ML20237A757
| ML20237A757 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/30/1987 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0936, NUREG-0936-V06-N03, NUREG-936, NUREG-936-V6-N3, NUDOCS 8712150231 | |
| Download: ML20237A757 (121) | |
Text
-
NUREG-0936 Vol. 6, No. 3 NRC Regulatory Agenda Quarterly Report July - September 1987 l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration and Resources Management j
i j a a ' %,,
e l
+....
8712150231 871130 ~
Oh36 PDR L
l a
NOTICE Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources:
- 1. The NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20555
- 2. The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Post Office Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013 7032
- 3. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications, it is not intended to be exhaustive.
Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Docu-ment Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation notices; Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and licensee documents and correspondence.
The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the GPO Sales Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceedings, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances.
Documents available from the National Technical Information Service include NUREG series reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federal and state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.
Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-N RC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited.
Single copies of NRC draft reports are available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request to the Division of infe-mation Support Services, Distribution Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washingto^, DC 20555.
Copies of industry co es and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process v
are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, and are available there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the American National Standards institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.
L
NUREG-0936 Vol. 6, No. 3 NRC Regulatory Agenda Quarterly Report July - September 1987 Manuscript Completed: October 1987 i
Date Published: November 1987 Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration and Resources Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
- p.. a, NhYk.]
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I - RULES (A) Rules on which final action has been ta'in Page since June 30, 1987 Standards and Procedures for Case-by-Case Exemptions for De Minimis Interests from Prohibition against Employee's Participation in a Particular Matter Affecting Employee's Financial Interests (Part 0)...........................................................
1 Statement of Organization and General Information (Part 1)...............
2 Nondiscrimination on Basis of Age in Federally Assisted Commission Programs (Part 4)..................................................
3 Charges for Production of Records (Part 9)..............................
4 Telephone Reporting of Significant Events Involving Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear Material (Part 20)..............................
5 Registration of Sources and Devices (Parts 30, 32)......................
6 Changes in Property Insurance Requirements for NRC Licensed Nuclear Power Plants (Part 50).............................................
7 l
(B) Proposed Rules Revision to Ex Parte and Separation of Functions Rules Applicable to Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings (Parts 0, 2)....................
9 Procedures Involving (the Equal Access to Justice Act:
Implementation Parts 1, 2)........................................
10 Modifications to the NRC Hearing Process (Limited Interrogatories and Factual Basis for Contentions) (Part 2)........................
11 Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings-- Procedural Changes in Hearing Process (Part 2)................................
12 e
iii
Page Issuance or Amendment of Power Reactor License or Permit 13 Following Initial Decision (Part 2)..............................
Update of Freedom of.Information Act Procedures and Other Minor i
14 Amendments (Parts 2, 9)..........................................
Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level RadioactiveWaste(Parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 51, 70, 72, 73, 75, 15 150).............................................................
17 i
Standards for Protection Against Radiation (Part 20)..................
Informal Hearing Procedures for Materials Licenses Proceedings 19 (Parts 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 50, 61, 70, 71, 72)...............
General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities 20 j
(Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, 72)....................................
Completeness and Accuracy of Information Provided to the Comission 22 (Parts 30, 40, 50, 55, 60, 61, 70, 71, 72, 150)...................
Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive Materials Licensees (Parts 30,40,70)............................
23 Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Ground Water Protection and Other 24 Issues (Part 40)..................................................
25 Station Blackout (Part 50).............................................
Broad Scope Modification of-General Design Criterion 4 Requirements For Protection Against Dynamic Effects of Postulated Pipe 27 Ruptures (Part 50)................................................
Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors (Part 50, Appendix J).............................
28 Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS)~for 30 Light Water Nuclear Power Reactors (Part 50)......................
e iv
Page Consideration of Emergency Planning Rule Changes to Deal With Lack of Governmental Cooperation in Offsite Emergency Planning (Part 50)........................................................
32 Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants (Part 50)................
33 Backfit Requirement for Senior Operators at Nuclear Power Plants (Part50)........................................................
34 Personnel Access Authorization Program (Part of Insider Package)
(Parts 50, 73)...................................................
35 l
Table S-3, Addition of Radon-222 and Technetium-99 Radiation Values
{
and Appendix B Explanatory Narrative (Part 51)...................
37 j
Elimination of Inconsistencies Between Part 60 and EPA HLW Standard (Part 60)............................................
39 Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (Part '0)...........
40 I
I I
(C) - Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking l
l Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern: Generic Rulemakin (Parts 2, 20)...........................................g 41 Degree Requirement for Senior Operators at Nuclear Power Plants (Parts 50, 55)...................................................
42 Definition of High-Level Radioactive Waste (HLW) in 10 CFR Part 60 (Part60)........................................................
43 l
(D) - Unpublished Rules Revised Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings (Parts 0, 1, 2, 9, 50)...........................................
45 1
l l
l v
P. age Availabil i ty of Of ficial Records ( Pa rt 2)...............................
46 Nego+iated Rulemaking on the Submission and Management of Records and Documents Related to the Licensing of a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste (Parts 2, 60).........
47 Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Federal Assisted Programs (Part 4).........................................
48 Retention Periods for Records (Parts 4, 11, 21, 25, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35,40,50,60,61,70,71)........................................
49 Deletion of Part 11 Requirement for Renewal of "R" Clearances (Part 11 ).........................................................
51 Fee Schedule Change for NRC "U" and "Q" Access Authorizations (Parts 11, 25).....................................................
52 Residual Radioactive Contamination Limits for Decommissioning (Part 20)..........................................................
53 Disposal of Low-Level Radioactively Contaminated Waste Oil from Nuclear Power Plants (Part 20).....................................
54 Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance (Parts 21, 50)..............
55 Regional Nuclear Materials Licensing for the U.S. Navy (Parts 30, 40, 70).................................................
57 Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Exposure Devices (Part34)..........................................................
58 Basic Quality Assurance in Radiation 1herapy (Part 35)..................
60 Comprehensive Quality Assurance in Medical Use and a Standard of Care (Part 35).....................................................
61 Control of Aerosols and Gases (Part 35).................................
62 Criteria for Licensing the Long-Term Custody and Maintenance of Uranium Mill Tailings Sites (Part 40)..............................
63 Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 (Part 50)..........................................................
64 vi
j 1
P_ age Alternative Methods for Leakage Rate Testing (Part 50)..................
66 Part 51; Conforming Amendments (Parts 51, 60)...........................
67 Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licensees for Nuclear Power Reactors (Part 52).....................
68 Criteria and Pr6cedures for Emergency Access to Non-Federal and Regional Low-level Waste Disposal Facilities (Part 62).............
69 Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)patibility With the International Transportation Regulations:
Com (Part 71)..............................
70 Assigning NRC Sole Authority for Approving Onsite Low-level Waste Disposal (Part 150)................................................
71 vii
3 I
SECTION II - PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING (A) - Petitions incorporated into final rules or petitions denied since June 30, 1987 Fire Protection Standards for Graphite Reactors (PRM 50-44)........
73 Modification of Qualifications for Security Personnel of Nuclear Power Plants and Other Special Nuclear Material 75 Licensees (PRM-73-6)..........................................
(B) - Petitions incorporated into proposed rules Disposal of Very Low Concentrations of Short-Lived Radionuclides 77 (PRM-20-14)...................................................
New Methods of Disposal of Waste 011 Contaminated by Low-level Radioactive Material from Nuclear Power Plants 78 (PRM-20-15)...................................................
Extension of Construction Completion Date (PRM-50-25, PRM-50-25A)..
80 l
I Implementation of Certain Environmental Standards Which Have Been l
Proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency i
(PRM-60-2,PRM-60-2A).........................................
81 l
l (C) - Petitions pending staff review Reactor Sa fety Mea sures (PRM-50-20)................................
83 Establishing an Employee Concerns Program and Resolution of Employee-Identified Concerns at Nuclear Facilities (PRM-50-47).....
85 Population Density Criteria Near Nuclear Power Plants (PRM-100-2)...................................................
86 ix
,e i
l
Pag.e (D) - Petitions with deferred action Licensing the Possession of Uranium Mill Tailings at Inactive Storage Sites (PRM-40-23)......................................
89 Revised Criteria for Operation of Uranium Mills and Disposition of Tail ings or Wastes (PRM-40-24)..............................
91 Regulations Governing Unimportant Quantities of Source Material (PRM-40-25)...........................................
92 Emergency Preparedness (PRM-50-31)..................................
93 1
Extending the Emergency Planning Zone.(PRM-50-45)...................
94 Emergency Planning (PRM-50-46)......................................
95 i
X I
r.
...--i.i-... -........
n.
i Preface j
The Regulatory Agenda is a quarterly compilation of all rules on which the NRC has proposed, or is considering action as well as those on which it has recently J
completed action, and all petitions for rulemaking which have been received and I
are pending disposition by the Comission.
Organization of the Agenda The agenda consists of two sections. Both sections have been updated through j
June 30, 1987.Section I, " Rules" includes:
(A) Rules on which final action has been taken since June 30, 1987, the closing date of the last NRC Regulatory Agenda, (B) Rules published previously as proposed rules on which the Commission has not taken final action, (C) Rules published as advance notices of proposed rulemaking for which neither a proposed nor final rule has been issued; and (D) Unpublished rules on which the NRC expects to take action.
Section II, " Petitions for Rulemaking" includes: (A) Petitions denied or incor-porated into final rules since June 30,1987, (B) Petitions incorporated 4
into proposed rules, (C) Petitions pending staff review, and (D) Petitions with l
deferred action.
]
In Section I of the agenda, the rules are ordered from lowest to highest part within Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR).
If more than one rule
)
l appears under the same part, the rules are arranged within the part by date of 1
most recent publication.
If a rule amends multiple parts, the rule is listed under the lowest affected part.
In Section II of the agenda, the petitions are ordered from lowest to hi petition for rulemaking (PRM)ghest part of 10 CFR and are identified with a number.
If more than one petition appears under i
the same CFR part, the petitions are arranged by PRM numbers in consecutive i
order within the part of 10 CFR.
The dates listed under the heading " Timetable" for scheduled action by the Commission or the Executive Director for Operations (ED0) on particular rules or petitions are considered tentative and are not binding on the Commission or its staff. They are included for planning purposes only.
This Regulatory Agenda is published to provide increased notice and public participation in the rule-making proceedings included on the agenda. The NRC may, however, consider or act on any rulemaking proceeding even if it is not included in this Regulatory Agenda.
Rulemakings Approved by the Executive Director for Operations (E00)
The Executive Director for Operations (ED0) initiated a procedure for the I
review of the regulations being prepared by staff offices that report to him l
to ensure that staff resources were being allocated to achieve most effectively NRC's regulatory priorities. This procedure requires EDO approval before staff resources may be expended on the development of any new rulemaking.
Furthermore, i
all existing rules must receive ED0 approval prior to the commitment of additional resources.
l l
xi l
i
Rules that have received ED0 approval to date are identified as indicated below.
As additional rules receive ED0 approval,.they will be identified in I-RULES.
subsequent editions of this agenda. Those unpublished rules whose further development has been terminated will be noted in this edition of the agenda and deleted from subsequent editions.
Rules whose termination was directed subsequent to publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking will be removed from the agenda after publication of a notice of withdrawal.
Symbols Rules that appear on the agenda for the first time are identified by an as+.erisk(*).
Rules that have been approved by the ED0 are identified by the symbol (+).
A small circle ( ) preceding the final action publication date indicates that this date had not been approved by the ED0 at the time of this agenda's publication.
l Public Participation in Rulemaking Coments on any rule in the agenda may be sent to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, i
Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.
Comments may also be hand delivered to Room 1131, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC between 8:15 a.m. and 5:15 p.m.
Coments received on rules for which the comment period has closed will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to coments received on or before the closure dates l
specified in the agenda.
The e enda and any comments received on any rule listed on the agenda are i
avaiiable for public inspection, and copying at a cost of five cents per page, at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Single copies of this agenda may be purchased from the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO).
Customers may call (202) 275-2060 or (202) 275-2171 or write to the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Post Office Box 37082, Washington, D.C. 20013-7082.
Additional Rulemaking Information For further information concerning NRC rulemaking procedures or the status of any rule listed in this agenda, contact Alzonia Shepard, Rules and Procedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration, U.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommission, Washington,DC20555, Telephone (301) 492-7086, persons outside the Washington, DC metropolitan area may call toll-free:
800-368-5642.
For further information on the substantive content l
of any rule listed in the agenda, contact the individual listed under the heading " contact" for that rule.
l l
l xii
I (A) Rules on which final action has been taken since June 30, 1987
1 4
s TITLE:Standards and Procedures for Case-by-Case Exemptions for De Minimis 4
Interests from Prohibition against Employee's Participation in a Particular Matter Affecting Employee's Financial Interests CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 0 ABSTRACT:
The final rule revises NRC regulations governing the granting of statutorily authorized case-by-case exemptions for insubstantial interests from the prohibition against an employee's personal and substantial participation in a particular matter in which the employee, or certain persons or organizations related to the employee, has a financial interest. The final rule, which pertains to all NRC employees, sets out revised procedures for granting case-by-case exemptions in instances where the interest involved is
)
not so substantial as to be deemed likely to affect the integrity 1
of the services which the Government may expect from the employee.
{
i l
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 08/18/87 l
Final Action Effective 08/18/87 52 FR 30902 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2035; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 18 USC 207 l
4 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No l
AGENCY CONTACT:
Steven Crockett Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel 202 634-1465 l
i l
1 1
1
I I
l TITLE:
l i
+ Statement of Organization and General Information CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 1 ABSTRACT:
The final rule revises the Commissions regulations that pertain to its statement and organization. The revision will reflect the completion of a major reorganization. The revision is necessary to fulfill the NRC's obligation under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(a)
(1)(A)) to publish in the Federal Register descriptions of its headquarters and field organizations end to inform industry and the interested public of these organizational changes.
l TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 08/21/87 52 FR 31601 Final Action Effective 08/19/87 52 FR 31601 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2033; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2039; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5843; 42 USC 5844; 42 USC 5845; 42 USC 5849 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Donnie H. Grimsley Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration and Resources Management Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7211 l
2
i l
TITLE:
+ Nondiscrimination on Basis of Age in Federally Assisted Commission Programs CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 4 AESTRACT:
The final rule implements the provisions of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended. The final amendment makes it unlawful for any recipient of Federal financial assistance to discriminate on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the NRC. The Act also contains certain exceptions that permit, under limited circumstance, continued use of age distin;tfons or factors other than age that may have a
{
disproportion ate effect on the basis of age. The Act applies to
{
persons of all ages.
The final rule is necessary to comply with the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, which directs that all Federal agencies empowered to 3
provide Federal financial assistance issue rules, regulations, j
l l
and directives consistent with standards and procedures l
established by the Secretary of Heal 'e end Human Services (HHS).
1 i
i TIMETABLE:
i Final Action Published 07/07/87 52 rk 25355 Final Action Effective 07/07/87 52 FR 25355 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 6101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AHD OTHER FNTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Edward E. Tucker l
Nuclear Regulatory Comission l
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business l
Utilization / Civil Rights, Washington, DC 301 492-7697 3
TITLE:
Charges for Production of Records CFR CITIATION:
10 CFR 9 ABSTRACT:
The final rule will revise the charges for copying records publicly available at the NRC Public Document Room in Washington, DC. The amendment is neccssary in order to inform the public of these changes resulting from the NRC's award of a new contract for the copying of records.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 07/09/87 52 FR 29505 Final Action Effective 08/10/87 52 Fr 29505 LEGAL AUTHORITY 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
David L. Meyer Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration and Resources Management Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7086 1
4
l TITLE:
Telephone Reporting of Significant Events Involving Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear Material CFR CITATION:
l ABSTRACT:
I The final rule amends regulations regarding the telephone reporting of l
certain significant events involving byproduct, source or special nuclear I
material. The amendment applies to all holders of licenses issued for the receipt, possession, use or transfer of licensed byproduct, source or special nuclear material that do not have an installed Emergency Notification System. The amendment is being made because current procedures require telephone reporting to an NRC Regional Office, rather than a central NRC office, and consequently often result in unnecessary delays before the event is reported to an appropriate NRC official. The amendment will require that all telephone calls reporting these significant events be directed to the NRC Operations Center, thus ensuring facility, expertise, timeliness, and consistency in the NRC response.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 09/09/87 52 FR 33916 Final Action Effective 09/09/87 52 FR 33916 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT Morton Fleishman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 1
301 443-7975 5
L
TITLE:
Registration of Sources and Devices 4
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 32 ABSTRACT:
The final rule assures that all manufacturers / distributors (vendors) are informed of NRC's program for pre-marketing approval of sources and devices under a specific license. The rule, which will improve communication with the vendors, will also assure timely and efficient consideration of radiation safety features of products, thereby reducing administrative costs for vendors, users and NRC.
The rulemaking action is important because it will substantially improve the licensing process and reduce the administrative burden on NRC and licensees.
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 07/24/87 52 FR 27782 i
Final Action Effective 08/24/87 52 FR 27782 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2071; 42 USC 2092 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Steven L. Baggett Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washin, an, DC 20555 301 427-9005 l
6 4
TITLE:
+ Changes in Property Insurance Requirements for NRC Licensed Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The final rule requires nuclear power plant licensees to obtain an increased amount of on-site property damage insurance from the current minimum of $585 million to $1.06 billion. The NRC believes that such insurance should be required so that the financing and pacing of cleanup following an accident does not become a public health and safety problem. These changes will increase the amount of insurance required to $1.06 billion, impose a modified decontamination priority on any proceeds from such insurance, and require that proceeds subject to the decontamination priority shall be paid to an independent trustee.
All commercial reactor licensees are subject to this rule.
T1HETABLE:
Final Action 08/05/87 52 FR 28963 Final Action Effective 10/05/87 52 FR 28963 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SKALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Robert S. Wood Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of State Programs Washington, DC 20555 301 492-9885 7
j (B) Proposed Rules 1
i i
i i
I i
i a
l
TITLE:Revision to Ex Parte and Separation of Functions Rules Applicable to Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings CFR CITATION:
The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations dealing with ex parte communications and separation of adjudicatory and nonadjudicatory functions in formal adjudicatory l
proceedings by updating the agency's rules of practice and incorporating requirements imposed by the Government in the o
Sunshine Act.
Changes are proposed in both the form and the substance of the existing rules to clarify their meaning and to aid agency adjudicatory officials in maintaining effective communication with NRC staff personnel and persons outside the agency while at the same time ensuring that proceedings will be conducted fairly and impartially. This proposed rule supersedes a prior proposed rule entitled, "Ex Parte 1
Communications and Separation of Adjudicatory and Non Adjudicatory Functions," published March 7, 1979 (44 FR 12428).
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 03/26/86 51 FR 10393 Proposed Action Comment Period End 06/26/86 51 FR 19067-Final Action 11/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
5 USC 554(d); 5 USC 557(d)
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Paul Bollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Commission f
?
Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 f
202 634-3224 I
9
TITLE:
Procedures Involving the Equal Access to Justice Act:
Implementation CFR CITATION:
ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would implement the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) by providing for the payment of fees and expenses to certain eligible individuals and businesses that prevail in in agency adjudications when the agency's position is determined l
not to have been substantially justified. This proposed regulation is modelled after rules issued by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) and have been modified to conform to NRC's established rules of practice.
The propnsed rule would further the EAJA's intent to develop government-wide, " uniform" agency regulations and would describe NRC procedures and requirements for the filing and disposition of EAJA applications.
A draft final rule was sent to the Commission in June 1982, but Commission action was suspended pending a decision by the Comptroller General on the availability of funds to pay awards to intervenor parties.
This issue was also the subject of litigation in Business and Professional People for the Public Interest v. NRC, 793 F.2d 1366 (D.C. Cir. 1986). This litigation is being evaluated to determine what if.any changes may be necessary in the proposed rule.
Additionally, in August 1985, the President. signed into law an enactment renewing the EAJA after its expiration under a statutory sunset requirement. This legislation, Pub. L. No. 99-80, l
revises the EAJA and these revisions are being evaluated to determine whether further conforming changes may be necessary in the proposed rule.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 10/28/81 46 FR 53189 Proposed Action Comment Pericd End 11/28/81 46 FR 53189 Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
j 5 USC 504 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Paul Bo11werk Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 l
202 634-3E24 l
10
)
l i
l l
TITLE:
Modifications to the NRC Hearing Process (Limited
]
Interrogatories and Factual Basis for Contentions)
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would expedite conduct of NRC adjudicatory proceedings by requiring interveners in formal NRC hearings to set forth the facts on which contentions are based and the sources or documents used to establish those facts and limit the number of interrogatories that a party may file in an NRC proceeding. The proposed rule would expedite the hearing process by, among other things, requiring interveners to set forth at the outset the facts upon which their contention is based and the supporting' documentation to give other parties early notice of I
intervenor s case so as to afford opportunity f early dismissal j
of contentions where there is no factual dispute. Expediting the j
hearing process should ultimately provide cost savings to all participants in the process. The content of this rule is being considered as part of the regulatory reform rulemaking package.
j TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 06/08/81 46 FR 30349 Next Action Undetermined i
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2239 1
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
1 Trip Rothschild l
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-1465 1
11
TITLE:Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings-- Procedural Changes in Hearing Process CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering amendments to its rules of practice which address the'following aspects of the hearing process: admission of contentions, discovery against NRC staff, use of cross examination plans, timing of motions for sumary disposition and limitations on matters'and issues that may be included in proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law, or in an appellate brief submitted by a person who does not have the burden of proof or who has only a limited interest in the proceeding. These proposals were initially developed by the Regulatory Reform Task Force and published for public coment, i
together with a number of other proposals, as suggestions for procedural changes in the licensing of nuclear power plants
. (49 FR 14698; April 12,1984). The Comission has decided
)
not to proceed with the April 1984 proposals, except to the extent that they were included in this proposed rule.
Therefore, the April 1984 proposals have been deleted from the regulatory agenda.
The NRC is also considering related amendments on the process of intervention that were developed by Commissioner Asselstine.
The staff is analyzing pubic coments received on the proposals and expects to forward a recommendation for the Comission's consideration.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 07/03/86 51 FR 24365 Proposed Action Comment Period Extended to 10/17/86 51 FR 31340 Final' Action 07/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Jane R. Mapes Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counrel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8695 j
l l
12 1
l TITLE:
Issuance or Amendment of Power Reactor License or Permit Following Initial Decision I
l CFR CITATION:
I 10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:
4 The proposed rule would amend tne Commission's "imediate effectiveness" l
regulation that specifies when an initial adjudicatory decision l
authorizing the issuance or amendment of a license or permit becomes J
effective. The proposed rule would (1) remove the existing provision governing the effectiveness of initial decisions regarding power reactor construction permits and (2) revise the Comission's existing practice regarding " effectiveness reviews" for full-power operating licenses.
The proposed rule also would delete language in the existing regulation emanating from Three Mile Island-related regulatory policies, action upon which has now been completed, j
The proposed rule supersedes two prior proposed rules entitled "Possible Amendments to 'Immediate Effectiveness' Rules," published May 22, 1980 (45 FR 43279), and " Commission Review Procedures for Power l
Reactor Construction Permits; Imediate Effectiveness Rule," published l
October 25, 1982 (47 FR 47260).
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 02/04/87 52 FR 3442 Proposed Action Coment Period End 05/06/87 52 FR 11475 l
Final Action 12/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Paul Bollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-3224 13
TITLE
+ Update of Freedom of Information Act Procedures and Other Minor Amendments CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2; 9 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would revise Parts 2 and 9 to reflect changes in the Freedom of Information Act. This action is being taken to comply with Pub. L.99-570, " Freedom of Information Reform Act of 1986,"
signed into law by the President on October 1986. These amendments.
will also reflect current NRC organizational structure, current agency practice and delegation.. The revision will also reduce the i
repetition of statutory requirements.
]
TIMETABLE:
Proposel Action Published 08/06/87 52 FR 29196 Proposed Action Comment Period End 08/26/87 52 FR 29196 Final Action Published 11/30/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 5 USC 552; 31 USC 9701; 5 USC 552a; 5 USC 552b EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Donnie H. Grimsley Nuclear Regulatory Connission Office of Administration and Resources Management Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7211 J
1 1
14 I
I TITLE:
+ Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste l
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 19; 10 CFR 20; 10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 75; 10 CFR 150 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would revise existing regulations to establish specific licensing requirements for the storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a monitored retrievable storage installation (MRS). This revision is intended to ensure that the Comission has in place the appropriate regulations to fulfill the requirements contained in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 concerning the licensing of facilities which could be part of the MRS program.
Paragraph (d) of Section 141 of the NWPA requires that any monitored retrievable storage installation pursuant to Section 141 be licensed by the Camission.
The Comission could await further development of the MRS option before proposing its MRS rules. However, this approach could result in unnecessary delay in reviewing a license application if Congress authorizes construction of an MRS.
There is no appropriate alternative to rulemaking, the vehicle used l
by NRC to establish its licensing procedures.
The basic requirements for storage of spent fuel is an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) currently codified in 10 CFR Part 72 are not being changed, thus no incremental impact on NRC industry, or the health and safety of the public is anticipated.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 05/27/86 51 FR 19106 Proposed Action Coment Period End 08/25/86 Final Action to ED0 09/30/87 Final Action to Comission 10/15/87
- Final Action Published 11/30/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2021; 42 USC 2071; 42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2077; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2099; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2234; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2237; 42 USC 2282 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No 15
TITLE:
+ Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste AGENCY CONTACT:
Keith Steyer/ Charles Nilsen Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7739/7917 1
16
l TITLE:
+ Standards for Protection Against Radiation CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:
Radiation prqtection philosophy and technology have changed markedly since the present Part 20 was promulgated 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: (1) provide better assurance of protection against radiation, (2) establish a clear health protection basis for the limits, (3) reflect current information on health risk, dosimetry, and radiation protection practices and experience, (4) provide NRC with a health protection base from which it may consider other regulatory actions taken to protect public health, l
(5) be consistent with recommendations of world authorities (ICRP),
and (6) apply to all licensees in a consistent manner.
Alternatives to the complete. revision considered were no action; delay for further guidance, and partial revision of the standards. These were rejected as ignoring scientific advancements; being unresponsive to international and national guidance; and correcting only some of the recognized problems with the present Part 20.
Benefits would include updating the regulations to reflect contemporary scientific knowledge and radiation protection philosophy; implementing regulations which reflect the ICRP risk-based rationale; reducing lifetime doses to individuals receiving the highest exposures; implementing provisions l
for summation of doses from internal and external exposures providing clearly identified dose limits for the public; i
providing an understandable health-risk base for protection; and placing constraints on collective dose evaluations at levels where risks are trifles.
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 any savings which might also be realized by the revision.
17
TITLE:
- Standards for Protection Against Radiation TIMETABLE:
i ANPRM 03/20/80 45 FR 18023 ANPRM Comment Period End 06/18/80 45 FR 18023 Proposed Action Published 12/20/85 50 FR 51992 Proposed Action Comment Period End 05/12/86 51 FR 1092 Proposed Action Comment Period Extended to 10/31/86 Final Action for Division Review 03/15/88 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 04/21/88 Final Action Package to ED0 06/15/88 l
Final Action Published 06/30/88 I
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2073; 42 USC 2093; 42 USC 2095; 42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Harold Peterson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7691 18
l l
l
)
TITLE:
l Informal Hearing Procedures for Materials Licenses Proceedings l
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 32; 10 CFR 33; 10 CFR 34; 10 CFR 35; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 71; 10 CFR 72 l
1 ABSTRACT:
This proposed rule, being prepared at Commission direction, would provide comprehensive treatment of hearing procedures to be implemented by the Commission for materials licensing proceedings.
In addition, the proposed rule would encompass the objective of the proposed rule, " Jurisdiction of Adjudicatory Boards," identified as 3150-AA53, which has been deleted from OMB's Unified Agenda. There are no reasonable alternatives to rulemaking for implementing thse informal hearing procedures.
The procedures are expected to reduce the economic burden imposed on a participant in a proceeding.
TIMETABLE:
i l
Proposed Action Published 05/29/87 52 FR 20089 Proposed Action Comment Period End 08/28/87 52 FR 27821 Final Action 12/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2111 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Nuclear Regulatory Connission Office of the General Counsel l
Washington, DC 20555 l
202 634-3224 1
l f
19 l
l TITLE:
+ General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 72 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule is intended to protect public health and safety by providing assurance that licensees fulfill their responsibility to dispose of licensed material including any associated contamination when they cease licensed activity.
The proposed rule also intends to provide the ' applicant or licensee with appropriate regulatory guidance for implementing and accomplishing nuclear facility decommissioning.
It is necessary to address this issue by amending the regulations in order to achieve appropriated assurances that funds for decommissioning will be available and the decommissioning will be carried out in an orderly manner. The Commission has indicated a need for this rulemaking in other previous rulemakings.
The major cost impact of the proposed rule would involve proper planning at all stages of nuclear facility operation. Proper planning includes providing for (1) financial assurance that funding will te available for decommissioning, (2) maintenance of records that could affect decommissioning, and (3) careful planning of procedures at the time of decommissioning. For non-reactor facilities affected by financial assurance requirements, it is estimated that the major impact will result in an aggregate expenditure cf 21 staff-years ($1.6 million) spread over 5 years (or $320,000 peryear).
For the approximately 110 power reactors estimated to be affected (i.e., those with operating licenses and those under construction which are at least two-thirds complete) plus 75 research and test reactors, it is estimated that the major impact will result in an aggregate expenditure of 3.8 staff-years ($288,000) spread over 3 years. These expenditures will ensure that adequate measures have been taken to protect the health and safety of occupational workers, the public, and the environment within the confines of optimum cost benefit consideration.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 03/13/78 43 FR 10370 Proposed Action Published 02/11/85 50 FR 5600 Proposed Action Comment Period End 07/12/85 50 FR 23025 Final Action for Division Review 11/15/86 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 03/27/87 Final Action to ED0 10/20/87 Final Action Published 01/31/88 20
TITLE:
+ General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities' LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
I Keith G. Steyer/ Frank Cardile Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7739/7784
)
i 21
TITLE:
Completeness and Accuracy of Information Provided to the Commission CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 55; 10 CFR 60; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 71; 10 CFR 72; 10 CFR 150 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would require all licensees and applicants for-licenses to provide the Commission with complete and accurate information, to provide for disclosure of information identified by licensees as significant for licensed activities and to define those circumstances when inaccurate or incomplete information will be considered b) the Commission as material false statements.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 03/11/87 52 FR 7432 Proposed Action Comment Period End 04/10/87 Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2021a; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5851; 42 USC 10141; 42 USC 2273; 42 USC 2201(o)
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No i
l AGENCY CONTACT:
Mary Wagner Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8659 i
I 22 i
TITLE:
+ Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive Materials Licensees CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would require about 30 fuel cycle and other radioactive materials licensees to submit an emergency plan that would, among other actions, require the notification of local authorities in case of an accident and that the licensee recommend protective actions for the public. The proposed rule is intended to further protect the public from accidental exposure to radiation. The affected licensees are those whose possession limits indicate the potential for an accident that could deliver a radiation dose offsite exceeding one rem effective dose equivalent or 5 rems to the thyroid or could cause a soluble uranium inhalation of 2 milligrams (a chemical toxicity hazard).
Currently the proposed requirements are, for the most part, required by order. The Commission has decided that these requirements should be addressed by a rule. The cost of the rule for licensees is estimated to be between $26,000 and $73,000 per year per licensee. The cost to NRC is estimated to be $4,000 per year per licensee. The NRC will expend about 2 man-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 Proposed Action Published 04/20/87 52 FR 12921 Proposed Action Comment Period End 07/20/87 52 FR 12921 Final Action Published 03/15/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Stephen A. McGuire Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7900 23
I TITLE:
+ Uranium Mill' Tailings Regulations: Ground Water Protection and Other Issues CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 40 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rulemaking is intended to incorporate groundwater standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency for uranium mill tailings into NRC regulations. This action is necessary to make NRC regulations conform to EPA standards as required by the Uranium Mill Tailing Radiation Control Act.
Comments on the ANPRM helped define the nature and scope of this rule.
EPA has estimated that compliance with their groundwater standards and with the stability, radon release, and other requirements recently promulgated will cost the industry from about $310 million to $540 million for all tailings generated by the year 2000. The actual cost will depend on the eventual cost of groundwater protection for future tailings. The EPA regulations are binding on NRC licensees until this proposed rule becomes effective.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 11/26/84 49 FR 46425 ANPRM Comment Period End 03/01/85 50 FR 2293 Proposed Action Published 07/08/86 51 FR 24697 Proposed Action Comment Period Extended 11/07/86 Final Action to Commission 07/20/87 Final Action Published 10/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 4? USC 7901 Note EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Kitty S. Dragonette Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, D.C. 20555 301 427-4763 1
l 24 L.
TITLE:
- Station Blackout CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
NRC is proposing to amend its regulations to require light water nuclear power plants to be capable of withstanding a total loss of alternating current (AC) electrical power, called station blackout, to the essential and nonessential switchgear buses for a specified duration. A draft regulatory guide was issued at the same time as the proposed rule to provide guidance on how to determine the duration.
The proposed requirements were developed in response to information generated by the Cennission's study of Unresolved Safety Issue A-44, Station Blackout. The proposed rule is intended to provide further assurance that a loss of both off-site, and emergency on-site electric AC power systems will not adversely affect the public health and safety.
A regulatory analysis has been prepared for the proposed rule. The estimated public risk reduction is 145,000 person-rem over 25 yer.rs, and the estimated total cost for industry to comply with the proposed rule is
$60 million. This results in an overall cost benefit ratio of about 2,400 person-rem per million dollars.
The alternatives to this proposed rulemaking are to take no action or to provide only guidance for plants to be able to cope with a station blackout period for a specified period. To take no action would not yield any reduction in public risk from station blackout events. To provide guidance only, since there is presently no requirement for nuclear power plants to be able to cope with a total loss of AC power, would not result in any basis for enforcement. The proposed rule is the recommended alternative based on its enforceability and, in part, on the favorable cost / benefit ratio.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 03/21/86 51 FR 9829 Proposed Action Comment Period End 06/19/86 51 FR 9892 Final Action for Division Review 03/05/87 Office Concurrenc on Final Action Completed 04/06/87 Final Action to ED0 10/15/87
- Final Action Published 01/30/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 25
TITLE:
- Station Blackout EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES N/A AGENCY CONTACT:
Alan Rubin /A. W. Serkiz Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8303/7487 1
)
i l
i 26
TITLE:
+ Broad Scope Modification of General Design Criterion 4 Requirements For Protection Against Dynamic Effects of Postulated Pipe Ruptures CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The proposed broad scope modification of General Design Criterion 4 (GDC 4) would allow demonstration of piping integrity by analyses to serve as a basis for excluding consideration of dynamic effects associated with pipe ruptures. A final rule published April 11, 1986 (51 FR 12502) was limited to the primary loops of pressurized water reactors (PWRs), whereas this proposed rule would cover all high energy piping in all light water reactors (LWRs). The modification would permit the general but selective removal of pipe whip restraints and jet impingement shields and other related changes in operating plants, plants under construction, and future plant designs, but will not impact other design requirements for containment design or ECCS performance. Alternative equipment qualification requirements developed by industry based on leak-before-break may be submitted to the NRC for review and approval in a limited number of applications.
1 TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 07/23/86 51 FR 26393 Proposed Action Comment Period End 09/22/86 51 FR 26393 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 06/08/87 Final Action to CRGR and ACRS 06/15/87 Final Action to ED0 08/10/87 Final Action to Commission 08/17/87 Final Action Published 10/30/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
John A. O'Brien Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7854 27
TITLE:
+ Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50; Appendix J ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would update and revise the 1973 criteria for preoperational and periodic pressure testing for leakage of primary containment boundaries of water-cooled power reactors.
Problems have developed in application and interpretation of the existing rule.
These result from changes in testing technology, test criteria, and a relevant national standard that needs to be recognized.
The revision is uroently needed to resolve continuing conflicts between licensees and NRC inspectors over interpretations. Current regulatory practice is no longer being reflected accurately by incorporation in the existing regulation of an obsolete national standard that was replaced in 1981.
The benefits anticipated include elimination of inconsistencies and obsolete requirements, and the addition of greater usefulness and a higher confidence in the leak-tight integrity of containment system boundaries under post-loss of coolant accident conditions.
The majority of the effort needed by NRC to issue the rule has already been expended.
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.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 10/29/86 (51 FR 39538)
Proposed Action Comment Period Extended to 04/24/87 (52 FR 2416)
Final Action for Division Review 11/15/87 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 03/15/88 Final Action to ED0 04/15/88 Final Action Published 06/15/88 j
28
i TITLE:
- Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No kGENCYCONTACT:
Gunter Arndt i
Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301-443-7893 l
29
TITLE:
+ Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) for Light Water Nuclear Power Reactors CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend regulations concerning acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems (ECCS) by allowing the use of realistic methods to demonstrate that an ECCS would protect the nuclear reactor core during a loss-of-coolant accident.
This action is proposed because research has shown that calculations perfomed under current requirenients greatly underestimate the ability of the ECCS to protect the core. This restricts the operation of some nuclear reactors unnecessarily and increases the costs of generating electricity. The proposed rule would allow use of the best information currently available to demonstrate that the ECCS would protect the reactor core during a loss-of-coolant accident.
Use of the proposed acceptance criteria could result in a 5 percent power upgrade for affected plants. The present value of energy replacement cost savings resulting from a potential upgrade would range from $13 to $147 million depending on the location and age of a specific plant.
The proposed rule would apply to all applicants for and holders of construction pemits for light water reactors.
Because the proposed rule represents a significant change in a regulatory requirement, the staff prepared and issued on May 15, 1987, a summary of ECCS research performed over the last 10 years which identifies the technical basis for the proposed rule. A regulatory guide was also prepared and issued on April 2, 1987.
This guide provides a definition of what constitutes an acceptable best estimate model and acceptable methods of performing the uncertainty evaluation.
The estimated cost to the NRC of this rulemaking is 2-3 staff-years and $200,000 of contractor support.
The only option to rulemaking considered by the staff was the continued use of the current licensing approach. At best, this is viewed as an interim solution because two separate calculations are required to meet the requirements of the current regulation and staff conditions for use of the licensing approach and continued use of the approach risks case-by-case litigation.
30
TITLE:
+ Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) for Light Water Nuclear Power Reactors TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 12/06/78 43 FR 57157 ANPRM Comment Period Begin 12/06/78 43 FR 57157 ANPRM Comment Period End 02/05/79 Proposed Action Published 03/03/87 52 FR 6334 Proposed Action Comment Period End 07/01/87 52 rR 6334 Final Action for Division Review 09/00/87 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 12/15/87 Final Action to ED0 03/01/88 Final Action Published 04/15/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2132; 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2239; 42 USC 2282; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Harry Tovmassian Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 (301) 443-7874 j
l 4
i I
31 j
TITLE:Consideration of Emergency Planning Rule Changes to Deal With Lack of Gv::ernmental Cooperation in Offsite Emergency Planning CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would, in limited circumstances, allow a full power nuclear plant operation to begin when there is a lack of State or local government cooperation in offsite emergency planning.
In j
earlier regulations, the Commission published revised emergency planning regulations which required that emergency plans be developed by licensees in cooperation with State and local governments.
Although the Commission acknowledged the possibility that some governments might not cooperate, the Commission premised the new rules l
on a coordinated effort among all parties. Because this coordination j
has proved impossible to achieve in a few isolated cases, this proposed
~
rulemaking is intended to cover those cases not contemplated by the 1980 amendments. The amendments will probably not impact on NRC resources.
Industry may experience a positive financial effect in the earlier operation of nuclear power plants already completed but currently non-operational due to local and/or state government non-cooperation. The public may be affected in that there may be less coordinated offsite emergency planning as compared to sites where full coordination has been achieved. On October 13, 1987, the staff submitted to the Commission SECY-87-257 which advises the Commission about the comments received on the proposed rule and offer discussion on options for further action.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 03/06/87 52 FR 6980 Proposed Action Comment Period Extended 06/04/87 52 FR 6980 Final Action Undetermined 1
LEGAL AUTHORITY 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Peter Crane Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel
)
Washington, DC 20555 301 634-1465 l
32
TITLE:
+ Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The Commission proposes to amend its regulations to incorporate by reference the Winter 1984 Addenda, Summer 1985 Addenda, Winter 1985 Addenda, and 1986 Edition of Section III, Division 1, of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME i
Code), and the Winter 1983 Addenda, Summer 1984 Addenda, Winter 1984 Addenda, Summer 1985 Addenda, Winter 1985 Addenda, and 1986 Edition of Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME Code.
A limitation is placed on the i
use of paragraph IWB-3640 as contained in the Winter 1983 Addenda and Winter 1984 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1.
This limitation requires that for certain types of welds, IWB-3640 be used as modified by the Winter 1985 Addenda. The sections of the ASME Code being incorporated provide rules for the construction of light-water-cooled nuclear power plant components and specify requirements for inservice inspection of those components. Adoption of these amendments would permit the use of improved methods for construction and inservice inspection of nuclear power plants.
TIMETABLE.
Proposed Action Published 06/26/87 52 FR 24015 Proposed Action Comment Period End 08/25/87 Final Action for Division Review 12/14/87 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 01/08/88 Final Action to ED0 03/15/88
- Final Action Published 03/31/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Gilbert C. Millman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washin9 ton, DC 20555 301 443-7713 33
TITLE:Backfit Requirement for Senior Operators at Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering an amendment to its rule concerning the backfitting of nuclear power plants. This rulemaking action is necessary to bring the existing backfitting rule into unambiguous conformance with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the Union of Concerned Scientist, et al. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Nos. 85-1757 and 86-1219 (August 4, 1987)). The rulemaking is intended to clarify when economic factors may be considered in making a decision as to whether or not a backfit requirement is imposed on a nuclear power plant.
TIMETABLE:
Propose Action Published 9/10/87. 52 FR 34223 l
I l
Proposed Action Comment Period End 10/13/87 52 FR 34223 Final Action to Commission 11/15/87 I
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
l 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 l
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Steven F. Crockett Nuclear Regulatory Commit.. ion Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-1465 34 1
TITLE:
+ Personnel Access Authorization Program (Part of Insider Package) i CFR CITATION:
1 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would establish a personnel screening program for individuals requiring unescorted reactor facility access, thus providing increased assurance of the trustworthiness and emotional stability of a reactor site population. Study has ones who might also be psychotic) gruntled employees (especially indicated that disoriented or dis at nuclear reactors are of primary safeguards concern because of their inside position.
While the Corr.:dssion has stated that at present it is satisfied with the level of safeguards in place at reactors, it approved publication of the proposed rule for public comment (49 FR 30726) as one means of further assuring protecticn of public health and safety. The public coment period concluded March 7,1985.
Extensive comments were received and analyzed.
Alternatives to rulemaking that were investigated included endorsing an ANSI standard through a regulatory guide, issuing a policy statement that endorses industry developed guidelines, using staff position papers, and implementing license conditions.
The proposed regulation would protect against the " insider" threat at reactors through the use of three components: (1)a background investigation to determine past history, (2) a psychological assessment to determine current emotional stability, and (3) a continual behavioral observation program to detect behavioral changes in an individual once granted unescorted access.
Primary benefit to the public and licensees would be an increased assurance of the trustworthiness and emotional suitability of individuals working in a nuclear reactor environment. Benefits to the NRC would result from the use of a codified program that assures that a uniform approach, meeting minimum requirements, will be applied in screening reactor personnel.
The net increase in cost per licensee site for all existing or planned power stations over their remaining useful lives is $2 million per site. The net increase in cost to the NRC due to estimated time in reviewing proposed plans and enforcement activities is $822,700.
l This is a one-time implementation cost; yearly operational costs are judged to be negligible.
35
r TITLE:
+ Personnel Access Authorization Program (Part of Insider Package)'
ABSTRACT CONT:
By affirmation vote on June 18, 1986, the Commission approved, as an alternative to rulemaking, the issuance of a policy statement endorsing the industry-developed guidelines for access authorization. This policy statement is under development.
The proposed rule will be withdrawn upon issuance of the policy statement.
TIMETABLE:
Policy Statement / Guidelines to E00 12/30/87 Policy Statement / Guidelines to Commission 01/30 od f
Proposed Policy Statement Published 03/01/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: -No AGENCY CONTACT:
Sandra Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l
Washington DC 20555 301 443-7746 f
H 36
)
TITLE:
+ Table S-3, Addition of Radon-222 and Technetium-99 Radiation Values and Appendix B Explanatory Narrative I
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 51 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule provides a narrative explanation of the numerical values established in Table S-3, " Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data," that appears in the Comission'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 I
governing the use of the table. The narrative explanation also l
addresses important fuel cycle impacts and the cumulative impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle for the whole nuclear power industry so that it may be possible to consider these impacts generically rather than repeatedly in individual licensing proceedings, thus reducing litigation time and costs for both NRC and applicants.
The proposed rule was published for public review and comment (46 FR 15154, March 4,1981), but the final rulemaking was deferred pending the outcome of a suit (Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v NRC, No. 74-1486) in the U.S. Court of Appeals.
The U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) decision of April 27, 1982, invalidated the entire Table S-3 rule. The Supreme Court reversed this decision on June 6, 1983.
The proposed rule to provide a narrative explanation for Table S-3 was revised to reflect new developments and the passage of time while the rulemaking was deferred. 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 extended to include radiation values for radon-222 and technetium-99 and the narrative explanation has been extensively revised from the rule published on March 4, 1981 (46 FR 15154).
The staff's estimate is that the completion of a final Table S-3 rule covering the new values for radon-222 and technetium-99, and the revired narrative explanation will be completed in FY 1989.
A Comission paper presenting the final rulemaking plan and schedule was submitted on August 18, 1986 (SECY 86-242). On September 8, 1986, SECY 86-242 was approved by the Commission.
37 1
l j
TITLE:
+ Table S-3, Addition of Radon-222 and Technetium-99 Radiation Values and Appendix B Explanatory Narrative TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 03/04/81 46 FR 15154 Proposed Action Comment Period End 05/04/81 Proposed Action for Division Review 09/00/87 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action 12/31/87 Proposed Action to E00/ Commission 03/25/88 Proposed Action Published 05/00/88 Final Action Published 12/00/88 l
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2011; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 4321; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 l
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
l William Pearson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 I.
301 443-7682 l
l l
38
TITLE:
- Elimination of Inconsistencies Between NRC Regulations and EPA Standards CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 directs NRC to promulgate criteria for the licensing of HLW geologic repositories.
Section 121 (c) of this act states that these criteria must be consistent with standards to be developed by EPA for the disposal of HLW in deep geologic repositories. The proposed rule is needed in order to eliminate several inconsistencies with the EPA standards, thus fulfilling the statutory requirement.
Because the NWPA directs NRC to eliminate inconsistencies between Part 60 and the EPA standard, the alternatives to the proposed i
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 Actier. Published 06/19/86 51 FR 22288 Proposed Action Comment Period End 08/18/86 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 07/15/87 Final Action to ED0 07/20/87 Final Action to Commission 07/30/87 Final Action Published Ur.dete rmined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Frank Costanzi/ Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7910/443-7668 39
l 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 EN0 determination.
It is desirable to get revised criteria in place in the event they are needed.
There are no alternatives to this rulemaking, as the current EN0 criteria are already embodied in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 140. The only way to modify these criteria, as this rule seeks to do, is through rulemaking.
There is no impact on public health or safety. The EN0 criteria provide legal waivers of defenses.
Industry (insurers and utilities) claims that a reduction in the ENO criterie could cause increases in insurance premiums. The final rule would also be responsive to PRM-140-1.
It is estimated that approximately 1.0 man year of NRC staff time will be reouired to process the final rule.
No contract funding is anticipated.
l TIMETABLE:
1 Proposed Action Published 04/09/85 50 FR 13978 Proposed Action Comment Period End 09/06/85 Final Action For Division Review 02/17/87 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 10/31/87 Final Action Package to ED0 11/30/87 Final Action to Commission 12/31/87 Final Action Published 01/31/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2210; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Harold Peterson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7691 l
40
(C) - Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking l
f l
)
l
)
I
TITLE:
Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern; Generic Rulemaking CFR CITATION:
l The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeks comments on a proposal to amend NRC regulations to address disposal of radioactive wastes that contain sufficiently low quantities of radionuclides that their disposal does not need to be regulated as radioactive.
The NRC has already published a policy statement providing guidance for filing petitions for rulemaking to exempt individual waste streams (August 29, 1986; 51 FR 30839).
It is believed that generic rulemaking could provide a more efficient and effective means of dealing with disposal of wastes below regulatory concern.
Generic rulemaking would supplement the policy statement which was a response to Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240).
The public will be asked-J to comment on 14 questions. The ANPRM requests public comment on
's several alternative approaches the NRC could take.
Public comment
^
will help to determine whether and how NRC should proceed on the matter.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 12/02/86 51 FR 43357 ANPRM Comment 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 l
AGENCY CONTACT:
Stanley Neuder Nuclear Regulatory Commmission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7742 41
TITLE:
Degree Requirement for Senior Operators at Nuclear Power Plants
)
+
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 55 ABSTRACT:
The Commission is considering an amendment to its regulations to require that applicants for a senior operator license of a nuclear power plant hold a baccalaureate degree in engineering or a related science from an accredited institution after January 1, 1991. Other baccalaureate degrees from an accredited institution may be accepted on a case-by-case basis. This contemplated rulemaking action is due to a Commission decision to enhance the levels of engineering and accident management expertise on shift.
The Commission is also considering issuing a policy statement concurrently with this rule related to utility implementation of the rule.
The staff analysis of comments on' the ANPRM has been completed and options for rulemaking and/or policy statements to address degree requirements and training for accident management have been developed.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM 05/31/86 51 FR 19561 ANPRM Comment Period Extended to 09/29/86 SECY Paper to Comission 04/16/87 Proposed Action for Division Review 01/05/88 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 03/05/88 Proposed Action to ED0 06/05/88 Final Action for Division Review 12/30/88 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 02/30/89
- Final Action to ED0 06/30/89 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Morton Fleishman Nuclear Regularory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7975 i
42 L-____
i 1
TITLE:
+ Definition of High-Level Radioactive Waste (HLW) in 10 CFR Part 60 i
i CFR CITATION:
ABSTRACT:
1 This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeks to revise the definition of HLW in Part 60 to reflect certain changes in the legal definition of HLW contained in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Because of the complex issues involved in revising the definition of HLW, which affects virtually the entire radioactive waste management system, the staff is proposing an ANPRM rather than a proposed rule. A revision of the definition of HLW would affect DOE's plans for a geologic repository, costs of waste disposal for certain waste generators, and the development of new technologies and facilities to dispose of certain types of wastes. A definition of HLW which clearly identifies these highly radioactive wastes needing permanent isolation i
would benefit the radioactive waste management system. NRC staff time for processing this rule is estimated to be 4 staff years.
Alternatives to rulemaking would be to take no action or request Congress to amend the NWPA. The rulemaking would eliminate uncertainty and reduce costs for the public, industry, and NRC.
a TIMETABLE:
ANPRM Action Published 02/27/87 52 FR 5992 ANPRM Comment Period End 04/29/87 ANPRM Comment Period Extended to 06/29/87 (52 FR 16403)
Proposed Action to ED0 03/15/88 Proposed Action to Comission 03/30/88 Proposed Action Published 04/30/88 Final Action Published 12/30/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY-42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Frank Costanzi/ Clark Prichard Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 j
301 443-7910/7668 4
43 1
)
s i
(D)-UnpublishedRules l
i i
l
t 1
i
TITLE:
Revised Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings 1
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 0; 10 CFR 1; 10 CFR 2; 10 CFR 9; 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
j The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has deferred furthor consideration of this proposal which would have revised the Commission's procedural rules governing the conduct of all adjudicatory proceedings, with the exception of export licensing proceedings. The proposed rule would comprehensively restate current practice, retitle the hearing office, and revise and l
reorganize the statement of the Commission's procedural rules to reflect current practice. The changes in this proposed rule would enable the Commission to render decisions in a more timely fashion and reduce the burden and expense to the parties participation in the proceedings.
TIMETABLE:
NPRM Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; d2 USC 2231; 42 USC 2241; 42 USC 5841; 5 USC 552 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
B.
Paul Cotter, Jr.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7787 l
45
TITLE:Availability of Official Records CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 2 ABSTRACT:
The proposed amendment would conform the NRC's regulations pertaining to the availability of official records to existing case law and agency practice. The amendment would reaffirm that the terms of 10 CFR 2.790 (c) provide submitters of information a qualified right to have their information returned upon request.
This amendment informs the public of three exceptions to the the right to withdraw pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(c) of the NRC's regulations, i.e., information submitted in a rulemaking proceeding that subsequently forms the basis for the. final rule, information which has been made available to an advisory committee or was received at an advisory committee meeting, and information that is subject to a pending Freedom of Information Act request.
I TIMETABLE:
Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
l Paul Bollwerk Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 202 634-3224 i
I 46 i
1-
TITLE:
l Negotiated Rulemaking on the Submission and Management of Records and Documents Related to the Licensing of a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste CFR CITATION:
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) provides three years for the NRC to reach a decision on construction authorization for a high-level waste repository.
In order for the NRC to be able to make its decision within the allotted time, ready access to all pertinent records must be assured to all parties in the licensing proceeding. The DOE has committed to develop an electronic information management system to be used for the licensing proceeding. The NRC staff intends to use the process of negotiated rulemaking to develop a proposed rule that would revise the Commission's discovery procedure and motion practice in 10 CFR Part 2 for the high-level waste licensing proceeding. This rule would require the DOE license application and all supporting records to be provided in a i
standardized electronic format. All parties to the licensing proceeding would be required to submit all relevant data to this system.
In turn, l
all parties would have access to the data base.
Resource estimates currently under development.
TIMETABLE:
Notice Of Intent Published 12/18/86 51 FR 45338 Notice of Intent / Comment Period Expires 02/18/86 Notice of Formation of Negotiating Committee 08/05/87 52 FR 29024 Proposed Action Published 07/08/88 Final Action to Commission 09/19/88 Final Action Published 10/14/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
NWPA, AEA, EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: To be determined AGENCY CONTACT:
Francis X. Cameron Nuclear Regulatory Consnission Office of General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8689 q
l 47 l
4
TITLE:
- Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Federal Assisted Programs CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 4 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend regulations concerning the enforcement of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, in Federally assisted programs or activities to include a cross reference to the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS).
This action is necessary because some facilities subject to the new construction or alteration requirements under section 504 are also subject to the Architectural Barriers Act. Therefore, reference to UFAS by all government agencies would diminish the possibility that recipients of Federal financial assistance would face conflicting enforcement standards.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 11/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Edward E. Tucker Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization / Civil Rights Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7697 48
TITLE:
Retention Periods for Records l
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 4; 10 CFR 11; 10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 25; 10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 31; l
10 CFR 32;-10 CFR 34; 10 CFR 35; 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 60; 10 CFR 61; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 71...
ABSTRACT:
This proposed rule would establish a specific retention period for certain NRC-required records. It would also provide a uniform standard acceptable to the NRC for the condition of a record throughout a specified retention period. Further, the rule would i
establish-throughout NRC regulations, with some exceptions, uniform retention periods of three years, five years, ten years, and the life of a license. This rule would bring NRC regulations into compliance with the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) i regulation (5 CFR 1320.6) that requires a specified retention l
period for each required record. It also implements NRC's 1982
]
comitment to 0MB to establish a record retention period of determinable length for each required record.
Amending twenty one parts of NRC regulations to specify clearly
)
what records to retain, how long to retain them, and the condition of a record useful for NRC. inspection, will be mutually beneficial to applicants and licensees and to the NRC.
j Recordkeeping labor for NRC's approximately 6,700 licensees who would be affected by the rule can be divided into four functions: (1) files, and (4) preparing the report, (2) storing the report, (3) retrieving the report information.
The principal savings to the licensee, dispersed over the i
period licensed, would be in physical storage space and associated storage equipment and materials. The burden of l
recordkeeping would be reduced approximately 10 percent annually for these licensees by the proposed rule. An estimated 466,323 hours0.00374 days <br />0.0897 hours <br />5.340608e-4 weeks <br />1.229015e-4 months <br /> associated with recordkeeping or $28,000,000 annually would be saved. Preparing and publishing this rule would cost NRC approximately 3000 hours0.0347 days <br />0.833 hours <br />0.00496 weeks <br />0.00114 months <br /> of staff time at $60 per hour for an estimated total of $180,000.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action for Division Review 01/00/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 04/10/87 Proposed Action Package to ED0 10/23/87 Proposed Action Published 10/30/87 Final Action Published 02/28/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201 49
l TITLE:
Retention Periods for Records EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Brenda Shelton Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Administration and Resources Management Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8132 l
l l
1 50
TITLE:
j
+ Deletion of Part 11 Requirement for Renewal of "R" Clearances CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 11 ABSTRACT:
1 The current regulations require licensees to renew "R" clearances I
every 5 years. This level of clearance corresponds to the "L"
]
clearances used by NRC and DOE which do not require renewal.
Because of this equivalence, the renewal-requirement for the "R" level licensee clearance is deemed unnecessary. This rulemaking would delete that requirement from Part 11.
TIMETABLE:
{
Proposed Action for Division Review 05/31/87 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Complete 07/31/87 Proposed Action to EDO 09/30/87 Proposed Action Published 12/31/87 Final Action Published 12/31/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201(i), 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No 1
AGENCY CONTACT:
Sandra D. Frattali Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 (301) 443-7746 l
4 51
(
TITLE:
- + Fee Schedule Change for NRC "U" and "Q" Access Authorizations CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 11,-25 ABSTRACT:
The final rule would increase the fees for NRC "U" and "Q" access authorizations charged to NRC licensees and others applying for access The authorizations which require full field background investigations.
final amendments would also require that the title of the NRC point of contact, in the event a request for an individual's access authorization is withdrawn or cancelled, be changed to read Chief, Personnel Security Branch, NRC Division of Security.
The final amendments are in response to the Office of Personnel l
Management's Notification of an increase in cost to conduct back-l ground investigations. There are no reasonable alternatives to rulemaking for implementing the increased rates. This rule will have a. negligible effect on the general public.
NRC resources required for processing this rule through final publication are estimated to be 50 staff hours.
i l
TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 11/30/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 2273 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Duane G. Kidd Office of Administration and Resources Management Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4124 1
1 i
52
TITLE:Residual Radioactive Contamination Limits for Decommissioning 4
CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would establish residual radioactive contamination limits (including induced and other volumetric radioactivity)as well as removable and fixed surface contamination which must be met before structures and lands can be released on an unrestricted, unregulated basis. Structures and lands with residual radioactive contamination below these limits would be eligible for unrestricted release without regulatory restrictions from a radioactivity standpoint.
The proposed amendments are necessary to provide licensees with quantitative criteria to use during decommissioning relative to cleanup of structures and lands intended to ensure that structures and lands used in NRC-licensed facilities and activities will be decontaminated in a manner that adequately protects public health before being released on an unrestricted, unregulated basis.
Alternatives to rulemaking would be continued reliance on the issuance of criteria as guidance. However, the criteria are currently incomplete, decisions on implementation and compliance are often required on a case-by-case basis, and criteria issued by guidance may not be enforced in the manner of legally binding regulations.
The proposed rule would relieve the administrative burden on NRC and licensees while providing a consistent and enforceable basis for agency action. NRC resource requirements are approximately 2 staff-years and a $237,000 research contract. Staff is participating in an EPA organized interagency working group developing Federal guidance on this subject.
TIMETABLE:
I Proposed Action for Division Review 06/15/87 1
Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 11/15/87 Proposed Action to ED0 03/15/88 Proposed Action Published 05/15/88 i
I Final Action 08/15/89 4
I LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Undetermined AGENCY CONTACT:
Catherine R. Mattsen Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7689 53
TITLE:Disposal of Low-Level Radioactively Contaminated Waste Oil from 4
Nuclear Power Plants CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 20 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule, which is being initiated in partial response to a petition filed by Edison Electric Institute and Utility Nuclear Waste-Management Group (PRM-20-15, dated July 31,1984), would amend NRC regulations to allow onsite incineration of waste oil at nuclear power plants subject to specified ccnditions.
Currently, the only approved disposal method for low-level, radioactively contaminated waste oil from nuclear puwer plants involves absorption or solidification, transportation to, and burial at a licensed disposal site. There is a clear need to allow, for very low activity level' wastes, the use of alternative disposal methods which are more cost effective from a radiological health and safety standpoint and which conserve the limited disposal capacity of low-level waste burial sites.
l 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, in a mature reactor economy, an estimated industry-wide economic savings of approximately $5 million to $18 million f
per year if such a rule were promulgated.
Alternatives to this rulemaking action are to maintain the status _ quo 9
or to wait until the Environmental Protection Agency develops standards on acceptable levels of radioactivity which may be released -to the environment on an unrestricted basis.
It is estimated that approximately l
1-2 person-years of NRC staff time will be required to process this l
rule.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 03/01/88 Office Concurrence on Final Action Completed 07/15/88 t
Final Action to ED0 08/19/88 Final Action to Commission 10/15/88 Final Action Published 12/30/88 l
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42.USC 2167; 42 USC 2073 l
EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No
. AGENCY CONTACT:
Catherine R. Mattsen iiuclear Regulatory Commission i
^
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7689 54
i TITLE:
+ Proposed Revisions to the Criteria anc Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
This proposed rule would amend Part 21 and sec. 50.55(e), both of which require the reporting of safety defects by licensees.
In addition, Part 21 requires reporting by non-licensees. This proposed amendinent was prompted by TMI Action Plan Task II, J.4, and NRC staff experience with Part 21 and section 50.55(e) reporting.
The main objectives of the rulemaking effort are: (1) elimination of duplicate evaluation and reporting of safety defects; (2) consistent threshold for safety defect reporting in Part 21 and section 50.55(e);
(3) establishment of consistent and uniform content of reporting under Part 21 and section 50.55(e) and (4) establishment of time limits within which a defect must be evaluated and reported.
Approximately 500 reports are submitted to the Comission annually under Part 21. Approximately 1500 reports are submitted to the Commission annually under section 50.55(e). These reports identify both plant-specific and generic safety for further NRC regulatory acticn. Under current rules, these reports have formed the basis for NRC issuance of numerous NRC information notices and bulletins.
This proposed rulemaking will reduce the potential for duplicate reporting and evaluation of safety defects which now exist. The rulemaking will establish a more coherent regulatory framework that is expected to reduce industry reporting and evaluation burden significantly without reducing safety effectiveness.
Alternatives to this rulemaking approach which were considered, varied from establishment of a single rule for all reporting of safety defects and op m +ing reactor events to maintaining i
the status quo for de M t reporting. All alternatives were rejected since they woula act substantially improve the current safety defect reporting situation.
]
Current costs of reporting under Part 21 and section 50.55 (e) are estimated at $10.08 million annually for industry and $1.74 million annually for NRC evaluations.
It is anticipated that the industry reporting burden should be reduced by $1.93 million; whild NRC burden should remain the same. Additional industry burden, though minimal, is anticipated in the area of reissuing procedures for reporting and record keeping.
The Commission disapproved this proposed rule on 10/20/86 and provided direction to the staff to revise the proposed rule.
The subsequent effort has proceeded based on Commission direction.
55
TITLE:
i
- Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Report'.ng of Defects and Noncompliance TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to Commission 12/16/85 Commission Rejected Proposed Action 10/20/86 Revised Proposed Action for Division Review 04/00/87 Office Concurrence on Revised Action Completed 07/24/87 Revised Proposed Action to ED0 08/03/87 Revised Proposed Action to Commission 08/24/87 Revised Proposed Action Published 01/11/88 Final Action Published 09/11/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2282; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
William R. Jones Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Analysis and Evaluat....
Operational Data Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7613 56
TITLE:
Regional Nuclear Materials Licensing for the U.S. Navy CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 30; 40; 70 ABSTRACT:
The final rule amends provisions concerning the domestic licensing of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials.
The final rule is s
intended to provide information about the further implementation of NRC's decentralized licensing program.
This amendment implements another phase of the process by transferring the newly consolidated U.S. Navy license to Region II.
impact on NRC, the licensee or the public.The final rule does not have any cost TIMETABLE:
Final Action Published 10/01/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
N/A AGENCY CONTACT:
George J. Deegan Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4114 57
TITLE:
+ Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Exposure Devices CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 34 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend the present regulations to establish performance standards for industrial radiography exposure devices. Overexposure of radiographer (and occasionally the general public) are more than double that of other radiation workers and have been a concern to the NRC for some time. Approximately 25-35% of 1he radiography overexposure are associated with equipment malfunction. The issue of safety requirements for these devices is a primary concern since the devices use relatively high intensity, high energy gama-ray emitting sources with the potential for serious overexposure.
Although a consensus standard for radiographic exposure devices was published in 1981, (American National Standard. N432) it is not clear that all manufacturers are adopting the standard.
The alternatives considered were to take no action at this time; amend the regulations to require performance standards for radiographic devices plus a requirement for radiographer to wear alarm dosimeters and simultaneously issue a regulatory guide endorsing the consensus standard, supplemented by st.ch other performance standards deemed necessary; and incorporate the consensus standard by reference in the regulations supplemented by such other performance standards as deemed necessary, plus a requirement for radiographer to wear alarm dosimeters.
The proposed rule would require licensees to modify radiographic devices to meet the performance standards through design changes and quality control procedures. Costs of incorporating the proposed changes are estimated to be a one-time cost of $1,600 per licensee to purchase alarm dosimeters and
$250 per year per licensee to replace existing devices with devices that meet the requirements of the consensus standard.
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 for Division Review 12/22/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 10/20/87 Proposed Action to E0010/30/87 Proposed Action Published 11/30/87 Final Action Published 08/15/88 58
TITLE:
+ Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Exposure Devices LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Donald 0. Nellis Nuclear Pquiatory Commission Office o, Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7989 59
TITLE:
- Basic Quality' Assurance in Radiation Therapy CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations concerning the medical use of byproduct material. The proposed amendments would require its medical licensees to implement certain quality assurance steps that would reduce the chance of therapy misadministration. The proposed action is necessary to provide for improved patient safety and serve as a basis for enforcement action in case of a therapy misadministration. The proposed amendment, which is intended to reduce the potential for and severity of therapy misadministration, would primarily affect hospitals, clinics, and individual physicians.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action for Division Review 08/01/86 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 12/10/86 Proposed Action to ED0 02/03/87 Proposed Action to Commission 02/05/87 Proposed Action Published 10/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Norman L. McElroy Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4108 i
60
TITLE:
- Comprehensive Quality Assurance in Medical Use and a Standard of Care CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 35 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering amendments to its regulations governing the use of byproduct material for radiation and diagnostic uses involving large radiation doses therapy.
In addition to current requirements for quality assurance, the contemplated amendments would require licensees that offer teletherapy or brachytherapy services to implement a comprehensive quality assurance program to reduce the chance of misadministration. The
)
advance notice requests comment on the extent to which additional radiopharmaceutical quality assurance requirements are needed and seek
)
recommendations on several questions being addressed in the comprehensive rulemaking effort.
TIMETABLE:
ANPRM Action for Division Review 08/01/86 Office Concurrence on ANPRM Completed 12/10/86 ANPRM Action to ED0 02/03/87 ANPRM Action to Commission 02/05/87 ANPRM Action Published 10/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Norman L. McElroy Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4108 61
i 1
TITLE:
- + Control of Aerosols and Gases CFR CITATION:
I 1
ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would remove the requirement that radioactive aerosols be administered to patients only in rooms + hat are at relative pressure to surrounding rooms.
The proposed rule, developed in response to PRM-35-6 from Mallinkrodt, Inc., would allow use of radioactive aerosols in locations such as intensive care units, critical care units, and patient
)
rooms. The proposed rule is necessary to allow physicians to administer l
needed clinical procedures to patients. Removal of the restriction would 1
involve minimal risk of increased exposure as a result of radioactive aerosol use. Medical licensees would be spared the expense of constructing or modifying facilities to permit the use of radioactive aerosols.
TIMETABLE:
Office Concurrence cf Proposed Action Published 10/30/87 Proposed Action to EDO 12/30/87 Proposed Action Published 01/31/88 Final Action to ED0 06/30/88 i
Final Action Published 07/31/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2111; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
Mo AGENCY CONTACT:
Alan Reecklein Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7986 62 l
l
_am
TITLE:
Criteria for Licensing the Long-Term Custody and Maintenance of Uranium Mill Tailings Sites CFR CITATi3N:
10 CFR 40 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would provide a procedure to license a custodian for the post-closure, long-term control of uranium mill tailings sites required by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA).
This amendment would establish a general license for long-term possession and control of uranium mill tailings by the Department of Energy, other designated Federal agencies, or states at their option for active sites now under license.
The general license would.
be formulated so that it would become effective for a particular site upon written NRC approval of a site specific surveillance and maintenance plan.
No impact to the public or industry is expected as a result of this proposed action.
TIMETABLE:
Prorosed Action for Division Review 12/04/87 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 03/04/88 Proposed Action to ED0 03/15/88 Proposed Action Published 05/30/88 Final Action Published 12/30/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Mark Haisfield Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 (301)443-7698 63
TITLE:
1 Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission proposes to clarify its regulations on the use of the terms "important to safety" and
" safety related" by adding definitions of these two terms and of " facility licensing documents" to 10 CFR Part 50 and by discussing how these definitions will be applied in NRC licensing reviews. Significant issues concerning the meaning of these terms as they are used in this part have arisen in Comission licensing proceedings. This proposed rule would define these terms and clarify the nature and extent of their effect on quality assurance requirements, thereby resolving these issues.
Rulemaking was chosen as the method of resolving this issue as a result of the Comission's directive to resolve the issue by rulemaking contained in the Shoreham licensing decision (CLI-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 E00 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 Commission 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.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to Comission 05/29/87 Comission Decision on SECY 86-164 09/30/87 Proposed Action for Division Review 01/15/88 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 01/29/88 Proposed Action Package to ED0 12/30/88 Proposed Action Published 03/31/88 Final Action Pub'ished Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 5846 64
TITLE:
Safety Related and Important to Safety in 10 CFR Part 50 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Jerry N. Wilson Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4727 65
TITLE:Alternative Methods for Leakage Rate Testing CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes a limited amendment to its regulations to clarify a question of interpretation in regard to leakage testing of containments of light-water-cooled nuclear power plants.
This proposed amendment would explicitly permit the continued use of a statistical data analysis technique that the NRC has considered to be Rulemaking an acceptable method of calculating containment leakage rates.
is the only acceptable alternative for resolving this issue because the regulations specify the methods the NRC finds acceptable for Because the proposed rule would simply make calculating leakage rates.
another method of calculating leakage rates available to the industry, 3
there is no economic impact likely to result from this action.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action for Division Review i
Office Concurrence on Proposed Actic.. Completed l
Proposed Action to ED0 Proposed Action Published Final Action Published LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
E. Gunter Arndt Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 492-3914 66 m-mm_-.L-
TITLE:
+ Part 51; Conforming Amendments CFR CITATION:
' 1'O CFR 51; 10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would provide procedures for performing an environmental review of High Level Waste geologic repositories.
Part 51 contains no provisions for the environmental review of a license application for a HLW repository. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established requirements for environmental reviews which are at variance with the environmental reviews which the NRC performs in licensing other types of nuclear facilities. This issue must be addressed in order to avoid delay in the U.S. HLW Program. The proposed rule would benefit the public, industry, and NRC by clarifying licensing procedures, thus avoiding case determinations and possible litigation during HLW geologic repository licensing. Minor revisions to Part 60 will be necessary to conform to the environmental requirements of the NWPA.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action Published 12/31/87 Final Action Published 12/31/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 10101 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
James R. Wolf Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 492-8694 67
i l
1 TITLE:
Early Site Permits; Standard DesP n Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Reart' s 4
CFR CITATION:
ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering adding a new part to its regulations to improve the reactor licensing process. The proposed rule would provide for the issuance of early site permits, standard design certifications, and combined construction permits and conditional operating licenses for nuclear power reactors. These procedural reforms are intended to improve the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of nuclear power plant licensing without detracting from protection of the public health and safety or the public's ability to participate in the licensing process. They are designed to implement as much of the Commissions's proposed " Nuclear Power Plant Standardization and Licensing Act of 1987" as is permissible under its existing statutory authority.
The proposed legislation is based on an earlier proposal that was developed by the Commission's Regulatory Reform Task Force.
If licensing reform legislation is ultimately enacted, the rules can be modified to implement that legislation fully.
TIMETABLE:
l Proposed Action Published 01/00/88 Final Action to Commission 10/00/88 Final Action Published 12/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2232; 42 USC 2233; 42 USC 2236; 42 USC 2239; 42 USC 2282; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 4842; 42 USC 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Steve Crockett Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301 634-1465 68
TITLE:
+ Criteria and Procedures for Emergency Access to Non-Federal and Regional Low-level Waste Disposal Facilities CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 62 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would establish procedures and criteria for fulfilling NRC's responsibilities associated with acting on recuests by low-level radioactive waste generators, or State officials on behalf of those generators, for emergency access to operating, non-Federal or regional, low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities under Section 6 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA),
Section 6 of the LLRWPAA authorizes the NRC to grant emergency access to any non-Federal low-level waste disposal facility, if necessa',,
to eliminate the immediate and serious threat to the public health and safety or the common defense and security, provided the threat cannot be mitigated by any alternative.
TIMETABLE:
Office Concurrence on Proposed Action 05/00/87 Proposed Action to ED0 07/30/87 Proposed Action to Commission 08/12/87 Proposed Action Published 10/00/87 Final Action Published 08/00/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2021 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
Yes AGENCY CONTACT:
Janet Lambert Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4751 69
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 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 raoicactive 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 onasinglesetofsafetystandardsand. guidance (thoseoftheIAEA) from which individual countries can develop their domestic regulations.
Perhaps as important, the favorable and accident experience of every i
country that bases it 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 i
minimal increase in costs to affected licensees.
Proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 71, based on current IAEA regulations', will be issued for public comments. The task will be scheduled over a 2-year interval i
ending January 1989 and will consume 2-3 staff-years of effort depending on the number and difficulty of conflicts to be resolved.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action for Division Review 09/04/87 Office Concurrence on Proposed Action Completed 10/30/87 Proposed Action to E00 01/30/88 Final Action Published 01/30/89 1
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 t
AGENCY CONTACT:
Donald R. Hopkins Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7690 70 l
.o
TITLE:
Assigning NRC Sole Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste 4
Disposal CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 150 ABSTRACT:
This rulemaking would establish NRC's sole authority for approving onsite disposal of low-level waste at all NRC licensed reactors and at Part 70 fuel cycle facilities. There is a need to amend Part 150.15 to authorize one agency (the NRC) to regulate all onsite disposal of low-level waste in order to provide a more comprehensive regulatory review procedure of all onsite waste management activities and to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. Uniform review procedures by the NRC will provide for greater assurance that the radioactive material will not present a health hazard at a later dcte after the site is decommissioned.
TIMETABLE:
Proposed Action to ED0 11/30/87 Proposed Action Published 12/30/87 Final Action Published 12/30/88 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2021; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
John Stewart U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7980 71 j
i
II PETITIONS
l (A) - Petitions incorporated into final rules or petitions denied since June 30, 1987 l
l l
1 l
l l
I l
t qc l
1 I
k l
l l
I l
1 l
I A
1
'l
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-50-44 PETITIONER: Consnittee to Bridge the Gap PART:
50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION:
September 3,1986(51FR31341)
SUBJECT:
Fire Protection Standards for Graphite Reactors
SUMMARY
Description.
The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to require operators of reactors that use graphite as a moderator or reflector to (1) prepare and submit for NRC approval fire response plans for a graphite fire and (2) measure the energy stored in their graphite, and revise their safety analyses to consider the risks and consequences of a graphite fire in their facilities.
During the comment period, the staff is administering a technical assistance contract with a national laboratory to evaluate independently the technical issues related to this petition.
The schedules are timed so that the contractor can also assist the staff with the evaluation of comments received. Technical issues under study include: the necessary and sufficient conditions to cause graphite ignition and to lead to self-sustaining, rapid oxidation reactions; the build-up, storage, and release of "Wigner" energy resulting from fast neutron irradiation.of graph te; actual involvement of graphite burning in the Windscale and Chernobyl reactor accidents; and implications of these issues to the safety of operation of NRC-licenses ncn-power reactors.
This issue has not previously been explicitly addressed in depth by NRC, although some reactors have been evaluated case-by-case. The issue does not appear to be one requiring m
urgent rulemaking action by NRC, hence the route of requesting
- '1 comments was selected.
Objective. To adequately protect the public in the event of a lire at a reactor that uses graphite.
Background.
The comment period expired on February 3, 1987.
Twenty-eight comments were received in response to the petition.
The staff and its contractor are evaluating these comments.
i 73
TIMETABLE: Cornplete.
A notice of denial for this petition was published in the Federal Register on October 6, 1987 (52 FR 37332).
CONTACT: Theodore S. Michaels Office of Nuclear. Reactor Regulation 301-492-8251 1
i i
I i
=l l
i 74 J
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-73-6 PETITIONER: Wisconsin Electric Power Company, et al.
PART:
73 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION:
February 15, 1982 (47 FR 6659)
SUBJECT:
Modification of Qualifier. ions for Security Personnel of Nuclear Power Plants an
- Other Special Nuclear Material i
Licensees
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioners request that the Comission eliminate the requirement that armed security personnel at l
nuclear power plants or other facilities licensed to handle special nuclear material (1) carry an extra pair of eye-glasses and (2) undergo an annual medical examination within the preceding 30 days of an annual physical fitness test.
The petitioners contend that these requirements are
" excessive and unreasonable" when compared to similar l
l requirements for security personnel in other government i
l agencies or in operations with security requirements comparable to those of nuclear power plants. The petition l
includes proposed amendatory text which would achieve these modified requirements.
Objective. To eliminate requirements for security i
personnel that the petitioner contends are " excessive and j
l unreasonable."
1 Background. The coment period closed April 19, 1982.
i Nine comments on the petition were received and are i
being evaluated.
l TIMETABLE: Complete. A notice of partial denial for this petition was published in the Federal Register on September 3, 1987 (52 FR 33420),
i i
l CONTACT: Sandra Frattali j
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7746
)
I i
g i
i 75 4
I
(B) - Petitions incorporated into proposed rules
~ ~
B WI
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-20-14 PETITIONER: The University of Utah PART:
20 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: January 30, 1984 (49 FR 3667)
SUBJECT:
Disposal of Very Low Concentrations of Short-Lived Radionuclides
SUMMARY
Description. The petitioner proposed an amendment of 9 20.306 and the addition of a new 9 20.307 to alleviate a number of problems that many licensees are experiencing under current regulations with the disposal of experimental animal waste material and certain radionuclides components. The petitioner states that the changes would substantially reduce nonradiological risks related to the collection, storage, packaging, and shipping of certain biological and chemical wastes without compromising or reducing radiation protection.
Objective. To obtain additional options for the disposal of very low concentrations of short-lived radionuclides.
Background.
A request for information was published with the notice of receipt of the petition. The comment period closed March 30, 1984. Forty-five comment letters were j
received, including one from the petitioner that revised the initial petition and offered a second version that was
[
I based on the petitioner's analysis of the comment letters.
Most of the comment letters favored the petition. Approxi-mately one-fourth of the comment letters contained data that were solicited when the notice of receipt of the petition was published. These data will be used to help evaluate the merit of the petition.
The staff is in the process of analyzing the data, the petition, the revised petition, and other comment letters and has requested guidance on appropriate methodology from the Environmental Protection Agency. The Commission published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on December 2, 1986 (51 FR 43367) regarding criteria for radioactive waste below regulatory concern. About i staff year will be required to complete action on this petition.
TIMETABLE: Complete. The staff intends to resolve this petition in the generic rulemaking, " Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern",
Parts 2 and 20.
CONTACT: William R. Lahs Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7632 77
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-20-15 PETITIONER: Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (UNWMG)
PART:
20 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: NONE FEDERAL REGISTER C1TATION: September 19, 1984 (49 FR 36653)
SUBJECT:
New Methods of Disposal of Waste Oil Contaminated by Low-Level Radioactive Material from Nuclear Power Plants
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioners request that the Comission issue a regulation governing the disposal of waste oil contaminated by low-level radioactive material from nuclear power plants by establishing radionuclides concentrations in waste oil at which dispost.1 may be carried out without regard to the radioactive material content of the waste.
Each year, the petitioners state, quantities of waste oil containing very low levels of radioactive contamination are produced at nuclear power plants. The petitioners maintain that the currently used method of disposal (which is absorption or solidification, transportation to, and burial at a licensed disposal facility) is costly, inconsistent with hRC's policy in favor of volume reduction, and represents an inefficient use of resources.
In order to provide efficient, environ-mentally acceptable, and cost beneficial methods, the petitioners propose six disposal methods with specific gross activity limits for itemized radionuclides to be included in a new Appendix E to Part 20.
Objective. To develop a "below regulatory concerns" value of 1 mrem /yr for disposal of waste oil generated in nuclear power plants, which is consistent with Comission and ACRS philosophies and policies. The provisions of 40 CFR Part 190 would be met.
Background. The coment period closed November 19, 1984.
ThTComission has initiated a rulemaking which would grant the petition in part, permitting, and establishing requirements for, incineration of waste oil on site. This appears to be the most expeditious way of responding to the petition and leaves decisions concerning "below regulatory concern criteria for consideration separately; an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-making was published on December 2, 1987 (51 FR 43367) on the subject of below regulatory concern waste and a generic rule-making is being considered.
78
TIMETABLE: Complete. This petition will be addressed in the proposed rule on, " Disposal of Low-Level Radioactively Contaminated Waste Oil from Nuclear Power Plants", Part 20.
CONTACT: Catherine Mattsen Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7689 79
PETIlION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-25, PRM-50-25A PETITIONER: State of Illinois and the Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America, Inc., et al.
PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: February 4,1980(45FR7653)
SUBJECT:
Extension of Construction Completion Date SUMMAR(: Description. The petitioners filed essentially identical petitions which request that the Comission amend its regulations in Part 50, 6 50.55, to require that a " good cauce" proceeding concerning a requesteo amendment of a construction permit to exceed the latest construction completion date must consider whether a pennittee has I
shown good cause for the continued construction of a nuclear power plant in light of all the circumstances at the time the application is considn M The petitioners furt equest that the Comission. Atermine that " good cause" is not limited to the reasons why construction was not completed by the latest completion date in the construc-tion permit.
Objective. To prevent frustration of the statutory purposes of Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, which permits the extension of the completion date for construction of a nuclear power plant only for good cause shown.
Background. The coment period closed April 4,1980. Six comments were received, including two from the petitioners on jurisdictional issues.
Comments filed by parties other than the petitioners opposed the petition. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) and the Comission have ruled on the " good cause" issue which is the subject of this petition.
The matter was alluded to in the Bailly case before the U.S.
Court of Appeals. The staff has prepared a draft proposal for the Comission. The State of Illinois has formally withdrawn its petition. The other petitioners have not yet formally withdrawn their petition.
TIMETABLE: Complete. A Federal Register notice denying this petition will be submitted to the EDO in October 1987.
CONTACT: Ronald M. Smith Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 301-492-4396 80
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-60-2 and PRM-60-2A PETITIONER: States of Nevada and Minnesota PART: 60 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: April 30, 1985 (50 FR 18267)
December 19, 1985 (50 FR 51701)
SUBJECT:
Implementation of Certain Environmental Standards Which Have Been Proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency
SUMMARY
Description.
The original petition (PRM-60-2) asked the Commission to revise 10 CFR Part 60 by adopting certain " assurance requirements" previously included in proposed standards published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The NRC had objected to EPA's " assurance requirements" as being outside the scope of EPA's environmental standard-setting authority.
Since the NRC's objection to these requirements was principally jurisdictional, the petitioners sought to expedite promulgation of the final EPA standards by petitioning the Commission to incorporate EPA's wording within the NRC's own regulations. Later, following publication of EPA's final standards, the petitioners filed an amended petition (PRM-60-20A) which revised the text of the requested changes consistent with the wording published by EPA. The amended petition continues to seek adoption of EPA's " assurance requirements," which the petitioners believe would lead to a safer high-level waste (HLW) repository, and also proposes requirements and considerations for Commission adoption of DOE's Environmental Impact Statement as required by section 114(f) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
Objective. To amend 10 CFR Part 60 to be consistent with final EPA HLW standards to enhance HLW repository safety.
Ba;1. ground. The original petition (PRM-60-2) was docketed by the Comission on January 28, 1985, receipt was noticed in the Federal Register on April 30, 1985, and public comments were received until July 1, 1985. The amended petition (PMl-60-2A) was docketed by the Commission on October 3, 1985. On June 19, 1986, the NRC published proposed revisions to 10 CFR Part 60 intended to conform Part 60 to the final EPA HLW standards.
The comment period ended August 18, 1986.
81
TIMETABLE: Complete. The staff plans to address this petition in the proposed rule, " Elimination of Inconsistencies Between NRC Regulations and EPA Standards", Part 60 The proposed rule will respond to the portions of this petition which request adoption of EPA's assurance requirements." The staff will address separately adoption of the separtment of Energy's Environmental Impact Statement in the proposed rule " Conforming Amendments to 10 CFR Parts 51 and 60".
CONTACT: Dan Fehringer Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-427-4533 l
82
(C) - Petitions pending staff review
I C
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-50-20 PETITIONER:
Free Environment, Inc., et al.
PART:
50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
100 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: May 19, 1977 (42 FR 25785)
SUBJECT:
Reactor Safety Measures
SUMMARY
- Description.
The petition requested that the Commission amend ) art 50 before proceeding with the processing of license applications for the Central Iowa Nuclear Project to require that (1) all nuclear reactors be located below ground level; (2) all nuclear reactors be housed in sealed M
buildings within which permanent heavy vacuums are maintained; (3) a full-time Federal employee, with full authority to order the plant to be shut down in case of any operational abnormality, always be present in all nuclear generating stations; and (4) the Central Iowa Nuclear Project and all other reactors be sited at least 40 miles from major population centers.
M Objective. To ensure that additional safety measures are employed in the construction and siting of nuclear power plants. The petitioner seeks to have recommendations and procedures practiced or encouraged by various organizations and some current NRC guidelines adopted as mandatory requirements in the Commission's regulations.
Background. The coment period closed July 18, 1977.
Three comments were received. The first three parts of the petition (see Description section above) were incorporated with PRM-50-19 for staff action purposes.
A notice of denial for the third part of the petition was published in the Fedcral Register on February 2, 1978 (43 FR 4466). A notice of denial for the first two parts of the petition was published April 19, 1978 (43 FR 16556).
NRC staff work on the fourth part of the petition will be carried out in connection with the ongoing Part 100 rulemaking on demographic criteria.
83
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 Pemit Applications have led the Comission's Executive Director for Operations to conclude that this rulemaking should be tenninated. When the Commission decides that further rulemaking on demographic criteria should be undertaken, the unresolved portions of the petition will be considered in the context of that rulemaking.
TIMETABLE: Resolution scheduled for completion in December 1987.
CONTACT: John Stewart Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7980 84
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-50-47 PETITIONER: Quality Technology Company PART:
50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: January 12, 1987 (52 FR 1200)
SUBJECT:
Establishing an Employee Concerns Program and Resolution of Employee-Identified Concerns at Nuclear Facilities
SUBJECT:
Description. The petitioner requests that the Comission add to its regulations requirements that all utilities involved in a nuclear program establish and maintain an employee concerns program and report to the NRC's Office of Investigation all employee-identified concerns related to " wrongdoing activities." Based on the petitioner's experience with employee concerns programs, the petitioner contends that more than half of employee-identified concerns are substantiated and that adding these requirements to the NRC's regulations may ensure resolution of the issues related to these concerns.
Obiective. To require that all utilities involved in a nuclear program [1) establish and maintain an employee concerns program and (2) report to the NRC's Office of Investigation all employee-identified concerns related to " wrongdoing activities."
Background. The petitioner conducted or participated in employee concerns programs at several utilities and thinks that such a program is an effective vehicle for obtaining accurate and insightful information about nuclear safety-related issues from employees involved in the construction or operation of a nuclear facility. The comment period closed March 13, 1987.
TIMETABLE: The resolution of this petition is scheduled for November 1987.
CONTACT: Markley L. Au Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7743 85
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-100-2 PETITIONER:
Public Interest Research Group, et al.
PART:
100 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: July 1, 1976 (41 FR 27141)
SUBJECT:
Population Density Criteria Near Nuclear Power Plants
SUMMARY
- Description.
The petitioners request that the Comission amend its regulations to prohibit the construction of nuclear reactors where the population in the surrounding area exceeds or will exceed specified numerical limits.
The petitioners' proposed criteria would limit permissible population density to 400 people per square mile within a 40-mile perimeter. The petitioners state that they regard these proposed criteria as interim standards to be used until the Comission is able to generate its own numerical standards on population density.
Objective. To restrict utilities from building nuclear reactors too close to metropolitan areas.
Background. The coment period closed August 30, 1976.
Twelve coments were received. An NRC staff paper (SECY-78-624) was submitted to the Comission on December 4, 1978.
In a memorandum to the Executive Director for Operations dated February 15, 1979, the Comission deferred action on the population density siting criteria issue pending submission of the Siting Policy Task Force report. The petitioners were notified of this deferral by letter dated March 9, 1979. The petitioners were notified by letter (in July 1980) that the petition would be considered in the context of the rulemaking on siting criteria.
Petitioners were notified by letter on January 26, 1982, that the proposed rule on siting criteria would be delayed until sumer 1983 to await safety goal implementation and source term reevaluation.
Recent events, including the reactor accident at Chernobyl in the USSI., continuad uncertainty over certain aspects of the accident source term work, and the lack of projected Construction Permit Applications have led the Comission's Executive Director for Operations to conclude that this rulemaking should be terminated. When the Comission 86
decides that further rulemaking on demographic criteria should be undertaken, the unresolved portions of the petition will be considered in the context of that l
rulemaking.
TIMETABLE: Resolution scheduled for completion in December 1987.
CONTACT: John Stewart Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7980 87
(D) - Petitions with deferred action
1 D
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-40-23 PETITIONER:
Sierra Club PART: 40 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
None FEDERA.L REGISTER CITATION:
February 25, 1981 (46 FR 14021);
May 2, 1983 (48 FR 19722)
SUBJECT:
Licensing the Possession of Uranium Mill Tailings at Inactive Storage Sites.
SUMMARY
- Description.
The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to license the possession of uranium mill tai' lings of inactive storage sites. The petitioner proposes the following regulatory action to ensure that the public health and safety is adequately protected: (1) repeal the licensing exemption for inactive uranium mill tailings sites subject to the Department of Energy's remedial programs; (2) require a license for the possession of byproduct material on any other property in the vicinity of an inactive mill tailings site if the byproduct materials are derived from the sites; or, in the alternative, (3) conduct a rulemaking to determine whether a licensing exemption of these sites or byproduct materials constitutes an unreasonable risk to public health and safety. On March 23, 1983, the petitioner filed 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 tailings 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 Tailings Radiation Control Act.
89
Background The comment period closed April 27, 1981. Three connents were received, all stating the petition should be denied. The comment period on the amendment to the petition closed June 30, 1983. Uranium mill tailings are regulated under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (Pub. L.95-604, 42 U.S.C. 7901, et seq.). Title I of the Act directs that the Department of Energy, in consul-tation with NRC, conduct a remedial action program at certain inactive uranium mill tailings sites. Title V of the Act authorizes NRC to regulate disposal of the tailii.,.,
at active sites.
TIMETABLE: Resolution of this petition is on hold pending amendments to Part 40 dealing with the long-term care and custody of reclaimed mill tailings sites.
Completion of this rulemaking is scheduled for December 1988. Resolution of the petition is scheduled for June 1989.
CONTACT: Mark Haisfield Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7698 90
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-40-24 PETITIONER:
Union Carbide Corporation PART: 40 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: November 30, 1982 (47 FR 53889)
SUBJECT:
Revised Criteria for Operation of Uranium Mills and Disposition
(-
of Tailings or Wastes L
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioner proposes that the Commission amend its regulations setting out criteria for the operation of uranium mills and the disposition of tailings or wastes resulting from uranium milling activities.
The petitioner suggests specific amendments to the criteria governing the selection of new tailings disposal sites or
(
the adequacy of existing tailings disposal sites, the seepage of toxic materials into the groundwater, the earth cover to be placed over tailings or wastes to prevent the surface exhalation of radon, and the charge imposed on each mill operator to cover the cost of long-tenn surveillance.
F The petitioner supports its suggested amendments with L
information it says was not available to the Commission at
(
the time the regulations were issued.
Objective. To significantly reduce the compliance costs incurred by the petitioner in the operation of its uranium milling facilities while continuing to adequately protect public health, safety, and the environment.
Background. The comment period that originally closed January 31, 1983, was extended until May 2,1983. The petitioner is a New York-based corporation engaged in uranium exploration, milling, and mining.
The regulations the petitioner seeks to amend were issued as part of NRC's regulations implementing the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (Pub. L.95-604, 42 U.S.C.
7901,etseq.).
These regulations were published.in the Federal Register on October 3, 1980 (45 FR 65531).
TIMETABLE: Resolution of this petition is scheduled for April 1988, following publication of the revision to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40, scheduled for October 1987.
CONTACT: Mark Haisfield Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7698 91
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-40-25 PETITIONER: State of Alabama PART: 40 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: N0hE FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: December 31,1985(50FR53335)
SUBJECT:
Regulations Governing Unimportant Quantities of Source Material
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations governing unimportant quantities of source material. The petitioner suggests that the NRC examine the exemption from licensing for products or parts of products fabricated of or containing tungsten or magnesium-thorium alloys whose thorium content is less than 4 percent by weight and either remove the restriction on this exemption or set out the restriction as part of a general license.
The petitioner believes that, in placing a restriction on an exemption, the NRC has created a structurally deficient regulation that may lead to unintentional violations by persons who may receive products covered by the exemption and be unaware of any further restrictions.
Objective.
To ensure that a person who obtains an exempt product covered by the exemption is aware of any limitations placed on the use of the product.
Background. The comment period for this action closed March 3,1986. Only one connent was received, and it opposed the petition.
TIMETABLE: Staff action on the petition has been deferred pending further action by the State of Alabama.
CONTACT: Sterling Bell Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-427-9026 92
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER:
PRM-50-31 1
PETITIONER: Citizens' Task Force PART:
50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
70 FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION: March 24, 1982 (47 FR 12639)
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 respective utility with the funding to purchase, install, and operate radiological monitoring equipment to reach and maintain the level of preparedness deemed necessary by the affected municipalities; and (3) utilities be required to finance the emergency planning efforts of municipalities located near nuclear reactors.
Objective. To establish an effective notification and evacuation system in communities located near nuclear reactors.
Background.
The comment period closed May 24, 1982.
TIMETABLE:
Staff action on the response to the petitioner is scheduled for April 1988 (to be coordinated with the severe accident research program and publication of NUREG-1150); however, this is dependent upon the Commission's policy decision in the emergency planning area.
CONTACT: Stephen A. McGuire Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7900 93
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-45 PETITIONER:
Kenneth G. Sexton PART:
50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS:
None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION:
October 6, 1986 (51 FR 35518)
SUBJECT:
Extending the Emergency Planning Zone
SUMMARY
- Description. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to require that current methodologies and analytical techniques be used to reevaluate the established Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) for nuclear power plants. The petitioner is concerned that emergency planning for areas within and beyond the 10-mile distance provided in the Coninission's regulations is inadequate because the current 10-mile EPZ was determined with what the petitioner considers outdated methodologies and data The petitioner points out that advanced techniques and new information obtained through research in the last 10 years have produced improved calculations for determining the size of an EPZ.
Objective. The petitoner believes that there is overwhelming justification to request that the size of the EPZ be reevaluated on a site-specific basis, after allowing for review of the determination report by any interested parties.
Background. The comment period for this petition, 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 April, 1988.
CONTACT: Stephen A. McGuire Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7900 94
PETITION DOCKET NUMBER: PRM-50-46 PETITIONER: State of Maine PART: 50 OTHER AFFECTED PARTS: None FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION : December 30,1986(51FR47025)
SUBJECT:
Emergency Planning
SUMMARY
- Description.
The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its emergency planning regulations to (1) expand the emergency planning zone for the plume exposure pathway and for the ingestion pathway; (2) require that emergency planning be done before any construction of a nuclear facility is permitted and that the Governor of each affected State approve the 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 coment period expired March 2,1987.
TIMETABLE: Staff action on the petition is scheduled to be completed in April 1988, but depends on the Comission policy decision in the emergency planning area.
CONTACT:
Stephen A. McGuire Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 301-443-7900 95
/
,~,ac,o=
u..luca s a autaroavcouuinio=
. ai noa r ~uun a <u,~,. rioc, v., a.
..-i 7Eo',"57 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG-0936,Vol.6fNo.3 ni issrauc1 o~s m aeviasi 2 Tiits avo svetitt 7
3 taavset4%x NRC REGULAT.
AGENDA QUARTERLY RE
'T JULY-SEPTEMBEFh 987
- o ^ " @ " ' ""'" " a j
j uo~ r,.
u s aur oa<s' NOVEMBFR 1987 f6 oan an oar issuso u
n vnsa BWVEMBER 1987 OfbSf50F $ES[N$dC05S
' ~
OFFICEOFADMINISTRAT@NANDRESOURCESMANAGEMENT U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORt,gCOMMISSION
/ys oa oaa~r ~v una WASHINGTON, D.C.
2055$
io s,0~se i~o oeo.m.,ics ~...~o u.
....s.,,
,c g
...o,..,ca, SAME AS 7 ABOVE OUARTERLY
<a o,easco covtato cewee.e aerees JULY-SEPTEMBER 1987 i2 sur,au N r..
~ou.
f 13 A9st ACT 1200 words or esse d
THENRCREGULATORYAGENDAISk'COMPILAT OF ALL RULES ON WHICH THE NRC HAS PROPOSEDORISCONSIDERINGACTIgNAND L PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING WHICH HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSIO %AND A-PENDING DISPOSITION BY THE COMMISSION.
THE REGULATORY AGENDA IS UPDATE AND~ ISSUED EACH QUARTER.
ftk$
!s e
t is oocuus Nr 4N.t ys's, na vwc; s oesca.*TOas ja is Avail 4sitir r COMPILATION OF
. ES
"^""
PETITIONS FOR-ULEMAKING UNLIMITED
'6 SECumiTv et OSSIFICATION
< r.
e totNTieltas/0,. ANoto Maus
^
l l M9 FTm (rns report) 5 UNCLASSIFIED k
17 svuota os,.Gts is,aice
- U. S. GovC Ah*C h r #RJ hi!NG orrict,1937 732 2??i6')?15
UNITED STATES 3,,c,4t rouars ctass sari NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Postacht'JES "^'o WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555
,,gy, o c,,
OFFICIAL BUSINESS Sect =on I - Rules i
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 Action Completed Rules Nkh. chm-ADM 77 I 1AN187 U'
DIV OF PUS SVC#
Proposed Rules 0-[jp a Pus Mir aR-POR Nusto WASHINGTON OC
?0555 Advance Notice - Proposed Rulemaking Unpublished Rules Section ll Petitions for Rulemaking Petitions - Final or Denied Petitions Incorporated into Proposed Rules Petitions - Pending Petitions - Deferred Action