ML20055D385
Text
,
'r Sl 3}'l DR
~
APR o 71999 h
MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard E. Cunningham, Director, Division of Industrial and Medical, NMSS j
R. Lee spessard, Director, Divis:en of Operational Assessment, AE00 Frank Congel, Director, Division >f Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness, NRR l
Stewart A. Treby, Assistant General Counsel for Rulemaking, OGC James Liebermen, Director, Office of Enforcement, OE FROM:
Zoltan Rosztoczy, Deputy Director, Division of Regulatory App 1tcations, RES
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED RULEMAKING - NOTIFICATION OF INCIDENT,10 CFR 20.403 The Offices of Nuclear Regulatory Research and Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards have been working together to develop a proposed rulemaking on the Notification of Incidents which falls under 10 CFR 20.403.
This rulemaking was requested by the Office of Enforcement in July of 1987 The rulemaking proposes to delete paragraphs (a)(3),Ia)(4),(b)(3) and (bif 4) of 10 CFR 20.403. These paragraphs deal with loss of operation and daaage to property for both immediate and 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> notifications. The goal of this rulemaking is to clarify the itcensee reporting requirements of the existing regulation because material licensees are not reporting incidents which the staff believes should be reported. As part of the clarification, requirements have been added as appropriate to Parts 30, 40, and 70.
The proposed rulemaking was forwarded for Division review on December 16, 1988.
Comments were received by late February and were incorporated.
Prior to circulating the final draft for office concurrence, RES/DRA has several concerns, listed in the enclosure, which we would like to discuss with you.
To minimize further schedule slippage with this rulemaking I would like to meet with you on April lhh at 1:30 p.m. in Room 6B-13 of White Flint North.
l Questions conm ning the enclosure or the meeting should be directed to me at x23760.
1 Zulian nosecucty, veputy v i t ec tus l
Division of Regulatory Applications Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosure:
List of Concerns Distribution:
[NOTIFICATIONOFINCIDENT?
subj-circ-chron Reading Files ZRosztoczy 9007060254 900626 2
55 19090 PDR
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURREf!CE g g__
Offe:
RDB:DRA:RES RDB:DRA:RES Um:RES Name:
JMate*:cb ADipalo*
Ros7toczy Date:
4/ 3/89 4/ 3/89 4/ 7 /89 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
r-
?
t RES/DRA CONCERNS 1.
The definition of " loss of operation" is changed from a facility to a
- ingle piece of equipment. This change increases the number of reportable incidents by orders of magnitude.
1 Questions:
Do we really want a report on all of these incidents?
If the definition is changed as proposed, is 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> an appropriate measure of loss of operation?
Is this a clarification or a new requirement?
2.
A new cutoff level was proposed based on the activity of the source involved.
Equipment having a source smaller than the limit (100 times App. C) does not have to report under this rule.
Stated purpose:
eliminate reporting requirements for very small sources like breaking.a single syringe. All divisions involved concurred in this limit. However, we received comments (NMSS and REG.1) suggesting an increase in the limit to reduce the number of reports. A 100-fold increase for Part 30 and a 10,000-fold increase for Pcrt 70 is being considered.
03/31/89 1
RES/DRA CONCERNS r
m m
m-b L
Questions:
Does it make sense to increase the limits as proposed?
Under the limit concurred in during Division review all industrial gages would fall under the reporting requirements. The increased limit, as suggested, would exempt approximately 40 percent of industrial gages. What do we want to achieve? Do we have a reason for exempting 40 percent of the gages?
Is it appropriate to try to control the tamber of reports by changing this limit?
I If 100 gages are involved in an event, each below the limit, should j
the event be reportable?
)
is this a clarification or a new requirement?
l I
3.
The proposed rule requires reporting events if they cause less of operation for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or damage to property in excess of $4000. What is l
meant by an event is not defined.
Questions:
l Do events include the following:
Natural phenomena (fire, wind, flood, earthquake)
Loss of power Malfunction of equipment Idropping, unknown causes)
Damage to equipment (spillage in str.el mills) l Damage to storage containers?
What was considered an event in the past?
Present rule has a $P000 limit.
Can it be changed to $4000 as a clarification?
03/31/89 2
RES/DRA CONCERNS
[--
l 4.
A new requirshent is being added to require notification when news i
releases are issued.
b Questions:
Is this requirerent appropriate?
What is a news release?
Is this a clarification or new requirement?
1 S.
The rule change was requested by Enforcement. Clarification was needed because in two cases during a P-1/2 year period there was a difference of opinion between the licensees and NRC on whether notification was required.
Questions:
In view of the uncertainties in the new rule (especially items 1, 3, and 4 above), do we expect fewer or more questionable cases in the future?
Would the past examples be reportable under the new rule?
If the new rule increases the number of reportable events by a factor of 10 or 100, are we going to enforce it?
If the proposed rule represent new requirements, what justification and what authority do we have to proceed with it?
Do we need a new rule?
t 03/31/89 3
RES/DRA CONCERNS
!