ML20196G186

Request for OMB Review & Supporting Statement Re Pr 10CFR50, Domestic Licensing of Production & Utilization Facilities. Estimated Respondent Burden Is 5,616,137 H

ML20196G186
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/23/1999
From:	Shelton B NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
To:
Shared Package
ML20196G097	List: ML20196G093 ML20196G163 ML20196G186
References
OMB-3150-0011, OMB-3150-11, NUDOCS 9907010076
Download: ML20196G186 (20)

Text

( l PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION I Please read the instruchons before ~-^ E.

I. your cgency's Pcperwirk ClKrInce Ufficer.g Sind this two form.

co Is ofFor thisadditional form th3 collforms 1ctionor instrumInt esiistIncetoinb3 compl: tingthe rsvi2wid, this form, cont Supporting Statement, and any additional documentation Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of RAanagement and Budget. Docket Library, Room 10102,72517th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency / Subagency ongmatmg request 2. (eMB control number U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ~ a. 3150-0011 b.None

3. Type of information collecten (check one) 4. Type of revew requested (check one)

s. New collectson g a Regular c. Delegated Q b. Revision of a currently approved collection b. Emergency - Approval requested by (date): l

c. Extension of a currently approved collection 5. Will this information collecten have a a.Yes significant economic impact on a _

d. Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval fias expired sut stantial number of small entities? g b.No approEh ac!p a. Three years from approval da'e r w'h Requested expiration date

f. Existing collection in use without an OMB control number b. Other (Specify): 9/30/2000

7. Title 10 CFR 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities

8. Agency form number (s) (if appicable)

NA

9. Keywords Nxclear Reactor, Safety, Radiation Protection

10. Abstract Preposed rule, Reporting Requirements for Nucicar Power Reactors amends the event reporting requirements for nuclear power reactors thereby reducing the reporting burden associated with events oflittle or no safety significance.

11. Affected pubhc quen onmery men v amt nuornes onet nopay utn *x") 12. Obhgation to respond tuun onmary etn yand en others that spory utn *x')

a individuals or households d. Farms a. Voluntary

~

T b. Business or other for-profit

e. Federal Govemment b. Required to obtain or retain benefits

c. Not-for-profit institutions f. State. Local or Tnbal GovernmentT c. Mandatory

13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden (m thousands oroosters)

a. Number of respondents 104 a Total annualized capital /startup costs

b. Total annual responses 7,998 b. Total annual costs (O&M)

1. Percentage of these responses c. Total annualized cost requested collected electronically  % d. Current OMB inventory I

c. Total annual hours requested 5,616,137 e. Difference  !

d. Current OMB inventory 5.616,137

f. Explanation of difference

e. Difference O

1. Program change

f. Explanation of difference

1. Program change 2. Adjustment

2. Adjustment

15. Purpose of informatsoE:ollection 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting (checa allthat app'/)

(Mars pnmary weth 'P" ancr a# others that apply wern "X")

7 a Recordkeeping b. Third-party disclosure

a. Application for benefits e. Program planning or management 7 c. Reporting -

~

b. Program evaluation

f. Research -7 1. On occasion 2. Weekly 7 3. Monthly {

~

c. General purpose statistics T g Regulatory or compliance

4. Quarterly 7 5. Semi-annually 7 6. Annually j

d. Audit 7. Bennially 8. Other (desenbe) i

17. Statistwal methods 18. Agency contact (person who caa best answer questions regarcang the l Does this informatson collection employ statistical methods?  !

feme: Dennis P. Allison i Phone: 301-415-1178 ORIS 834 The wm was one=a uses wwms 10/95 9907010076 990623 PDR ORG EUSOMB .

PDR j

19.Certificrti:n for Paperwork Reductirn Act Submi2cinna On behalf oithis Federal agency, I certify that the collection ofinformation encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8 (b)(3), appear at the end of the

' instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatoryprovisions as setforth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection ofinformation, that the certification covers:

- (a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions; (b) It avoids unnecessary duplication; (c) It reduces burden on small entities; (d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents; (e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices; (f) ~ !! indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements; (g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8 (b)(3):

(i) Why the information is being collected; (ii) Use ofinformation; (iii) Burden estimate; (iv) Nature of response (voluntary, required for a ben:St, or mandatory);

(v) Nature of extent of confidentiality; and (vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number; (h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective managenent and use of the information to be collected (see note in item 19 of the instructions);

(i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and (j) It maken appropriate use ofinformation technology.

Ifyou are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Authorized Agency Official Date Sgnitu of Senior Ofhcial or des Date

-Y rida l/sk Nll rR

.Sheltori$iRCtMeagarice Officer. Office of the CNef Information Officer [-- 'm. 2J,//99 OMB 83-1 \ '

10/95

o e

OMB Supporting Statement Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors, Proposed Rule to Modify Power Reactor Reporting Requirements in 10 CFR 50 (OMB Clearance Nos. 3150-0011 and 3150-0104)

Description of the information Collection Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) contains the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) requirements and provisions for the domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities.

This clearance package covers changes to the requirements in 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73. These rules require reporting of events at commercial nuclear power plants. They are currently cleared under OMB Clearance No. 3150-0011.

This clearance package also covers changes to NRC Form 366. This form is used for submittal of written reports required under 10 CFR 50.73. It is currently cleared under CMB Clearance No. 3150-0104.

A. JUSTIFICATION: j 1

1. Need for and Practical Utility of the Collection of Information l Part of the NRC's function is to license and regulate the operation of commercial nuclear power plants to ensure protection of public health and safety and the environment in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) as amended in order for the NRC to carry out these responsibilities, licensees must report significant events so that the NRC can evaluate the events to (1) determine what actions, if any, are warranted to ensure protection of public health and safety or the environment or (2) respond to heightened public concern. In addition, this information is needed for the NRC to carry out its responsibility to inform Congress of those events constituting " abnormal occurrences."

Sections 10 CFR 60.72 and 50.73 are being modified to: (1) better align the reporting requirements with the NRC's current reporting needs; (2) reduce the reporting burden, consistent with the NRC's reporting needs; (3) clarify the reporting requirements where needed; and (4) maintain consistency with NRC actions to improve integrated plant assessments. NRC Form 366, which is used for submittal of Licensee Event Reports required under 10 CFR 50.73(a), is being slightly modified to reflect changes in 10 CFR 50.73 and to better indicate the rule section(s) under which a report is being submitted.

l (a) Sections 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 Sections 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73, "immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors," and " Licensee event report system," respectively, have been in effect, with minor modifications, since 1983. Section 10 CFR 50.72 requires telephone notification for significant events where (1) immediate NRC action may be necessary to protect public health and safety or (2) the NRC needs timely and accurate information to respond to heightened public concern. These events are reported by telephone to the NRC Operations Center.

l l

l L

, o Section 10 CFR 50.73, requires reporting the types of reactor events and problems that are believed to be significant and useful to the NRC in its effort to identify and resolve threats to public safety. It is designed to provide the information necessary for engineering studies of operational anomalies and trends and patterns analysis of operational occurrences. The same information can be used for other analytic procedures that will aid in identifying accident precursors. These events are reported in writing, within several weeks after discovery of the event. The principal elements of the proposed rules are summarized below.

(i) Non-emeroency Event Notifications.

Section 10 CFR 50.72(b) would require reporting specified non-emergency events by telephone within either 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> or 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />. Previously the time limit for initial reporting of non-emergency events was either 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> or 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />. The time limits do not affect the quantitativ'e estimate of reporting burden in terms of hours or dollars. Several detailed aspects of the definition of the non-emergency events to be reported svould be changed. These changes in the reporting criteria would result in some one-time implementation costs, because licensees must revise their reporting procedures and conduct training on the new reporting criteria (see Table 1). On the other hand, these changes in reporting criteria are estimated to reduce the recurring annual reporting burden for 10 CFR 50.72 by about 12 per cent (see Table 2). The changes in reporting criteria for 10 CFR 50.72(b) are summarized in Appendix A to this supporting statement.

(ii) Licensee Event Reports (LERs).

Section 10 CFR 50.73(a) would continue to require submitting a written LER for specified events and conditions. The time limit for reporting would be changed from 30 days to 60 days (after i discovery). The time limit does not affect the quantitative estimate of reporting burden (in terms of hours or dollars). Several detailed changes would be made in the definition of the events and conditions to be reported. These changes in the reporting criteria would result in some one-time implementation costs, because licensees must revise their reporting procedures and conduct training on the new reporting requirements (see Table 1). On the other hand, these changes in reporting critoria are estimated to reduce the recurring annual LER reporting burden by about 25 per cent (see Table 2). The changes in LER reporting criteria are summarized in Appendix B to this supporting statement.

l (iii) Contents of LER_,s i l

Section 50.73(b) would continue to specify the required contents of LERs. Two minor changes l would be made. The one-time implementation cost and the recurring annual reporting burden I are indicated in Tab!es 1 and 2. The two minor changes are summarized in Appendix C to this I supporting statement. I (b) NRC Form 366 l I NRC Form 366, " Licensee Event Repcrt (LER),"is used for submittal of LERs. This ferm would be slightly modified. Specifically, the form contains a " check the box" area to indicate the 2

l l

I l

i L  !

r section number (s) of the rule (s) under which a LER is submitted. Some of the section numbers in 10 CFR 50.73 would be changed, and the section numbers on the form would be changed to reflect those rule changes. In addition, some section numbers that are not now included on the form would be added. NRC Form 366 is provided in Appendix D to this supporting statement, along with Forms 366A and 3668, which are not being modified except for the dates of the forms. These same forms are included in the draft of Revision 2 to NUREG-1022, which provides detailed guidance on implementing 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73, and is being made available for public comment at the same time as the proposed rule. The one-time implementation costs and the recurring annual reporting burden are indicated in Tables 1 and 2.

2. Aaency Use of Information The NRC uses the information obtained to review the reported events to (1) determine what additional actions, if any, may be warranted to ensure protection of public health and safety or the environment or (2) respond to heightened public concern. Appropriate NRC actions may include (1) rapid responses, such as recommending public evacuation in the event of a serious accident, (2) intermediate-term responses, such as initiating a special inspection to better understand an event, and (3) longer term responses, such as issuing an NRC Bulletin to address a generic problem. In addition the NRC uses the information obtained to inform Congress of those events constituting " abnormal occurrences."

3. Reduction of Burden Throuoh Information Technoloav With regard to immediate notifications made by telephone, the initial reports do not generally lend themselves to the use of automated information technology. However, in the case of a declared emergency, considerable follow-up information is required. In th;s case, automated information technology is used to speed the flow of follow-up information, by Ucing the Emergency Response Data System (ERDS) as discussed in 10 CFR 50.72(a)(4).

With regard to written reports, the NRC is currently planning to implement an electronic document management and reporting program, known as the Agency-wide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), that willin general provide for electronic submittal of many types of reports, including those required by 10 CFR 50.73.

There are no legal obstacles to reducing the burden associated with this information collection. ]

4. Effort to identify Duplication and Use Similar Information There is no similar information available to the NRC. The information Requirements Control Automated System (IRCAS) was searched, and no duplication was found.

5. Effort to Redu,Se Small Business Burden The information collection affects only licensees of nuclear power plants. These licensees do ,

not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" as given in the Regulatory Flexibility i Act or the Small Business Size Standards in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.

3 1

l i

4

6. Conseauences to the Federal Proaram or Policy Activities if the Collection is Not Conducted or is Conducted Less Freauently  !

If the information is not collected the NRC will not be in a position to (1) determine what actions, if any, may be warranted to ensure protection of public health and safety or the environment or  ;

(2) respond to heightened public concern. Nor will the NRC be in a position to inform Congress  ;

of those events constituting " abnormal occurrences." l

7. Circumstances Which Justifv Variations From OMB Guidelines Not applicable.

8. Consultation Outside the NRC To obtain public input, the NRC published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) and conducted three public meetings. The ANPR was published in the Federal Renister on July 23,1998 (63 FR 39522). In addition, it was sent to each State liaison officer with a letter soliciting State input. Among other things the ANPR included several specific contemplated changes to 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73. A public meeting was held to discuss the AN?R at NRC Headquarters on August 21,1998. The ANPR was also discussed at a public meeting on the role of industry in nuclear regulation in Rosemont, Illinois on September 1,1998. The public comment period on the ANPR ended on September 21,1998, and written comments were received at that time. A comment from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) proposed conducting

" table top exercises" early in the development and review process to test key parts of the requirements and guidance for clarity and consistency. That comment was accepted and a third public meeting was held on November 13,1998 at NRC Headquarters to discuss issues of clarity and consistency in the contemplated approach.

9. . Payment or Gift to Resoondents .

Not applicable.

10. Confidentiality ofInformation Information identified as proprietary or confidentialis handled in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC regulations.

11. Justification for Sensitive Questions This proposed rule does not request sensitive information.

12. Estimate of Industry Burden and Burden Hour Cost The one-time implementation costs to licensees for the changes are estimated to be about 70 hours8.101852e-4 days <br />0.0194 hours <br />1.157407e-4 weeks <br />2.6635e-5 months <br /> per reactor for revising procedures and about 130 hours0.0015 days <br />0.0361 hours <br />2.149471e-4 weeks <br />4.9465e-5 months <br /> per reactor for training. This yields an estimated one-time burden increase of about 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br /> per reactor for 104 operating reactors, or about 21,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> industry-wide.

L j

i o l

I With regard to the current reporting burden, based on experience in recent years, it is estimated that, if the rules were not changed, about 1600 telephone reports would continue to be made i annually to the NRC Operations Center under 10 CFR 50.72. It is estimated that each such report requires about 1.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> of effort. On the same basis it is estimated that, if the rules were not changed, about 1600 written licensee event reports (LERs) would continue to be submitted annually. It is estimated that each such report requires about 50 hours5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br /> of effort.

A key benefit of the proposed rule amendments would be a reduction in the recurring annual reporting burden .on licensees, as a result of reducing the efforts associated with reporting events of little or no risk- or safety-significance. Based on a review of past reports, the proposed rule amendments are expected to result in about 200 fewer telephone notifications per year under 10 CFR 50.72(b) and about 400 fewer written licensee event reports (LERs) per year. It l is estimated that licensees expend 1.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> per telephone notification and 50 hours5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br /> per LER for the events involved. This yields an estimated recurring annual burden reduction of about 20,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> per year industry-wide, or about 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br /> per reactor per year.

These results are summarized in the Tables 1 and 2. l

13. Estimate of Other Additional Costs There are no additional costs.

l

14. Estimate of Cost to the Federal Government The NRC's one-time implementation cost for rulemaking to change the subject reporting requirements, from Ma~;h 1999 forward, is estimated to be about 3 full time equivalents (FTE).

This corresponds to about 6000 total hours (or 4000 direct hours).

The NRC's current annual review effort for telephone notifications made under 10 CFR 50.72 is estimated to be about 9000 total hours (or 6000 direct hours). They would not be significantly reduced by the proposed rule changes because the costs of the maintaining the NRC Operations Center and the daily event screening program would remain about the same.

The NRC's recurring annual review efforts for LERs submitted under 10 CFR 50.73 is estimated l to be about 12,000 total hours. This would be reduced by about 7.5 total hours (or 5 direct hours) for each LER eliminated by the proposed rule changes. This yields an estimated recurring annual cost reduction of about 3,000 total hours per year. .

These results are summarized in Tables 3 and 4.

i l These costs are fully recovered through fee assessments to the NRC licensees pursuant to 10 l CFR Parts 170 and/or 171. Cost is based on the fee rate assessed to keensees. j l

! 15. Reasons for Chanae in Burden The objectives of the proposed amendments are as follows:

5 l

l i.

l (a) To better align the reporting requirements with the NRC's needs for information to carry out its safety mission. An example is extending the required initial reporting times for some events, consistent with the time at which it is needed for NRC action. Another example is changing the criteria for reporting system actuations, to obtain reporting that is more consistent with the risk-significance of the systems involved.

(b) To reduce the reporting burden, consistent with the NRC's needs. An example is eliminating the reporting of design and analysis defects and deviations of little or no risk- or safety-significance.

_ (c) To clarify the reporting requirements where needed. An example is clarifying the criteria for reporting design or analysis defects or deviations.

(c) To maintain consistency with NRC actions to improv'e integrated plant assessments. For example, reports that are needed in the assessment process should not be eliminated.

The burden estimate for 10 CFR Part 50 would be decreased to account for changes in reporting requirements. Details regarding the changes in burden are provided in Tables 1, 2,3, and 4,

16. Publication for Statistical Use The NRC does not intend to publish the reported information for statistical purposes. The information would be used in performing studies of operating experience and risk and reliability analyses, which would be published.

17. Reason for Not Disolavina the Exoiration Date The requirement will be contained in a regulation. Amend!ng the Code of Federal Regulations to display information that, in an annual publication, could become obsolete would be unduly burdensome and too difficult to keep current.

18. Exceptions to the Certification Statement None.

B. COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS Statistical methods are not employed in this information collection.

L l l

6 I I

Table 1 - One-time implementation Burden and Cost Requirements Number of Burden One-time Cost @

Reactors Hours per $141/hr Affected Reactor 10 CFR 50.72(b): Report specified non- 104 200 $2,933,000 emergency events by telephone. (Licensees must +3 revise procedures and conduct training to = $978,000 implement revised reporting criteria.)

10 CFR 50.73(a): Submit written Licensee Event The one-time implementation burden and costs Reports (LERs) for specified events. (Licensees are covered in 10 CFR 50.72(b) above.

must ravise procedures and conduct training to implement revised reporting criteria.)

10 CFR 50.73(b): Contents of LERs. (Licensees The one-time implementation burden and costs must revise procedures to reflect two minor are covered in 10 CFR 50.72(b) above. l changes in required contents.)

NRC Form 366: Used for written LF.F.s. The one-time implementation burden and costs (Licensees must revise procedures to reflect minor are covered in 10 CFR 50.72(b) above.

changes in the LER form.) l Table 2 - Recurring Annual Reporting Burden and Cost Requirements Total Burden Total Number Burden Annual Cost Reports Hours Burden of Hours @ $141/hr per per Hours Reactors per Year Report per Affected Reactor Industry- Year per wide Industry- Year 1 wide I 10 CFR 50.72(b): 1400 2100 20 300,000 Report specified non- -200 1.5 -300 104 -3 -40.000 i emergency events by 1200 1800 17 250,000*

telephone.

10 CFR 50.73(a): 1600 80,000 770 11,300,000 Submit written -400 50 -20.000 104 -190 -2.800.000 Licensee Event 1200 60,000 580 8,500,000 Reports for specified events.

10 CFR 50.73(b): Recurring annual burden and cost covered in 10 CFR 50.73(a)

Contents of LERs. above.

NRC Form 366: Recurring annual burden and cost covered in 10 CFR 50.73(a)

Used for written above. 4 LERs. l l

• Figures do not add due to round off.  ;

l The total burden reduction is 13,367 hours0.00425 days <br />0.102 hours <br />6.068122e-4 weeks <br />1.396435e-4 months <br />. There is a one-time annual burden increase of i 6,933 hours0.0108 days <br />0.259 hours <br />0.00154 weeks <br />3.550065e-4 months <br /> and an annual reduction of 20,300. l 7

I I

I Table 3 - NRC's One-time implementation Cost l

Requirements Total Burden Total Cost @

Hours $141/hr 10 CFR 50.72(b): Report specified non-emergency 6,000 850,000 events by telephone. (The NRC would conduct l rulemaking to revise the reporting criteria.)

1 10 CFR 50.73(a): Submit written Licensee Event The one-time implemeytation l Reports for specified events. (The NRC would conduct burden and cost are covered in 10 rulemaking to revise the reporting criteria.) CFR 50.72(b) above.

10 CFR 50.73(b): Contents of LERs. (The NRC would The one-time insplementation conduct rulemaking to make two minor changes in the burden and cost are covered in 10 contents.) CFR 50.72(b) above.

NRC Form 366: Used for written LERs. (The NRC The one-time implementation would conduct rulemaking to make minor changes in the burden and cost are covered in 10 LER form.) CFR 50.72(b) above.

Table 4 - NRC's Recurring Annual Cost Requirements total Burden Hours Total Cost @ l

$141/hr 10 CFR 50.72(b): Report specified non- 9,0C0 1,300,000 emergency evente by telephone.

10 CFR 50.73(a): Submit written Licensee Event 12,000 1,700,000 Reports for specified events. (The NRC would -3.000 -400.000 conduct rulemaking to make changes in the 9,000 1,300,000 reporting criteria related to changes in 10 CFR 50.72(b).)

10 CFR 50.73(b): Contents of LERs. The burden and cost are covered in 10 CFR 50.73(a) above.

NRC Form 366: Used for written LERs. The burden and cost are covered in 10 3 CFR 50.73(a) above. ]

)

O I

i i

Appendix A Summary of Changes in Reporting Criteria for 10 CFR 50.72 (b)

Unanalyzed condition that significantly compromises plant safety. Sections 50.72(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(2)(i)would be replaced by new section 50.72(b)(2)(ii)(0). The new 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(ii)(B) would refer to a condition that significantly affects plant safety rather than a condition that significantly comoromises plant safety. This is an editorial change intended to better reflect the nature of the criterion.

Condition that is outside the design basis of the plant. Current Section 50.72(b)(2)(ii)(B) would be deleted. However, a condition outside the design basis of the plant would still be reported under Section 50.72(b) if it is significant enough to qualify under one or more of the following criteria, as follows:

If a design or analysis defect or deviation (or any other event or condition) is significant enough that, as a result, a structure or system would not be capable of performing its specified safety functions, the condition would be reportable under Section 50.72(b)(2)(v)[i.e., an event or condition that could have prevented the fulfillment of the safety function of structures or systems that are needed to: (A) Shut down ...].

If a condition outside the design basis of the plant (or any other unanalyzed condition) is significant enough that, as a result, plant safety is significantly affected, the condition would be reportable under Section 50.72(b)(2)(ii)(B) (i.e., an unanalyzed condition that significantly affects plant safety].

If a condition outside the design basis of the plant (or any other event or condition)is significant enough that, as a result, a principal safety barrier is seriously degraded, it would be reportable under Section 50.72(b)(2)(ii)(A) [i.e., any event or condition that results in the condition of the nuclear power plant, including its principal safety barriers, being seriously degraded].

Condition not covered by the plant's operating and emergency procedures. Section 50.72(b)(2)(ii)(C) would be deleted because it does not result in worthwhile reports aside from those that wcad be captured by other reporting criteria.

Manual or automatic actuation of any engineered safety feature (ESF). Sections 50.72(b)(1)(iv) and (b)(2)(ii) would be replaced by new Section 50.72(b)(2)(iv). The new ,

Section 50.72(b)(2)(iv) would eliminate telephone reporting for invalid automatic actuation or unintentional manual actuation. The term "any engineered safety feature (ESF),

including the reactor protection system (RPS)," which currently defines the systems for which actuation must te reported in Section 50.72(b)(2)(iv), would be replaced by a specific list of systems.

- Event or condition that could have prevented fulfillment of the safety function of structures

! or systems that . Sections 50.72(b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(i) would be replaced by new Sections 50.72(b)(2)(v) and (vi), with the following principal results:

- The phrase " event or condition that alone could have prevented the fulfillment of the l

l

safety function of structures or systems . .." would be clarified by deleting the word )

"alone"in Section 50.72(b)(2)(v). This clarifies the requirement by more clearly reflecting the principle that it is necessary to consider other existing plant conditions in determining the report ability of an event or condition under this criterion.

The term "at the time of discovery" would be added to Section 50.72(b)(2)(v) to eliminate telephone notification for a condition that no longer exists, or no longer has an effect on required safety functions.

New Section 50.72(b)(2)(vi) would provide additional guidance to clarify the requirement.

Airborne radioactive release and liquid effluent release. [Section 50.72(b)(2)(viii)]. The statement indicating that reporting under Section 50.72(b)(2)(viii) satisfies the requirements of Section 20.2202 would be removed because it would not be correct. For example, some events captured by Section 20.2202 would not be captured by Section 50.72(b)(2)(viii). ,

I l

l l

2

Appendix B Summary of Changes in Reporting Criteria for 10 CFR 50.73(a)

Operation or condition prohibited by Technical Specifications. In Section 50.73(a)(2)(i)(B) the term "during the previous three years" would be added to eliminate written LERs for conditions that have not existed during the previous three years, in addition, this criterion would be modified to eliminate reporting if the technical specification is administrative in nature. Finally, this criterion would be modified to eliminate reporting if the event consisted solely of a case of a late surveillance test where the oversight is corrected, the test is performed, and the equipment is found to be functional. l l

Unanalyzed condition that significantly compromises plant safety Section 50.73(a)(2)(ii)(A) would be replaced by new secticn 50.73(a)(2)(ii)(B). The new 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(ii)(B) would refer to a condit;on that significantly affects plant safety rather than a condition that significantly comoromises plant safety. This is an editorial change intended to better reflect the nature of the criterion.

Condition that is outside the design basis of the plant. Section 50.73(a)(2)(ii)(B) would be deleted. However, a condition outside the design basis of the plant would still be reported under Section 50.73(a)if it is significant enough to qualify under one or more of the following criteria.

If a design or analysis defect or deviation (or any other event or condition) is significant enough that, as a result, a structure or system would not be capable of performing its specified safety functions, the condition would be reportable under Sections 50.73(a)(2)(v) [i.e., an event or condition that could have prevented the fulfillment of the safety function of structures or systems that are needed to: (A) Shut down ...).

- If a design or analysis defect or deviation (or any other event or condition) is significant enough that, as a result, one train of a multiple train system controlled by the plant's TS is not capable of performing its specified safety functions, and thus the train is inoperable longer than allowed by the TS, the condition would be reportable under Section m 73(a)(2)(i)(B) [i.e., an operation or condition prohibited by TS).

If a condition outside the design basis of the plant (or any other unanalyzed condition) is significant enough that, as a result, plant safety is significantly affected, the condition would be reportable under Section 50.73(a)(2)(ii)(B) [i.e., an unanalyzed condition that significantly affects plant safety).

- If a condition outside the design basis of the plant (or any other event or condition) is significant enough that, as a result, a principal safety barrier is seriously degraded, it would be reportable under Section 50.73(a)(2)(ii)(A) [i.e., any event or condition that results in the condition of the nuclear power plant, including its principal safety barriers, being seriously degraded).

- Finally, a condition outside the design basis of the plant (or any other event or condition) would be reportable if a component is in a degraded or non-conforming condition such that the ability of a component to perform its specified safety function is l

l

l significantly degraded and the condition could reasonably be expected tc opply to other similar components in the plant. This new criterion is contained in Section 50.73(a)(2)(ii)(C), Significantly degraded component (s).

Condition not covered by the plant's operating and emergency procedures. Section l 50.73(a)(2)(ii)(C) would be deleted because it does not result in worthwhile reports aside from those that would be captured by other reporting criteria.

{

Manual or automatic actuation of any engineered safety feature (ESF). [Section 50.73(a)(2)(iv)]. The term "any engineered safety feature (ESF), including the reactor protection system (RPS)," which currently defines the systems for which actuation must be reported, would be replaced by a specific list of systems. l Event or condition that could have prevented fulfillment of the safety function of structures or systems that . . [ Sections 50.73(a)(2)(v) and (vi)]

The phrase " event or condition that alone could have prevented the fulfillmeret of the safety function of structures or systems ...." would be clarified by deleting the word "alone." This clarifies the requirements by more clearly ret.ccting the principle that it is necessary to consider other existing plant conditions in determining the report ability of an event or condition under this criterion.

The phrase " occurring within three years of the date of discovery" would be added to eliminate written LERs for conditions that have not existed during the previous three years.

Airborne radioactive release... and liquid effluent release... [ Sections 50.73(a)(2)(viii) and 50.73(a)(2)(ix)]. The statement indicating that reporting under Section 50.73(a)(2)(viii) satisfies the requirements of Section 20.2203(a)(3) would be deleted because it would not be correct. Some events captured by Section 20.2203(a)(3) would not be captured by Section 50.73(a)(2)(viii).

2

r 1

1 Appendix C Summary of Changes in 10 CFR 50.73(b)

=

Paragraph 50.73(b)(2)(ii)(J) currently requires that the narrative section include a list of l specific information as appropriate for the particular event. The proposed rule would I change Section 50.73(b)(2)(ii)(J) to simply require that the licensee discuss the causes and

. circumstances for each human performance related problem that contributed to the event.

• Paragraph 50.73(b)(3) currently requires that an LER include an assessment of the safety consequences and implications of the event. This assessment must include the availability of other systems or components that could have performed the same function as the components and systems that failed during the event. It would be modified by adding a requirement to also include the status of components and systems that are included in i emergency or operating procedures and could have been used to recover from the event in case of an additional failure in the systems actually used for recovery."

i I

J l

I i

I Appendix D j J

NRC Form 366, " Licensee Event Report (LER)," { front and back}

i NRC Form 366A, " Licensee Event Report (LER), Text Continuation," {one-sided}

and

'NRC Form 3668, " Licensee Event Report (LER), Failure Continuation," {one-sided}

l 4

i

c l l

NRC FORM 366 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY APPROVED BY OMB NO. 3150-0104 EXPlRES MM YYYY IMM YYYVI COMMISSION Estimated burden per response to compty with this mandatory Information collection request: 50 hrs Reported lessons leamed are incorporated mto the hcensing process and fed back to industry. Forward comments regarding burden LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) estimate to the Records Management Branch (T-6 F33). U S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornmission. Washington. DC 20555-0001, and to the Paperwork Reduction i (See reverse for required number of Project (3150-0104). Omca of Management and Budget. Washington, DC 20503. i if an information conection does not display a currently vahd OMB control I digits / Characters for each block) number the NRC may not conduct or sponsor. and a person is not required to i

FACILITY NAME (1) DOCKET NUMBER (2) PAGE (3) 05000 1 OF TITLE (4)

EVRNT DATE (5) LEF NUMBER M) REPORT DATE f7) OTHER FACILITIES INVOLVED (8)

FACILITY NAME oOCKET NUMBER M0 DAY YEAR YEAR Nn n O Y

M0 DAY VEAR F ACILITY NAME oOCKET NUMBER

~ ~

05000 OPERATING THIS REPORT IS SUDMITTED PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR O (Check all that apply) (11)

MODE (9) 20.2201(b) 20.2203b)(3)(ii) 50.73(a)(2Hii)(B)  ! 50.73(a)(2Hvii)(C)

POWER 20,2201(d) 20.2203(a)(4) 50.73(a)(2)(ii)(C) 50.73(a)(2)(viii)(A)

LEVEL (10) 20.2203(a)(1) 50.36(c)(1)(iHA) 50.73(a)(2)Dn) 50.73(a)(2)(viii)(B) g p g,ggy 20.2203(aH2Hil 50.36(c)(1)(ii)(A) 50.73(a)(2)(ivHA) 50.73(a)(2)(ix)

N y d'" y % 20.2203(a)(2Hu) 50.36(cH2) 50.73(a)(2)(v)(A) 73.71(a)(4) l 20.2203(a)(2Hiii) 50.46(a)(3)(ii) 50.73(a)(2)(v)(B) 73.71(a)(5)

Qf[lik [hj9Q, 20.2203(a)(2)0v) 50.73(aH2)(i){ A) 50.73(aH2)(v)(C) OTHER

[M y$$ht 7MM Z ' MM 20.2203(a)(2)(v) 20.2202(a)(2)(vi) 50.73(a)(2)(i)(B) 50.73(a)(2)(i)(C) 50.73(a)(2)(v)(D) 50.73(aH2)(vn)(A)

Specify in Abstract below or in NRC Form 366A SM5(N&j ENM. 20.2203(aH3Hs) 50.73(a)(2)(u)(A) 50.73(a)(2HviiHB)

LICENSEE CONTACT FOR THIS LER (12)

NAME TELEPHONE NUMBFR linclude Area Codel COMP.ETE ONE LPNE FOR EACH COMPONEPI' FAILURF OESCRIBFD IN THIS RFPORT (13)

N M u RE T E CAUSE SYSTEM COMP 0mui g g fg gp CAUSE SYST[M COMPOWNT g pp gp SUPPlMETAL REPORT EXPECTED (141 "U I 0 "#"

EXPECTED YES lif yes, complete EXPECTED SUBMISSION DATE).

NO DATE (15)

ABSTRACT (Lirnit to 1400 spaces i.e., approxirnately 15 single-spaced typewritten lines) (16) hRC FORM 366 (MM YYYY)

1 l

REQUIRED NUMBER OF DIGITS / CHARACTERS 1 FOR EACH BLOCK

, BLOCK NUMBER OF NUMBER DIGITS / CHARACTERS TITLE 1 UP TO 46 FACILITY NAME 2

8 TOTAt~

3 IN ADDITION TO 05000 DOCKET NUMBER 3 VARIES PAGE NUMBER 4 UP TO 76 TITLE 8 TOTAL 6

2 MNH EVENT DATE 4 FOR YEAR 9 TOTAL 0 4 FOR YEAR LER NUMBER 3 FOR SEQUENTIAL NUMBER 2 FOR REVISION NUMBER 8 TOTAL ,

7 M "N REPORT DATE 2f0 R DAY 4 FOR YEAR UP TO 18 - FACILITY NAME O OTHER FACILIT,ES INVOLVED 8 TOTAL -- DOCKET NUMBER 3 IN ADDITION TO 05000 9 1 OPERATING MODE 10 3 POWER LEVEL ll CHECK ALL BOX S THAT APPLY RE'QUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR 12 TO ME LICENSE'E CONTACT Uf4 pD EPH NE CAUSE VARIES 2 FOR SYSTEM 13 4 FOR COMPONENT EACH COMPONENT FAILURE 4 FOR MANUFACTURER EPIX VARIES &

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT EXPECTED CHECK BOX THAT APPLIES 8 TOTAL 15 2O M IN EXPECTED SUBM:SSION DATE OR Y 4 FOR YEAR

e NRC FORM 366A U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (MM YYYY)

LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER)

TEXT CONTINUATION FACILITY NAME fil DOCKET (2) lER NuuaER (6) PAGE (3)

SEQUENTIAL REVIS1098 YEAR NUM8ER NUMBER 05000 OF TEXT (if more space is required, use additional copies of NRC Form 366A) (17) l l

l

[

NRC FORM 366 A iMM YYYY) l l

l

i NRC FORM 3668 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IMM YYYY)

LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER)

FAILURE CONTINUATION FACILITY NAME fil DOCKET (2) _ER NUMBER (6) PAGE (3)

I R 10N YEAR NUMBER NUMBER 05000 OF COMPLETE ONE I.INE FOR EACH COMPONEfr' FAILURE DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT (13)

SYSTEM COMP 0NINT CAUSE SYSTEM COMPONENT FA RhR " f0 EP CAUSE F RR TO EP NRC FORM 3668 (MM YYYY) l 1