Published 05/14/0^ iolpl89 Final Action Published 42/22/S?- o (,J o o g o LEGAL AUTHORITY: !
42 USC 2201' 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Gilbert C. Millman i Nuclear Regulatory Commicsion 1 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l Washington, DC 20555 !
(301P492-30Pr 3M6 64
\
\
b - - - - - - _ - - _- _a
F * ~~
) , .
L, An,ers a g oc +he.
TITLE: ~
Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule
.CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 n.
_.- ' ABSTRACT: L L LThe Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) Rule, Published July' 23, 1985, D criterion, a limit on the degree of established a screening 'of PWR reactor vessel beltline materials radiation embrittlement beyond which operation cannot continue.without additional e plant-specific analysis. The rule prescribes how to calculate the
' degree of embrittlement as.a' function of the copper and nickel-conter.t> of the. controlling material and the neutron fluence. The 1'
, ' proposed amendment revises the calculative procedure to be l consistent with that given in' Revision.2 of Regulatory. Guide.1.99.
The guide provides an: updated correlation of embrittlement data,
-which received CRGR approval for publication in final form on December 9, 1987.
.The need to amend the PTS rule to be consistent with the guide became !
apparent when it was found that some medium-copper, high-nickel
. materials embrittlement ~1s worse now than predicted using the PTS
, rule. A number of PWR's will reach the screening criterion sooner
.than previously thought, and three plants will need to make plant-specific analyses in the next 10 years. Therefore, a high priority is being given to this effort.
~
An unacceptable alternative to this amendment from the safety standpoint is to leave the present PTS rule in place. The staff's
. plant-by-plant analyses found four plants whose reference temperatures are 52 to 68'F higher than previously thought, based on the present rule. This is beyond the uncertainties that were felt
- to exist when the present rule was published. ~ Another unacceptable alternative that'has been' evaluated is to change the calculative procedure for the reference temperature and also change the screening criterion. Failure probabilities for the most critical L
accident scenarios in three plants, when recalculated using.
the new embrittlement estimates, were somewhat lower, but were ouite cependent on the plant configuration and the scenario chosen.
Furthermore, the screening criterion was based on a variety of considerations besides the probabilistic analysis. Reopening the question of where to set the screening criterion was not considered productive because of plant-to-plant differences. It is better to-have a conservative " trip wire" that triggers plant-specific analyses.
l 61 o .
Aurdmen+ ,q .+.g
' TITLE:
Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule ABSTRACT CONT.
Imediate costs to industry will be those required for each utility l to update the January 23. 1986, submittal required by the PTS rule, using fluence estimates that take account of flux reductio 1 efforts in the interim and using the new procedure for calculatin9 RT/ PTS.
In addition, three to five plants will need to make the expenditure of an estimated 2.5 million dollars for the plant-specific analysis in the 1990's instead of 10 to 15 years later.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to EDO C3/31/00 c513ol89 i Proposed Action Published -05/15/00- o telsol8 3 Jiriel Actin f:- Mv444- hv6, 11/10/00 Final Action to EDO 04/15/90 Final Action to Comission Undeterrained Final Action Published 06/15/90 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS OF SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Pryor N. Randall Nuclear Regulatory Comission l_ Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3842 1
l l
l 1
62 u__________.____
= -_ _
iW .
6 s at ,
C,' y; . -
TITLE:.
lW/: Twenty-Four Hour Notification of Incidents y
'CFR' CITATION:. '
)
4?, ABSTRACT:'
,? , Thisrulemakingwouldamend10CFRPart20.403(a)and(b)to
'T
- clarify. the licensees' reporting requirements. While-10 CFR 20.403(a) and (b) are reasonably clear in terms of licensee reporting requirements for events involving " exposures" and " releases" of radioactive materials.- these' sections are not o clear concernin to property."' g Loss events involving "should of operation" loss ofbe operation" and clarified .in " damage terms of
. loss of use of facilities, devices or. equipment. " Damage to property" should be clarified to include contamination clean-up if E, .the corrective action is equal to or greater than a certain cost.
S., In addition, the rulemaking should also define "imediate" in l actual time, e.g., within I hour, for reporting requirements.
This rulemaking action will clarify a current Comission regulation; there is no other appropriate procedure to accomedate
.the clarification. This rulemaking activity. is considered to be a high priority item by NMSS.
, The health and safety of the public will be better protected because improved reporting requirements will reduce the potential L
risk of exposure to radiation from damaged or contaminated i ma teria l. Clarifying the reporting requirements will simplify regulatory functions and free the staff from unnecessary edditional investigation and, at the same time, protect the industry from unnecessary and unexpected fines. The offices of OE, NMSS, and RES are significantly affected by this clarification. ARM and the regions are affected, but to a much lesser degree.
TIMETABLE:' c S.c .oncarrmce.
Proposed Action to Offic6 M r; : = ^!/06/si c'8hti j e-1 Proposed Action to EDO G4/02/8t o6Iis Isag j
,f.oPos{d pgn Pf..lished
. . . . _ . . . . . . . . . ...... %,y',/.1..,,cplis lei Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 4e/95199 ol/is/ 90 Final Action to EDO 02/0S/00 c4 I s6 l 9 o final Action Published 04/08/;0 07/ m g o
<; LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 l EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
-Joseph J. Mate Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 ,
301 492-3795 57 20
)
1 l
TITLE:
LicenseN and Radiation Safety Requirements for Large Irradiators CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 36 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission is developing regulations to specify radiation safety requirements and license requirements for the use of licensed radioactive materials in large irradiators.
Irradiators use gama radiation to irradiate products to change their charscteri: tics in some way. The requirements would apply to large panoramic ir-adiators (those in which the radioactive sources and the material being irradiated are in a room that is accessible to personnel while the source is shielded) and certain large self-contained irradiators in which the source always remains under water. The rule would not cover small self-contained irradiators, instrument calibrators, medical uses of sealed sources (such as teletherapy), or non-destructive testing (such as industrial radiography).
The alternative to a regulation is continuing to license irradiators on a case-by-case basis using license conditions. The formalization would make the NRC's requirements better understood and possibly speed the licensing of irradiators. Development of the rule will require 2 staff-years.
TIMETABLE:
reposed Action to ACRS 03/05/69 o il \B IM roposed Action to ED0 04/05/59 Proposed Action to Comission 05/05/89 Proposed Action Published 06/05/89 i Final Action Published 05/05/90 OGGee Ceccurrence on Proposecl Acton CmPlekd 03 /oG} Si LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Stephen A. McGuire Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3757 58
+ s.
K ..
C <
- TITLE:
, Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 i
b CFR CITATION:
- A8STRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to clarify its regulations. on thef 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 Comission. licensing proceedings. This proposed rule would define these terms and clarify- the nature and extent of. their effect on l quality assurance requirements, thereby resolving these issues.
Rulemaking was chosen as the method of resolving this issue as a result of the Comission's directive to resolve <the issue by rulemaking contained in the.Shoreham licensing decision (CL1-84-9,19 NRC 1323, . June 5,1984).
A position paper requesting approval of the staff proposed definitions and additional guidance from the Comission was signed by the EDO on May 29, 1986. In addition to rulemaking,
.the position paper discusses the alternative of the Comission issuing a policy statement concerning the definitions and their usage.
.Since the proposed rule is only clarifying existing requirements, there is no impact on the public or the industry as a result of this rulemaking. It is anticipated that'the NRC will. expend 3.2 to 4.4 staff years in developing the final rule over a two-year period. The manpower and time frame will depend on.
Comission guidance received on the extent to which 10 CFR usage of the terms is to be consistent, i.e.,10 CFR Part 50 only or all of 10 CFR.
ine timetable is on hold based on a decision by the Comission.
TlHETABLE:
Proposed Action to Comission 05/29/86 Comission Decision on SECY 86-164 Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 59
'M
(
- y. -
p ,
p, TITLE:
1-Safety Related and.Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No )
e
( AGENCY CONTACT:
Jerry N. Wilson .
i Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3729 S
60
=_ _ _ - - - _ _ - _ _ _ .-_- _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ . -
TITLE:
Nuclear Plant License Renewal CFR CITATION:
ABSTRACT: .l This advance notice of p p ed rulernaking announces that the i Connission is developi gulations for extending nuclear power plant licenses e nd 40 years. To inform the public, industry, and other go erninent agencies of this activity, the Comission ha p lished NUREG--1317. " Regulatory Options for Nuclear Pla cense Renewal," and is requesting ,
see, o.behet on nex+ MC-coments on i .
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM Published 08/29/88 53 FR 32919 ANPRM Coment Period End 10/28/88 3i Proposed Action to CRGR/ACRS 05/06/89 Proposed Action to EDO -MM0/89- ouliLLM Proposed Action to Comission 05/00/09 owl so liS9 Proposed Action Published C/00/09 oglag y Fi no.\ Acm en Po b t :ehed talsil 9 o LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Donald Cleary Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Kashingten, DC 20555 301 492- % % 5 9 3 (o 51
)
1 l
l t'
, . , f!TtE:
tJur.;c.-r i l a r i '. L1cer. t. Feriewal
.. i . ~ LIwlY:
L 1 c t3r.s e r enese;4) r ul emsi'I no to or e n de r ecul atorv' reaut ren.ents ic> e.: t er c.t no nue 1 ear power alent 11cenues be , ond . 40 year s
-was t rai t T ated in r esponse to the Commission's 1986 and 1997 o c11 c'. and planning quidance. Curr ent reguletary provisions r.cernat license renewal but do not provi de requirements f or 11.6 f or a, end cos:ter t of a 11 t en u r eneN J 1 ario] 1 cati on nor the s: ' e r .d e r r.i >.- of sccckteL4111- sucin5t wh1ch the application W23I-te re ilewec. Thi s . rui em ?i a nu ie sc h ed u l ett for comp) eti cr.
Lrte- t c- thi etiti c i pat ed out,n : t t al c -t l i c ensc. r enewal
+ r p l l ':: s t ) an; f .:.r 2 niwe Rouc.and McntJcel o in 1991. The r al s vi11 p on da t r.: b a ,1. for d e st1epmer.t snd revleu cd L.h m e te "Jead ,. J : ~. t " sp;)IcentE 6Dd the concurreni
-iw el..rment u: 1 m:.) e me n t i nq r equ1 et er y qui darec e, I i mel y T on.;: l e t i on of the rul ez is c r i t i c e ;. for ent st 11 rshi no stend s-r os
-irar " n r.t i n u r d s.z f C tptrstloi. ot power reMtort curino the li cence r ene r te j terc. v.c provicin.: the reaulat rv stability d a i r e d t v u i. .i l i t i t s in det ter mi r i na w!.e lher to prepare fcr jicc vie reneuri cr purtue alternative scurces. of aener ating ci*~;.t.. '! H.1 L r U l c r. b l 1 n g hae bt-6 n 3 cic ht l i s tid . b v t h e Ch ai r n en as ma3cr . topic to be manstorca.
l 4
_ - _ - - - - - - _ _ _ _ - . _ _ ~
TITLE::
Criteria for Licensing the Custody and Long-Term Care of .
Uranium Mill Tailings Sites CFR CITATION:
-10 CFR 40
'A8STRACT:
The proposed rulemaking would amend 10 CFR Part 40 (Domestic Licensing of-Source Material), to include a procedure for licensing a custodian for the post-closure, long-term control of uranium mill tailings sites required b Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA)y .- Thisthe Uraniumwould amendment Mill . Tailings establish a general license for custody and long-term care of uranium mill. tailings by the Department of Energy, other designated
. Federal agencies, or States when applicable. The general license' Jac\owd . or would be formulated so that-it would become effective for a.
particular site when (1) NRC concurs in the eet determination that cleted the site has been properly *: :M ded and (2) a $prveillance and' hintenance Qian that meets the requirements.of tre general license
%as been received by NRC. No significant~ impact to the the public or industry is expected as.a result of this proposed action.-
TIMETABLE: ard C M c' Proposed Action for Divisiondeview 11/09/87 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 02/10/88 Proposed Action to EDO W46#86 oglieltt ,
Proposed Action to Commission (SECY-88-83)03/17/88 !
ANPRM to SECY 08/12/88 ANPRM Published 08/25/88 53 FR 32396 i ANPRM Connent Period Ends. 10/24/88 !
Proposed Action for Division and Office Review G4/4A#$9 03foQeg Proposed Action to E00 04/14/89 Proposed Action to Commission 04/28/89 Proposed Action Published 06/30/89 '
final Action Published 03/g/90 i
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 x EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No '
AGENCY CONTACT: l Mark Haisfield Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3877 i
f 50 l
TITLE:
Comprehensive Quality Assurance in Medical Use and a Standard of Care CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering whether to amend its regulations to require a comprehensive quality assurance program for medical licensees using byproduct materials. The purpose of this rulemaking action is to address each source of error that can lead to a misadministration. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking was published to request public cnmment on the extent to which in addition to the basic quality assurance steps (being addressed by another rulemaking action, entitled " Basic Quality Assurance in Radiation Therapy") a more comprehensive quality assurance requirement is needed, and invites advice and recommendations on about 20 questions that will have to be addressed in the rulemaking process.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM Action Published 10/02/87 52 FR 36949 ANPRM Coment Period End 12/31/87 52 FR 36949 Options Paper to Offices for Concurrence 05/13/88 Options Paper on QA Rulemaking to EDO 05/26/88 Revised Options Paper on Rulemaking to CD0 05/31/88 Option Paper Completed 06/03/88 SECY-88-156 Staff Requirements Memorandum Issued 07/12/88 Proposed Action Published Undetermined Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Anthony Tse Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3797 48 l
95 l
(
b 4 ,
- TITLE:
Radioactive Waste Below. Regulatory Concern; Generic Rulemaking.
CFR CITATION:
The' advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) sought comments'en-a proposal to amend NRC regulations te vjdress disposal of radioactive wastes that contain sufficiently low quantities of radionuclides that their disposal does not need to be regulated as radioactive.
.The NRC has already published a policy statement providing guidance for filing petitions for rulemaking to exempt individual waste st' reams'(August 29, 1986; 51 FR 30839). It is believed that-generic rulemaking could provide a more efficient and effective means of dealing with' disposal of wastes below regulatory concern.
Generic rulemaking would supplement the policy statement which was'a response to:Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy.
Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240). The public was asked to comment on 14 questions. The ANPRM requested public comment on several alternative approaches the NRC could take. The evaluation of public connent together with the results from a proposed research contract will help to determine whether and how NRC should proceed on the matter.
-TIMETABLE:
.ANPRM 12/02/86 51 FR 43367 a 'ANPRM Connent Period End 03/02/87 51 FR 43367 Final Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
Pub. L.99-240 EFFECTS ON SMALL-BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:' Undetermined.
' Ab N f ,
W Unrn Lak s
. Nuclear Regulatory Counmission i Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-$$37 31 14 1
1
)
47
V .
c .:
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 criteria-in place in the event they are needed.
There are no alternatives to this rulemaking, as the current ENO criteria are already embodied in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 140. The only way to modify these criteria, as this rule seeks to do, is through rulemaking.
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 ENO criteria could cause increases in' insurance' premiums. The final rule would also be responsive to PRM-140-1.
It is estimated that approximately 1.0 staff year of NRC time will be required to process the final rule. 40 c= te::t fr.d Sg 1:__
....,y.m.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 04/09/85 50 FR 13978 Proposed Action Coment Period End 09/06/85 Final Action for Division Review 02/17/87 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 11/25/87 Final Action Package to EDO -02/28/G; ondeerminec)
Final Action to Comission -04/0;/G9. undew.fmined Final Action Published -05/00/G9- Ondektmined 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 301492-ibMS 3Gyo 43 y)'
i I
.TlTLE:
Reasserting NRC's Sole Authority.for Approving' Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States CFR CITATION:
' ABSTRACT:
This rulemaking would establish NRC's sole autho, f ty for approving onsite disposal' of low-level waste at all NRC-licensed reactors and at Part 70 fuel cycle- facilitie%.
There'is a need to amend 10 CFR 150.15 to authorize one agency (the NRC) to. regulate all onsite disposal of low-level j waste in order to provide a more comprehensive regulatory review of all onsite waste management activities and to.
avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. Uniform review by-the NRC will provide for. greater assurance that the-radioactive material'will not present a health hazard at a later date after the site is decommissioned. ;
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to EDO 06/10/88 Proposed _ Action Published: 08/22/88 53 FR 31880 Proposed Action Comment' Period'End 10/21/88
- F'a;l Action fer Oi,i3isa "c,ic. Gif10/00 -
D h hiea Ce..... nt; 0.; 01/2'/00 Final Action for Office and Agreement State Concurrence 02/15/89
- Offi;e end Agr : = St:t: C r. ant, ^ c 03fGofor --
Final Action to E00 03/29/89 Final Action to Conunission 04/12/89 Final Action Published 06/30/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42-USC 2021;-42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
John Str.;:-t TeW cd Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301.492 -36cHL ar)9(, )
45
l TITLE:
Transportation Regulations: Compatibility With the International :
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 71 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would, in conjunction with a corresponding rule change by the U.S. Department of Transportation, make the United States Federal regulations for the safe transportation of i radioactive material consistent with those of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA regulations can be found in IAEA Safety Series No. 6, " Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material," 1985 Edition. Consistency in transportation regulations throughout the world facilitates the free movement of radioactive materials between countries for medical, research, industrial, and nuclear fuel cycle purposes.
Consistency of transportation regulations throughout the world also contributes to safety by concentrating the efforts of the world's experts on a single set of safety standards and guidance (those of the IAEA) from which individusi countries can develop their domestic regulations. Perhaps as important, the accident experience of every country that bases its domestic regulations on those of the IAEA can be applied by every other country with consistent regulations to improve its safety program. The action will be handled as a routine updating of NRC transportation regulations. There is no reasonable alternative to rulemaking action. These changes should result in a minimal increase in costs to affected licensees. Proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 71, based on current IAEA regulations, have been issued for public connent. The task will be scheduled over a 2-year interval ending June 1989 and will consume 2-3 staff-years of effort depending on the number and difficulty of conflicts to be resolved.
TIMETABLE: d Proposed Action Published 06/08/88 53 FR 21550 Proposed Action Connent Period Extended to 03/06/89 53 FR 6H&E Sm8 L Final Action to EDO Undetermined final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Donald R. Hopkins Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3784 a p]C,
)
m y wves o w o mv vmv;
.i ,
u TITLE:
Criteria and Procedures for Emergency Access to Non-Federal and-Regional Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities l
CFR CITATION:
ABSTRACT: g I The ;r;:::f rule wee 44. establisN procedures and criteria for fulfilling NRC's responsibilities associated with acting on requests by low-level radioactive waste generators, or State officials on behalf of those generators, for emergency access {
to operating, nongederal or regional, low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities under Section 6 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA).
Section 6 of the LLRWPAA authorizes the NRC to grant emergency access to any nongederal low-level waste disposal facility, if necessary, to eliminate the immediate and serious threat to the public health and safety or the common defense and security, provided the threat cannot be mitigated by any l
, alternative.
TlHETABLE:.
Proposed Action Published 12/15/87 52 FR 47578 Proposed Action Comment Period End. 02/12/88 52 FR 47578 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 08/08/88 Final Action to ED0 09/15/88 Final Action to Commission 10/18/88 Comission Affirmed Rulemaking 11/23/88 Final Action Published ^' '" '^^ oajos t 83 64 FR 54 0T LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2021 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT: ,
Janet Lambert I Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 301492-W 3855 4I I
( <
--___- - - - - - - _ - - - _ - - . - t
l TITLE:
Disposal of Radioactive Wastes' Part Col Arnendmen*S '
CFR CITATION:
1 10 CFR 61 I ABSTRACT:
The Comission instructed the staff to analyze the need to revise the definition of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) in Part 60 to conform with the definition in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA).
An ANPRM was published on February 27, 1987 (52 FR 5992), which l recomended a revision based either wholly or partially on concentrations of radionuclides in the waste. Af ter assessing the public coments on the ANPRM, and also taking into account recent information, the staff is now recommending against any revision of the definition of HLW. Instead, amendments to Part 61 are being recomended that would require geologic repository disposal of all above Class C low-level radioactive waste (LLW) unless an alternative has been approved by the Comission. This would accomplish the objective of establishing suitable disposal requirements for radioactive waste with a minimal impact on cost burdens.
Alternatives are: (1) revise the definition of HLW so that additional abcVe Class C LLW is reclassified as HLW; or (2) proceed to develop a waste classification system like that outlined in the ANPRM.
The public and industry would benefit from this clarification of waste disposal options for above Class C LLW. NRC staff time for preparing this rulemaking is estimated at ptaff-years.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM Action Published 02/27/87 52 FR 5992 ANPRM Coment Period End 04/29/87 ANPRM Coment Period Extended to 06/29/87 52 FR 16403 Proposed Action Published 05/18/88 53 FR 17709 Proposed Action Coment Period End /18/88 Final Action to CRGR/ACRS 9BR !
I Final Action to EDO 04/18/89 r;g % % &&e6 for Final Action to Comission 05/15/89 Final Action Published 06/15/89 *** iI"M 1 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Melvin Silberberg/ Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3810/3884 40 4
< 3>,
.i TITLE:-
Elimination of Inconsistencies Between NRC Regulations and EPA
-Standards ,
t CFR CITATION: )
- 10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) directs NRC to ,
promulgate criteria for the licensing of HLW geologic repositories, i Section 121 (c) of this act states that these criteria must be consistent with standards to be developed by EPA for the disposal of NLW in deep geologic repositories. The proposed rule is needed in order to eliminate several inconsistencies with the EPA standards, q 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 j action are limited by statute.
The public, industry, and NRC will benefit from eliminating inconsistencies in Federal HLW regulations. NRC resources needed would be several staff years but will not include contract resources.
Because the Federal Court invalidated the EPA standards, action on this rule, which is in response to the EPA standards is undetermined.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 06/19/86 51 FR 22288 Proposed Action Comment Period End 08/18/86 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 07/15/87 Final Action to E00 07/20/87 Final Action Published Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Melvin Sfiberberg/ Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Cosmission
, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l Washington, DC 20555 1 301492-3810/3884 39 1 '31 o- - -_ --
.=
TITLE:
Tables S-3' and S-4, Addition of Radon-222 and Technetium-99
{
Radiation Values, and Addition of Appendix 8, " Table $-3 1 Explanatory Analysis"
~CFR CITATION:
1' 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 proposed rule amends 10 CFR 51.52 to modify the enrichment value of U-235 and the maximum level of average fuel irradiation. The narrative explanation also addresses important fuel cycle impacts and the cumulative impacts i
of the nuclear fuel cycle for the whole nuclear power industry so
[ that it may be possible to consider these impacts generically rather than repeatedly in individual licensing proceedings, thus reducing litigation time and costs for both NRC and applicants.
The proposed revision of 10 CFR 51.51 and the addition of Appendix B was published for public review and comment on March 4,1981(46FR15154). The final rulemaking was deferred pending the outcome of a suit (Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. NRC, No. 74-1486) in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) decision of April 27, 1982, invalidated the entire Table S-3 rule. The Supreme Court reversed this decision on June 6,1983.
The proposed rule to provide an explanatory analysis for Table S-3 has been revised to reflect new developments during the time the rulemaking was deferred. Final action on the Table S-3 rule was held in abeyance until new values for radon-222 and technetium-99 could be added to the table and covered in the narrative explanation. The rule is being reissued as a proposed rule because the scope has been expanded to include radiation values for radon-222 and technetium-99 and the narrative explanation has been extensively revised from that published on March 4,1981(46FR15154).
The staff's estimate is that the completion of a final Table S-3 rule covering the new values for radon-222 and technetium-99, and the revised explanatory analysis will be completed in FY 1989.
A Commission paper presenting the final rulemaking plan and schedule was submitted on August 18,1986 (SECY 86-242). On September 8,1986, SECY 86-242 was approved by the Cosaission.
36 33
p ..
4 TITLE:
Tables S-3 and S-4 Addition of Radon-222 and Technetium-99 Radiation Values, a,nd Addition of Appendix 8. "Tabl Explanatory Analysis" - 3 TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published'03/04/81 46 FR 15154 -
Proposed Action Comnent Period End 05/04/81 Proposed Action for Division Review 05/27 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence /88
-02/00/0; obl%*lti Proposed Action to EDO 03/30/6s -01/3113%
Proposed Action to Comission 04/EG/o9 celtol&i Proposed Action Published 05/01/S^ o%laAlti Final Action to Comission -01/20/^0 07 fag)go Final Action Published 4/26/aa oBlaol90 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
~
42 USC 2011; 42 USC'2201;'42 USC 4321; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No
{ AGENCY CONTACT:
Stanley Turel Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3739
~
je
37
k ..
TITLE:
Education and Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators and Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:
~
l
'A85 TRACT:-
The Commission is co igering an amendment to its regulations to require that applic tVfor s' senior operator license of a nuclear. power pie h :d a bachelor's degree in engineering, engineering tech lo , or physical science from an accredited institution fou y rs after the effective date of this rule.
Other bachelor s grees from an accredited institution may be !
accepted on ca e-by-case basis. This contemplated.rulemaking action is e a Comission decision to enhance the levels of engineert a d accident management expertise on shift. H The Co is on will also' issue a' policy statement concurrently with
'l this r 1 related to utility implementation of an accredited degree 1 . pro m or reactor operators. see. ahched cuatreudr TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 05/31/86 51 FR 19561 ANPRM Comment Period Extended to 09/29/86 l:
SECY 87-101 to Comission 04/16/87 Comission Approved Preparation of Proposed Rule ~ '06/24/87 'l Proposed Action for Division Review 02/12/86 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 04/08/88 Proposed Action to EDO 08/29/88 Proposed Action to Comission . 08/31/88 SEci-88-MS !
Proposed Action Published 12/29/88 53 FR 52716 i Propcsed Action Coment Period Ends 02/2 89 '
L Final Action for Division Review 02 1 Final Action to EDO 01/11/90 esig/"/_ lwlM Final Action to Cosmission 04/21/.,,-eq q 4 Final Action Published 07/19/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201 b lod 6 4end M b EFFECTS ON SMALL 8USINESS: No 03IMl63 54 FR faol AGENCY CONTACT:
Morton Fleishman i Nuclear Regulatory Comission '
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 1 301 492-3794 35
< ,I
i x
13TLE:
Education and Experience Requirements f or Senior Reactor Operators and Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants ]
ABSTRACT:
The Nucl ear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its ,
regulations regarding educational requirements'for operating ,
personnel at nuclear power plants. The proposed am,endments )
would require additional education and experience 2 requirements for senior operators and supervisors. '
In promulgating the proposed amendments, the Commission has identified.two alternatives.
Under the first alternative, the proposed amendment would apply to senior operators. It would require that each applicant for a senior operator license to operate a nuclear power reactor have a bachelor 's degree in engineering, engineering technology, or the physical sciences from an accredited university or college. The proposed amendment would upgrade the operating, engineering, and accident management expertise provided on shift by combining engineering expertise and operating experience in the senior operator position.
Under the second alternative, the proposed amendment would apply to persons who have supervisory responsibilities, such as shift supervisors or senior managers. It would require that they have enhanced educational credentials and experience over that which is normally required for senior reactor operators. The proposed amendment would upgrade the operating, engineering, and acc2 dent management expertise provided on shift by combining engineering expertise and operating e::perience in the shi f t supt rvi sory position.
The Commission believes that adoption of either of the alternatives, for seni or operators or shift supervisors,.
would further ensure the protection of the health and safety of the public by enhancing the capability of the operating staff to respond to accidents and restore the reactor to a safe and stable condition. The Commission will also issue a policy statement concurrently with this rule related to utility i mpl emen t ati on of an accredited degree program for reactor operators.
l
TITLE:.
Ensuring the Effectiveness of Maintenance Programs for Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would provide functional requirements for
< the maintenance of nuclear power plants and allow industry. '
initiatives to develop the details of maintenance programs to meet such requirements. The proposed rule would apply to all 4 components, systems and structures of nuclear power plants and ;
would be applicable to existing and future plants. The proposed rule would also require each licensee to develop, implement and maintain a maintenance program, and to formally commit to follow '
the program. ;
L The scope of maintenance activities addressed in the rule will be within the framework of the Connission's. Policy Statement
[- on Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants which was~1ssued on March 23,1988(53FR9430).
3- ,
It is estimated that about 3 staff-years of effort and $600,000 for contract services will be required to process the final rule.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action.to Offices for Concurrence 09/06/88 Proposed Action to EDO 09/26/88 Proposed Action to Cosnission 09/30/88 SE.C1-fb8 G 1~7 Proposed Action Published 11/28/88 53 FR 47822 Proposed Action Coseent Period Ends 01/27/8
- Tia;l A tte;. fe- 0:1:5;m. Review G3/14/0b 7-Final Action to Offices for Concurrence SSftW99
! Final Action to EDO M/M/0; otalti 0910 61%9
+
Final Action to Cosmission 04/21/89 Final Action Published 06/15/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY: I 42 UIC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No i AGENCY CONTACT: 9oposed Acwm Paic e r Regulatory Connission MM*# 0 i
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 6ded 4e O Al37 5d !
301 492-3730 SS FR 67116 34 35
TITLE: Arwerdretn+ d 60. (aa.(eM % hr$ %diaMy* Control
%M _ {j.
_..ivary yg! @j}jg-- for ee Standby Liquid Control System ter-UlubEl nwwwwww r CFR CITATION:
ABSTRACT: '
The proposed rule would clarify the Cosmission's regulations-m pertaining to boiling water reactors (BWR). The current regulations require that all boiling water reactors must have a standby liquid control system (SLCS) with a minimum flow a
capacity and boron content equivalent in control capacity to-86gallonsperminute-(gpe)of13weightpercentofsodium l pentaborate solution. In January 1985, a generic letter was issued to all appropriate licensees that provided clarification of the phrase " equivalent in control capacity" contained in 10 CFR 50.62 (c)(4). This letter provided the basis for the flow and weight percent of sodium pentaborate decahydrate i requirements and described how equivalency could be achieved i for smaller plants. The NRC staff considers the contents of '
?! the generic letter to be technically correct and desires that this position be established in the. regulations.
This proposed rule would clarify a Comission regulation; ,
thus, no other procedure is appropriate. The technical proposals '
in the rule were analyzed for safety as part of the original '
rulemaking procedure, although they were not specifically mentioned. This rule will not adversely affect the health and safety of the public.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action for Division Review 11/30/87 Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 08/30/88 Proposed Action to ED0 10/12/88
.Pr mod Action Published 10/24/88 53 FR 41607 Ace,w M uc.- ProposePCossent Period End 12/23/88 l
Ac ion Pub he / I N8 D b^"I M conevrtence. 4)15)t LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2136; Section 106 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
William R. Pearson Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 .
301 492-3764 33 3
L____-___-___-_________-_______-
5-
-TITLE:- .,
Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors j
q I' CFR CITATION: 1 10 CFR 50; Appendix J ABSTRACT:: -
f The proposed rule would update and revise.the 1973 criteria.for i preoperational and periodic. pressure testing for leakage of primary.
containment boundaries of water-cooled power reactors. Problems:
have developed in application and interpretation of the existing- i rule. These result from changes in testing technology, test '
criteria,'and a relevant national standard that needs to be recognized.
The revision is urgently needed to resolve continuing conflicts between licensees and NRC inspectors over interpretations, current y 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 y 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.
A detailed analysis of costs, benefits, and occupational exposures is available in the Public Document Room, and indicates possible savings to industry of $14 million to $300 million and an increase in occupational exposure of less than 1 percent per year per plant due to increased testing.
~1METABLE:
Proposed Action Published 10/29/86 51 FR 39538 Proposed Action Connent Period Extended 04/24/87 52 FR 2416 Final Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC'2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Gunter Arndt Nuclear Regulatory Comission 2 Office of' Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-264638 W -
30 37
in l
TITLE. I Basic Quality Assurance t;: "adM;vn T;,.c. w % c a m 4 f- tidico \ Ow-a re 1!Lyproduck tia.k et \
'CFR CITATION:
4' )
ABSTRACT: -
MP'd -
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its 4
=
l regulations The concerning proposed amendments wouldthe medical require its sedical use licensees of byproduct dek g .mater
- t'.;t ... vyy,vJ.,; =t:-'e+ to implement a written basic .
quality assurance program thatM H ..e% ;r;:: =r: 0 .cor.s/ enrec.Hhe
= : g _ ,;; = a ...: ...... m = = = = =.. Tne eaa ..
proposed action is necessary to provide for improved patient j <rrors in safety.nd s.ei,.,.. r';;^;;;.;..; ... ,vn in u.. .r g, is a
q m .6...... .
1,es.';
2_ ,,,,. .. . -
':The proposed amendment, which intended to reduce the potential for and severity of therapy ' administraW 3 misadministration, would primarily affect hospitals, cifnics, e4 b yproduct i and individual physicians. Mod 14tcaWn of reparhg ard %f M
- 3 recocheeping drefnenh for di i
%e a\se preposedin1 neaNc and theFapy f TIMETABLE: edenth ar Proposed Action Published 10/02/87 52 FR 36942 La rokmeAtrg .
- d. Proposed Action Connent Period End 12/01/87 Options Paper to Office for Concurrence 05/13/88 Options Paper on QA Rulemaking to EDO 05/26/88 Revised Options Paper on QA Rulemaking to EDO 05/31/88 Option Paper to Cosmission (SECY-88-156) 06/03/88 i
SRM Issued Directing Re-Proposal of Basic QA Rule 07/12/88 Proposed Action for Division Review 12/05/88 -
Workshop on Basic QA Rule and Draft Regulatory Guide 01 1/89
' ' ' ' ^ ^
s Proposed Offi;e Action Cec.c.....,;. to Offices Ov. 03/17/0^ for
- Concurrence ** -00'IM' LEO
.'. Proposed Action to EDO M/07/W e4L14)ti
. Proposed Action to Commission 04/21/89-
.,. Proposed Action Published 06/00/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 l EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Anthony Tse Nuclear Regulatory Connission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3797
.)
29
\ 3%
J
-____ _ - -- t
TITLE:
Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Equipment
~
CFR CITATION:-
'10 CFR 34 F, '
- t ABSTRACT: .
The proposed rule would amend the present regulations to-establish ' performance standards for industrial radiography exposure devices. Overexposuresofradiographers(andoccasionally the general public) are more than double that of other radiation-workers and have been a concern to the NRC for some time.
Approximately 25-35 percent of the radiography overexposure are associated with equipment malfunction. The issue of safety requirements b' for these devices is a primary concern since the devices use relatively '
high intensity, high energy gamma-ray emitting sources with the potential or serious overexposure. Although a consensus standard'for radiographic exposure devices was published in 1981 (American National Standard N432),
i it is not clear that-all manufacturers are adopting the. standard. ;
The alternatives considered were to take no action at this time; "c amend the regulations to require performance standards for radiographic devices plus a requirement for radiographer to wear alarm dosimeters and simultaneously issue. a regulatory guide endorsing the consensus standard, supplemented by such other performance standards deemed necessary; and incorporate the consensus standard by reference in the regulations ~ supplemented by such other performance standards as deemed necessary, plus a.
requirement for radiographer to wear alare dosimeters.
The proposed rule would require-licensees to modify radiographic devices to meet the performance standards through design changes and quality control procedures. Costs of b incorporating the proposed changes are estimated to be a one-time cost of $1,625 per licensee to purchase alare dosimeters and
$850 annually for replacement of devices and alars dosimeters, annual calibration of dosimeters and annual maintenance costs.
Determination of the benefits to be derived from the proposed rule are difficult to determine on a monetary basis but the potential hazards that might be averted include radiation sickness, injury, and even death. NRC resources required for processing this rule to final publication are estimated to be 0.4 person-years.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 03/15/88 53 FR 8460 Proposed Action Coment Period Ends 05/16/88 Proposed Action Public Comment Extended to 08/16/88 53 FR 18096 Final Action to EDO "/Sies otMlgq Final Action to Comission O/15/B9 osl:4.lgg ~-
Final Action Published G/U/Gi oQgog g3 27 Ol 39
'V
TITLE:-
Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Equipment- '
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes .
AGENCY CONTACT:
Donald O. Nellis Nuclear Regulatory Commission .
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3628 1
e l
O
./ "
28 i
y ..;
, j 4
. TITLE: ,
- Emergency Preparedness for Fuel-Cycle and Other Radioactive
-Materials Licensees. ,
CFR CITATION: 1 j
- 10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR'70 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would require about 30 fuel cycle and other I 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 recoseend protective actions for the public. The proposed rule is intended to further protect the public from accidental exposure to radiation. The affected'11censees 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 3 uranium inhalation of 2 milligrams (a chemical toxicity hazard).
'h Currently the proposed requirements are, for the most part, required F
- by order.- However, the Cosmission_ decided that a regulation was needed for the long term. The cost of the rule to Ifcensees was estimated to be between $26,000 and $73,000 per year per licensee.
The cost to NRC was estimated to be $4,000 per year per licensee.
The NRC will expend about 2 staff-years of effort to promulgate the rule.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 06/03/81 46 FR 29712 ANPRM Comment Period End 08/03/81 46 FR 29712 J
Proposed Action Published 04/20/87 52 FR 12921 Proposed Action Coseent' Period End 07/20/87 52 FR 12921
'l Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 10/16/87
!!-~ Final Action to ED0 03/02/88 Final. Action to Connissfon 07/20/88 SEc1-68-God ,j
- Final Action Published H/40fe9 ogoglgg LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Michael Jamgochian Nuclear Regulatory Consission I l
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3918 !
, )
26 u
4 4
)
TITLE:
Disposal of Waste 011 by Incineration from Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:
ABSTRACT: _
The proposed rule, which is being initiated in partial response to a petition filed by Edison Electric Institute and Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (PRM 20-15, dated July 31,1984), would amend NRC regulations to allow onsite incineration of waste oil at nuclear power plants subject to specified conditions. Currently, the only approved disposal method for low-level, radioactively contaminated waste oil from na:1 ear power plants involves absorption or solidification, transportation to, and burial at a licensed disposal site. There is a clear need to allow for very low activity level wastes, the use of alternative disposal methods which are more cost effective from a f
i radiological health and safety standpoint and which conserve the limited disposal capacity of low-level waste burial sites.
b Increased savings to both the public and the industry could thereby be achieved without imposing additional risk to the public health and safety. There would be an estimated industry-wide economic savings of approximately $3 million to $12 million per year if such a rule were promulgated.
Alternatives to this rulemaking action are to maintain the status quo or to wait until the Environmental Protection Agency develops standards on acceptable levels of radioactivity which may be released to the i
environment on an unrestricted basis. It is estimated that approximately 1-2 person years of NRC staff time will be required to process this rule.
TIMETABLE:
[ Proposed Action to EDO 06/21/88 Proposed Action Published 08/29/88 53 FR 32914 Proposed Action Corment Period End 10/28/88 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 01/^7/O undeactrntned Final Action to EDO 92/10/00 -Undek.rmened Final Action to Commission f2/29/90-- Undewrm M Final Action Published 48/31/00 undewmtn LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2167; 42 USC 2073 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No .
A
./
20 (h l t
TITLE:
Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration from Nuclear Power Plants AGENCY CONTACT:
Catherine R. Mattsen -
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC.20555 '
301 492-3638 9-l ..-
l 2\ ,
u 1
. TITLE: .
Standards for Protection Against Radiation
i CFR CITATION:: -
10-CFR 20 -
ABSTRACT: .
IJ.
Radiation protection philosophy and technology have changed markedly since the present Part 20 was promu gated nearly 30 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 r
protection against radiation; establish a clear health protection basis for the limits; reflect current information on health risk, .
s dosimetry, and radiation protection practices and experience; provide NRC with a health protection base from which it may consider other regulatory actions taken to protect public health; t'. be consistent with reconnendations of world authorities (ICRP);
and apply to all licensees in a consistent manner.
Alternat9s to the complete revision considered were no action; delay for further guidance, and partial revision of the standards. These.were rejected as ignoring scientific advancements; being unresponsive to international and national guidance; and correcting only some of the recognized problems with the present Part 20.
4 Benefits would include updating the regulations to reflect
- contemporary scientific knowledge and radiation protection philosophy; implementing regulations which reflect the ICRP risk-based rationale; reducing lifetime doses to individuals receiving the highest exposures; implementing provisions for summation of doses from internal and external exposures; providing clearly identified dose Ifmits for the public; and providing an understandable health-risk base for protection.
Initial estimates of the cost of implementing the revision is about $33 million for all NRC and Agreement State licensees in the initial year and about $8 million in each subsequent year.
This cost does not include t.ny savings which eight also be realized by the revision.
J s
Q uu3) r
L TITLE:
l Standards for Protection Against Radiation TIMETABLE: -
ANPRM 03/20/80 45 FR 18023 '
ANPRM Coment Period End 06/18/80 45 FR 18023 Proposed Action Published 12/20/85 50 FR 51992 .
Proposed Action Coment Period End 05/12/86 51 FR 1092 Proposed Action Cossnent Period Extended to 10/31/86 Final Action for Division Review 02/15/88 Final Action to Offices for Concurrence 06/30/88 Final Action Package to EDO 09/27/88 Final Action to Connissfon 11/04/88 SEce oa 315 Final Action Published GeA4/48- ogigolgg LEGAL AUTHORITY:
L 42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 3
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes f
AGENCY CONTACT:
Harold T. Peterson Nuclear Regulatory Cosmission Office of Nuc1 car Regulatory Research l Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3640 i
1 e
,- ]
19 m__ __._.--_m.-._-._--___ m.m.__ ___.-___ _m__ . . - . _ _
TITLES
. Palladium-103 for Interstitial Treatment of Cancer CFR CITATION: ]
10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations governing the medical uses of byproduct material.
The proposed regulation would add Pa11adium-103 sealed source as seeds to the list of sources permitted in 10 CFR Part 35 for use in cancer treatment. Under current NRC regulations, users must have their licenses amended before they may use Palladium seeds in brachytherapy. The- proposed rul e, developed in response to a petition for rulemaking (PRM-35-7), would allow the use of Palladium-103 seeds by each potential user (about 700 licensees) with either a simplified amendment or no amendment, depending upon the individual license. An evaluation of potential radiation hazards to hospital personnel and the public showed a minimal risk if the seeds are used in accordance with the manuf acturer 's radiation saf ety and handling instructions.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to Offices for Concurrence 02/14/89 Proposed Action to EDO 03/23/89 Proposed Action Published 04/09/89 Final Action Published 04/09/90 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
To Be Determined EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Dr. Anthony N. Tse Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3797 O
TITLE:
Centralization of Material Control and Accounting Licensing and Inspection Activiti es f or Non-Reactor Facilities CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 70; 19 CFR 74 ADSTRACT: ,
The Nuclear Regul at ory Commi ssi on (NRC) is amending'its regulations to reflect a management action to centralize material control and accounting (MC&A) li censing and inspection ac t i vi ti es in NRC Headquarters, Rockville, Maryland, for non-rer.ctor facilities. Ef f ecti ve February 15, 1989 for affected fecilities located in Regions I, III, and V, MC&A licensing reviews required by 10 CFR 70.32(c) and inspections will be performed by the Domestic Safeguards and Regi onal Oversight Branch, Di vi si on of Safeguards and Transportation, Office of Nuclear Meterial Safety and Safeguards. The performance of these activities f or facilities. located in Region II will remain in Region II until further notice by the Commi ssi on. This action is necessary because the small number of affected facilities in each region cannot support the full spectrum of knowledge, stills, and disciplines needed to conduct MC&A inspections.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 02/15/89 54 FR 6876 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201: 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Dr. Stanley L. Doli ns/Pri sci l l a A. Dwyer Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Of fice of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3745/0478