ML20206E576

EDO Control of Rulemaking Package Re 10CFR21 & 50, Criteria & Procedures for Reporting Defects & Noncompliance. Continuation of Rulemaking Approved

ML20206E576
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/29/1985
From:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
References
NUDOCS 8606230437
Download: ML20206E576 (103)

Text

i r

W2/

l MAR 2 91985 l l

l MEMORANDUM FOR: James Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement --

FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING By memorandum of February 13, 1984, " Control of NRC Rulemaking by Offices Reporting to the EDO," Offices were directed that effective April 1, 1984, (1) all offices under E00 purview must obtain my approval to begin and/or continue a specific rulemaking, (2) resources were not to be expended on rule _

makings that have not been approved, and (3) RES would independently review rulemaking proposals forwarded for my approval and make recomendations to me concerning whether or not and how to proceed with the rulemakings.

In accordance with my directive, the following proposal concerning rulemaking has been forwarded for my approval.

Proposed revision of 10 CFR Parts 21 and 50, " Criteria and Procedures for Reporting Defects and Noncompliance. (Sponsored by IE - menorandum, Minogue to ED0 dated March 22,1985.)

I approve continuation of this rulemaking. The NRC Regulatory Agenda (NUREG-0936) should be modified to reflect the status of this rulemaking.

(SIped William J.Direks William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations V. Stello J. Roe H. R. Denton l R. Minogue i J. G. Davis l P. G. Norry I Distribution WSchwink DEDROGR cf JSniezek Central File VStello WDircks EDO rf JPhilips 8606230437 050329 EDO RM PDR 21 0FC :ROGR/S :ROGR/D :DEDROGR :E00 l:  :  :

..__.:............:..__________:.______..___:......gis..:.._____.....:..........:.....______

NAME :BGabriel :JSniezek :VStello :WDircKs  :  :  :

.....:............:..........._:............:...p___....:_.........:............:..........

DATE t3/27/85 83/ /85 3/ /85 3/1785  :  :  :

n h4 WLk 8~

o

~~ 4, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION hhk v

g g g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s

%9 p IM,w

,d MAR 2 21985 MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks l Executive Director for Operations I

FROM: Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

CONTROL 0F NRC RULEMAKING, RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW 0F RULEMAKING, 10 CFR PART 21/ 50.55(e)

In accordance with the Procedures for Conducting RES Independent Review of Rulemaking that were approved by you on 30 May 1984 RES has conducted a review of the IE sponsored rulemaking, " Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for Reporting Defects and Noncompliance (10 CFR Part 21 and 50)." This review has been focused on (a) need, (b) likely effectiveness and (c) evaluation of the IE submitted information based on procedures and guidelines approved for NRC staff use.

RES agrees with the recommendation of the Director IE that this rulemaking should continue. The basis for that recommendation is the following:

o it is appropriate to continue to codify in Title 10 Chapter I (i) requirements, based on the Atomic Energy Act, for licensed

, organizations to provide NRC information concerning the health and l safety of the public and (ii) the authority of NRC, based on the Energy Reorganization Act, to penalize high level individuals who " cover-up" such information.

o clarification of the portions of the regulations that are related in this rulemaking, e.g., Part 21, 50.55(e), 50.72, continues to be prudent since they are believed by some to:

1 (1) contain duplicative reporting requirements and l (ii) be inconsistent in the rep?rting threshold or the time of

, required reports. Such clarification should not only decrease the l reporting burden on the regulated industry but also decrease the NRC l review requirements without causing loss of information with I significance to the public health and. safety. It is noted that some of these reporting requirements have not been substantively revised in over 10 years.

This recomendation is submitted with an awareness of the IE proposed schedule, that is an NPRM (Notice of Proposed Pulemaking) prior to 1 May 1985. Due to the complexity of this rule it may take much longer. IE l may be overly optimistic in stating that "present IE resources are adequate to complete rulemaking on the proposed schedule."

l

y, J. Dircks MAR 2 2 IN5 The RES independent review, with a copy of the IE rulemaking package, has been sent to OED0 (Attention OE00ROGR). The Chairman of the RES Independent Review Board has provided Director IE with comments related to the technical and procedural aspects of this rulemaking.

/kk-1~T)

Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research cc: D:IE (J. M. Taylor) g.

j'

o -

. A ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP Ed 2 5 03!i TO: (Name. omco symbol, rrom number, initials Date buniding Agency / Post)

1. O EDo ('Allw Gw ' DED Rc GR) z .

3. . _ -

$ ['Gi #

O 5.

h'On _ _ File [ . Note and Return p proval __ For Clearance l Par Conversation

_ps Requested _ _ __ __. For Correction _ __ __ Prepare _R_eply D_arculate __

For Your Information _4__ See Me

_ ment __ _ _ _gnvestigate _ _ _ _ _ l;Sgnature 1 rdinaten  ! l Justify !j REMARKS

( . (zp; w.J$L ?03wAlfSA #

LWM-'  ?

^

zb' [ g - f enwyc QS h t V A**e V fAr' , ,; ,[

e}w AW} > l 3, ,y D q i-f '.4<,e.'o n + f* ~ * ^

< g 3 g(Q j ,

u,j; p ) $. sn r y v f>"MU -- ~

(k F S c + r m ^*

• g' g y >; , T L= & c ww^r~~ A UM l

. f 0 p. r r L u>LfL C&v y ^^ ' sw (1-+). _

• " y "# jrm' s

, g g ,, 4 4 m oe' v <{ (j >,

A f

C q >-

)(* 4.LO(f j

. L hP s C'

g6 .

J' DO NOT use this form as a REC 68D of approvals, concurr ceCYdp,ap'Wsl .gp-clearances aKsemilar actions \ ,q^s( \

FROM: (Name, org syrr %f, Agency / Post) s -

Room N6Bld 3 f/+MRId) kNb

? '

a. / - p ,, a4 a*

Phone No.

• 1-102 Ol'TIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76) kP"E crit,1$-11206 M__

i l

l MAR 2 21985 h

MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations i FROM: Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research ,

SUBJECT:

CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING, RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW 0F RULEMAKING, 10 CFR PART 21/ 50.55(e)

In accordance with the Procedures for Conducting RES Independent Review l of Rulemaking that were approved by you on 30 May 1984 RES has conducted

• a review of the IE sponsored rulemaking, " Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for Reporting Defects and Noncompliance (10 CFR  ;

, Part21and50)." This review has been focused on (a) need, (b) likely effectiveness and (c) evaluation of the IE submitted information based on j procedures and guidelines approved for NRC staff use.  !

I e

RES agrees with the recommendation of the Director IE that this rulemaking i should continue. The basis for that recommendation is the following:

{

^

o it is appropriate to continue to codify in Title 10 Chapter I (1) requirements, based on the Atomic Energy Act, for licensed organizations to provide NRC information concerning the health and safety of the public and (ii) the authority of NRC, based on the Energy Reorganization Act, to penalize high level individuals who " cover-up" such information.

o clarification of the portions of the regulations that are related in this rulemaking, e.g., Part 21, 50.55(e), 50.72, continues to be prudent since they are believed by some to:

(1) contain duplicative reporting requirements and (ii) be inconsistent in the reporting threshold or the time of required reports. Such clarification should not only decrease the reporting burden on the regulated industry but also decrease the NRC review requirements without causing loss of information with significance to the public health and safety. It is noted that some of these reporting requirements have not been substantively revised in over 10 years.

This recommendation is submitted with an awareness of the IE proposed schedule, that is an NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) prior to 1 May 1985. Due to the complexity of this rule it may take much longer. IE may be overly optimistic in stating that "present IE resources are adequate to complete rulemaking on the proposed schedule."

i f

W. J. Dircks 2 MAR 2 2%

The RES independent review, with a copy of the IE rulemaking package, has been sent to OED0 (Attention DE00ROGR). The Chairman of the RES Independent Review Board has provided Director IE with comments related to the technical and procedural aspects of this rulemaking.

641aal s4ned MMB. niq N' Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research cc: D:IE (J. M. Taylor) bec: RBMinogue, Dross,JRichardson,WECampbell(2)

C:RES IRB (FGillespie) GArlotto, C:EEB:IE (ERossi)

JHenry, WMMorrison, MSEB 500 with CRGR memo of 24 Nov 81 to ED0 Record Note: The following items not in the 0:IE memo of 23 Jan 1985 were considered in the review by W. E. Campbell, Jr. (1) current revisions of 10 CFR Part 21, 50.55e, 50.72, 50.73 and the " preambles" to those rules, (2) 24 Nov 1981 memo of C:CRGR to E00 and its enclosures, (3) NUREG 0302 Rev 1, (4) discussion of schedular information with IE (Lanik) on 7 Feb 1985. That information conflicts with which is later than the date in Enclosure 2 of the 0:IE memo. That information is "NPRM 04/00/85." On 2/28/85 the RIRB (Gillespie, Arlotto, Morrison) met with J. Henry)and Phillips W. E.meaning the specific Campbell.

of "On 3/1/85 WEC Timetable NPRM discussed 04/00/85."with His ADM (J.

intention was that it be the FR date.

CHMN:RIR [B W '., f ' l l

MSEB:lET Wa MSEB:DET:C bell:sp JERichar so g

': 6f D: /[

fA n otto RB.i ogue

) gh 3/ 4/85 3/g /85 3/9/85 REV PT21 WEC1 0

vx4 1

t RES INDENDENT REVIEW PACKAGE i

l I

i t

4 I

l

RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW BOARD

VOTIN'G SHEET T0

F. P. GILLESPIE CHAIRMAN, RIRB FROM: K. R. Goller, Member, RIRB TITLE OF RULEMAKING: Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance AGREE WITH DRAFT RES REQUEST RIRB

[ INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS IN DRAFT INDEPENDENT REVIEW MEETING.

PACKAGE.

MODIFY DRAFT RES NOT PARTICIPATING.

INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS AS INDICATED BELOW.

l l

COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:

l l

/

MEMBER, RIRB af/Z/2r DATE

'l

_____.2_

FEB 121985 RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW BOARD ,

VOTING SHEET TO: F. P. GILLESPIE, CHAIRMAN, RIRB FROM: G. A. Arlotto, Member, RIRB TITLE OF RULEMAKING: Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance j ! AGREE WITH DRAFT RES INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS IN DRAFT INDEPENDENT REVIEW REQUEST RIRB MEETING.

PACKAGE.

MODIFY DRAFT RES NOT PARTICIPATING.

INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS AS INDICATED BELOW.

COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:

L L%o\T h h\ 4 b ^*' **~ ~)

y 3x $ca Ce-g hd\ ~ \0 '% f

,, y  ;~ g e. p wtu t ka " -

AJ J w k A "@og #AM- "

t

"'_ kv3 p u n a

\ "Q a v .

N  %

s

> c\ <

y. K; _ R. RIRe

,fi t DATE w

l l

RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW BOARD , l V0 TING SHEET T0: F. P. GILLESPIE, CHAIRMAN, RIRB FROM: W. M. Morrison, Member, RIRB TITLE OF RULEMAKING: Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance AGREE WITH DRAFT RES REQUEST RIRB INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS MEETING.

IN DRAFT INDEPENDENT REVIEW PACKAGE.

MODIFY DRAFT RES NOT PARTICIPATING.

X INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS AS INDICATED BELOW.

COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:

Under the RES recommendations at the end of the items, I suggest the following be added:

"(5) The rulemaking package notes in a number of places (eg, page 4 of the staff paper, page 5 of enclosure A) the lack of any explicit language in the regulations that address the duplicative reporting issue. Based on IE experience, the existing language appears not to be adequate, but section '

21.21b (1) does contain language that addresses duplicative reporting by the statement "The above notification is not required if such individual has actual knowledge that the Commission has been adequately informed of such defect or such failure to comply."

vtute A W. M. MORRISON MEMBER, RIRB

.. FEBRUARY 15. 1985 DATE l

r ,,

y . . _ _ - -

nounNG AND TRANSMINAL SUF FEB 111985 1Ek me, eAlce symbol, room number, initsets Date ng, Agency /Fest) 3.

W. M. Morrison, Member, RIR&

g K. R. Goller, Member, RIRB g G. A. Arlotto, !! ember, RIRB 4, F. P. Gillespie, Chairman, RIRB 1 l

s, )

yH rue sesee and natum b,r per camerence -

per conveneten  ;

b Reeuested For Cervection Pmpero Reply kuroviete per veer seemmetion see ese s- -

i,,,sen ,sie sinneture P r r:- Josser aneutus "q "nm44CMA P e L_r A h c WA M .: V_&ea, Lo We are at step III.C.2, "RIR3 deliberations," of the RES independent review procedures for the attached specific ongoing rulemaking sponsored by Tg ,

Please evaluate the attached dra'ft independent review package and provide RAI1RB with your voting sheet indicating your position on the rulemaking.

Your response by c.o.b. FEB 2 0 25 will assist in RES' making independent recommendations to the EDO in a timely manner.

90 000T use this term as a stE00fto of approvels, eencerroness, allopseels.

eteoreness, and similar estions FROld. (Name, org. symbef. Agency / Pest) Room No. -4tes RAMRB staff pnenefee.

443-7885 sess-ser penas 41 (Rev. 7-76)

, a sm usa o - is -sn mn esa dE- :Jes l

I t

TASK LEADER REVIEW PACKAGE t

9 1

1 l

l

. t l osee ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SUP g g 7,

= no . .e .- ,. ...er, intueN oste /

% Agency / Pest)

,. c: w e # % , 9 4 2 . - zh b

s. 2:nr cal 41 f

/. hA Yffrf '

~

, l [0

. /

A Action -Afile ##o Note and Iteturn Approval / For Cleerence Mar Converestion As 7_,_ ^: .

/ For Correction Propero lleply Circulate / For Your Information See Me en .. : / m vostiset. ms = tue.

• • - 2:. : T : - / Justify no mtns ses j,(.a ,, u n , p i _= & ,

rfu .s 1 l--Mk n .e4

/L dm= /

_n . Wat dr.ss n &:-- sock &%

4 c:urst y .w zra iffr a f.osy / A 4 fl. .zo rer - ),a72&f.<Av.u.a d d p *onpt 2&- /* A r,s. .Jn ad 4 -- -- -

p 1sw Am W =& '

x i are Ma MZy*- '

o s

> 8C T +t'.*,*- ' #

• E' :: sp,JovW .:o .u* .r.ce dis;osels,

. 44. aM :,.re.ita: act:n.w

~

...h '* k, org. symbol, Agency / Post) Room No. ?

l kk .4/4 f F fg j sost-302 ( OMIONAL FOltM 41 (Rev. 7-76)

• h: 1982 o - 3:1-srs (223) FreenYMS-11.aos l

l l

1 i

DET DRAFT 8 FEB 85 Memorandum for: William J. Dircks l Executive Director for Operations j From: Robert B. Minogue, Director I Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research I

Subject:

Control of NRC Rulemaking; RES Quarterly Independent Review of Rulemaking, 10 CFR Part 21 / 50.55 (e).

In accordance with the Procedures for Conducting R Independent Review of Rulemaking that were approved by you on 30 May 984 RES has conducted a review of the IE sponsored rulemaking, "Propo d Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for Reporting Defects nd Noncompliance (10 CFR Part 21 and 50)." This review has been foc ad on (a) need, (b) likely effectiveness and (c) evaluation of the I s0 itted information based on procedures and guidelines approved for N st f use.

RES agrees with the recommendation of he Dire tor IE that this rulemaking should continue. The ba s or the recommendation to continue is the following:

(a) duplicative reporting re iremen s, reporting requirements that do not have definitive reporting resho s and reporting requirements that do not have clear timing requi e nts are not in the public interest.

Part 21 has had no substantive e ital amendments since 1977 and 10 CFR 50.55(e) has had no tantive c nical changes since 1972 but there have been substantiye re rting equirements added to Part 50 in 1983, for example 650.72 nd 50 73. C arification is needed.

(b) NRC staff effo t add s, within the statutory authority of the pertinent Public Law example P. L. 96 - 295 and 96 - 438, the concerns ident ed 1 (a) above are timely and the staff should be able to develop rule hat ot only decreases the reporting burden levied on the regu ted indu try but also decreases the review requirements on NRC withou ca sing lo s of reports with significance to the public health and s ety.

(c) the inci s on of (i) requirements for licensed organizations and other organiz ions to provide the r'egulatory agency information concerning e health and safety of the public and li) authority of the regulatory agency to penalize high level individuals who cover up such information is appropriate for rules / regulations. The current rules / regulations in those areas of Title-10 Chapter I are the subject of this review within the rulemaking process.

i

I W. J. Dircks 2 l

r (d) the rulemaking proposes to delete duplicative reporting requirements while establishing, in the various regulations, consistent thresholds and timing requirements.

(e) the schedular information provided by IE (Lanik) on February 1985, that is transmittal of a Comission Paper from the EDO to the Comission prior to 1 June 1985, appears feasible if significant resources are available.

RES also recomends:

(1) the Comission paper include a discus on of the Comission actions to implement Section 203 of Public L w 96 - 295 (June 30, 1980).

That section contains a statutory finition of " basic component" that is different from the one th t was noticed in 10 CFR Part 21 as an effective rule on 19 October 78 and it is different from that in the 23 January 1985 D:IE ,0. That section appears to require the Comission to establish afte June 1980 - limits relating to unplanned offsite release of fissi n products. Such limits would interrelate to the statutor defin ion of basic component.

(2) the Comission ger inc1 de discussion of the effect of increasing the n >er of or izations that are within the scope of Part 21 by the c an e in 9 1.3(a)(2).

"21.3 As used n this part:(a)...(2) " Basic Component," when applied to oth vtilities...means a component, structure, system, o pa geofthatis[directly]procuredbythe license..."{t 1[ ] indicate a q etion from rule noticed October 1978. ... indicates unchanged material h .)notbeensetforth.

5 i

\

l

W. J. Dircks 3 (3) the Comission paper include a discussion of the benefits achieved by deleting the phrase "... offered to the purchaser for acceptance..." from 921.3(d)(3) - which relates to items constructed in place for Part 50 - while maintaining the ord " delivery" in

$21.3(f)(1) - the new subparagraph which r ates to items that are not constucted "in place." Such deletion can be construed - for ,

items constructed "in place" to cause P t 21 to become operable at I the same time as 10 CFR Part 50 Appen x B requirements related to noncompliance to specification requi men s.

(4) the Comission paper include a discussion f how the intended application of Part 21, that s it will not be utilized in relation to reports of events relate to Part 50 licensees (either for operation or construction) ut it "will be exclusively used for reporting of defects disc ere by all others..." including vendors, can be deemed to implement h legislative history of f206 of the Energy Reorganization Act o 974 as amended. A commonly held interpretation of the legisl tive history has been that $206 does allow levying of a penalty ag inst specific individuals of organizations-1 ensee and no licensee-who did not make certain reports to NRC he individu 1 was aware of the significance of the event. Incl de i that interpretation is that there is no specific authorit in 206 to levy any penalties against oroaniz_ations, ei e ensee or nonlicense.

The comp ete R in epe ent review package has been sent to OEDO (Attenti'on} DED, ROG)(R and the Director IE.

Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 7 ' clo re:

.o dated 23'Jan-ff83 to .DMS

/ V, ,/

jniil:

/ /

QEMjkte# tion DE00ROGR)

D:I . ylp)

W. 'J. Dircks 4 1

bcc: RBMinogue , D. Ross, J. Richardson, W. E. Campbell, (2)

C:RES IRB (F. Gillespie) G. Arlotto, C:EEB:IE (E. Rossi) J. Henry MSEB 500 with CRGR memo of 24 Nov 81 to ED0 Record Note: The following items not in the D:IE memo of 23 Jan 1985 were considered in the review by W. E. Campbell, Jr. (1) current revisions of 10 CFR Part 21, 50.55e, 50.72, 50.73 and the " preambles" to those rules, (2) 24 Nov 1981 memo of C:CRGR to ED0 and its enclosures, (3) NUREG 0302 Rev 1, (4) discussion of schedular information with IE (Lanik) on 7 Feb 1985. That information conflicts with is later than the date in Enclosure 2 of the 0:IE memo. That infomation is "NPRM 04/00/85."

RES:DET:MSEB WECAMPBELL WEC1/IND REV PT21

--r-, _- c,, - ,, , . v.-,.- , , - - - --e , - . . , - . - , - ,

OFFICE REVIEW PACKAGE RECEIVED FROM OFFICE OF IllSPECT1011 APD EliFORCE;4Ellf l

l

- m m ,- , e ~T F. - .- .

..  %- , ,gete ,

. 7 ' '

t*,f vm AND TRANSMITTAL M > - w * --

i%. J - -

. .omoeey nor, room .m eer, . wuens ones 4.m s 3..~ . Agency / Post) .:.;:- ;,

2 7:

a'

3. L -Yollrwe - 0^ .: n .'.--

./

[ $ 3, i], w ucur s sionai.di~c N f-Fm M) d' s

4.

3 5

'W File Note and Retum Approwel For Cleerence Per Conversation

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

p n,m__- --; y,,e,,,,,,,, p,,,,,e nepw -

r .- . ._

see me r- cie -_% ror veer warmenon  :

w

-_. g ,,,,,,,

...7-t 2r Jesti& r M;; ey ?,- T,-hiin ~# .

g ggggs - " V Trp ,

.: -  ;- v. .

. r a=- _s_

g m.. , ,

~

n,, a. ~-m. ,er_ . .

pV. MW

.. -m, r_ ~_#

2- REnUEST FOR REVIEL' 0F RULE'Y.KI'lG

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

c

,. .1 . _.

_.^

.,:-- ? '

P0TES: both nemos should be sioned, and concurred:

a or to ,.ino ue and ay or to Dircks w_~.:Y.w i -

D. .O.._.T_M. g.,.x ux.~v~~ ..__. .-. -

-. m - , ,, _

. . . qds . (undated) RES will forward to Dircks the .. --

Taylor to Dircks meno and nuarterly Update c-- . . 7 f--- g ;" ~;~.ar

'~

of Regulator.v Acenda WE g n .0. .__ ._-_- ."m.

6,

.->i.. . -.-= x 7 ,

_2

• -i. , ...%; -c  ; -

r,::~^ ~~

.JP y^yQG;-l :n ,

1. [2 i;5??"zum gg%,m..c-  :)-= .

w- 2:W-~;

2c2fp .. . ~- .m.

QLQL,RQ.. .

v.

, ., *^ -~ -

. +%Q+*jf

' '3***% .

e~m.

==*~ ~w :

--%--g

, , w - -; ::g

.,1 7-- ,;

2 15* T . _ --- ? ?

• _

. 90 NOT ison this form as a RtcoRD et approvels, eencurionoes, anspoemis,  ;

1 ~ 't h .cfr 72 .c%.

7; 2 cieerences, and simmer actions .s- . . m. . m._,

u.

~~.y~ --

. * 'fROM:(Narne, org. symnoi, Agency / Post)

^ Room No.-Bids ,

~ ~

r ..

Phone No. ,

y _ - . - . _ _ _ _ _

sess-ler .- -OPTIONAL. FORM-41 (Rev. 7-76)

- pousarmes esa

• FPMR 641 108-11.2 6 eGPO s 1981 0 - 341-129 (109)

.--:. B

emg

, k p, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L  !

j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 ,

1 s....../ JAN 2 31985 I

i l

MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert 8. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM: James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR REVIEW 0F RULEMAKING Enclosure 1 is my request to the EDO to continue the rulemaking activity entitled, " Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance (10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 50)," for which we have assumed responsibility from RES. Also enclosed is the Quarterly Update of Regulatory Agenda for the rulemaking. In accordance with the procedures described in the ED0 memorandum dated February 13, 1984, subject, " Control of NRC Rulemaking by Offices Reporting to the EDO," we are requesting your review in order to continue this rulemaking activity. Further, we recommend that this activity be continued because:

1. The effort was prompted by the TMI Action Plan (Task II, J.4) which directed the staff to evaluate and to ensure prompt and comprehensive reporting.

2. CRGR Review ~of 10 CFR 50.73, " Licensee Event Report System," recommended that a plan be developed to ensure the coordination of all reporting requirements imposed on Part 50 licensees.

Accordingly, enclosed is the rulemaking review package for this effort which includes our recomendation as to how to proceed with this rulemaking and the office review that considers the six items in ED0's February 13, 1984 memorandum.

, /

Jtmes M. Tay , Director ffice of Inspection and Enforcement  !

Enclosures:

1. Memo from Taylor to Dircks

2. Quarterly Update of Regulatory Agenda

3. Rulemaking Review Package ,

1 cc: See page 2 850170 1

Robert .

cc/w enclosures:

Jim Henry Tony Dipalo i

I Enclosure 1 Request for Approval to Continue Rulemaking s

aung j

( 4 UNITED STATES l 8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 :p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

• s.,...+/ ,

MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM: James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO CONTINUE RULEMAKING Enclosed is the Quarterly Update of Regulatory Agenda for the rulemaking entitled, " Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Report-ing of Defects and Noncompliance (10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 50)," for which we have assumed responsibility from RES. In accordance with your memorandum dated February 13, 1984, subject, " Control of NRC Rulemaking by Offices Reporting to the E00," we are requesting your approval to continue this rulemaking activity.

We recommend that this activity be continued because:

1. The effort was prompted by the TMI Action Plan (Task II, J.4) which directed the staff to evaluate and to ensure prompt and comprehensive reporting.

2. CRGR Review of 10 CFR 50.73, " Licensee Event Report System," recomended that a plan be developed to ensure the coordination of all reporting requirements imposed on Part 50 licensees.

Accordingly, we have submitted the rulemaking review package for this effort to RES which includes our recommendation as to how to proceed with this rulemaking and the office review that considers the six items in your February 13, 1984 memorandum.

) -

. [ -

J mes M. Ta r, Director fice of I spection and Enforcement

Enclosure:

Quarterly Update of Regulatory Agenda

Enclosure 2 Quarterly Update of Regulatory Agenda l

TITLE:

. Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliances CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

This proposed rule would amend Part 21 and Section 50.55(e) of Part 50, which require the reporting of safety defects by licensees and non-licensees.

This effort was prompted by TMI action plan Task II, J.4 and has as its main objectives: (1) elimination of duplicate reporting among all requirements, (2) consistent reporting among all reporting requirements, (3) establishment of uniform and clear definitions for defects which need to be reported, (4) establishment of uniform time limits within which a defect must be evaluated and reported and, (5) establishment of a uniform format for reporting of defects. Approximately 300 and 5000 reports are issued annually under Part 21 andE50.55(e),respectively. The reports identify plant specific safety concerns and potential generic safety concerns for further NRC followup.

These reports form the basis for numerous NRC bulletins and infomation notices. This proposed rulemaking will reduce the potential for duplicate reporting and evaluation that now exists and will establish a more coherent regulatory framework that is expected to reduce industry and NRC burden in this area without sacrificing safety effectiveness. Alternatives to this approach varied from establishment of a single rule for all reporting to main-taining a status quo for defect reporting. All alternatives were rejected since they would not result in any substantial improvement to the present regulatory framework. Current costs of reporting under Part 21 and 50.55(e) are estimated at $11,040,000 annually for industry and $1,980,000 annually for NRC evaluations. It is anticipated that industry reporting burden with the .

proposed rulemaking will be reduced by 38,800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br /> or $2,320,000. NRC burden will not be reduced but will be shifted to increase followup of safety concerns related to these reports. Additional burden to industry of 4800 hours0.0556 days <br />1.333 hours <br />0.00794 weeks <br />0.00183 months <br /> or )

$288,000 is anticipated due to the requirement for timely evaluation under Part 21. NRC burden will increase by $100,000 in the area of enforcement.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 04/00/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 2282: 42 USC 5841, 42 US 5846 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: None AGENCY CONTACT:

John Zudans Office of Inspection and Enforcement Washington, DC 20555 (301)492-7205

I Enclosure 3 Rulemaking Review Package

0FFICE REVIEW

. Proposed Revisions to the Criteria and Procedures for  !

the Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance (10 CFR 21; 10 CFR 50) l Item 1. The issue to be addressed; i.e. the problem to be corrected i l

l This proposed rule would amend Part 21 and Section 50.55(e) of Part  !

! 50, which require the reporting of safety defects by licensees. This effort was prompted by the TMI Action Plan (Task II, J.4) which directed the staff to evaluate and revise, if necessary, the existing requirements of these rules to ensure prompt and comprehensive reporting. In addition, CRGR review of 10 CFR 50.73, " Licensee Event i Report System," recomended that a plan be developed to ensure the '

coordination of all reporting requirements imposed on Part 50 licen-sees. This recommendation was endorsed by the Executive Director for i Operations. Accordingly, based on the above recomendations the proposedrevisiontoPart21and50.55(e)focuseson(1) elimination of duplicate reporting and establishment of consistency with other l NRC reporting requirements, (2) establishment of clear definitions ,

for deviations that need to be reported, (3) establishment of time l limits within which a defect must be evaluated and reported and, (4)

] establishment of a uniform format for reporting of defects.

Item 2. The necessity and urgency for addressing the issue Approximately 25,000 organizations, licensees and nonlicensees, are under the scope of these reporting requirements. Approximately 300 reports and 5000 reports are issued under Part 21 and $50.55(e),

respectively. These reports form the basis for NRC bulletins and information notices. Taking no action would continue the poten-tial for duplicate reporting and evaluation that now exists, and ,

ignores the opportunity for establishing a more coherent regulatory framework that would reduce the burden for reporting on the regulated industry, without sacrificing safety effectiveness.

Item 3. Alternatives to rulemaking Alternatives to the rulemaking proposed were considered when evaluating each of the objectives noted above. Amongst the alter-natives considered were (1) incorporation of all reporting into one rule, (2) establishment of different reporting criteria, (3) i establishment of different' reporting times and (4) maintaining the status quo for reporting format or establishing different reporting formats. All alternatives were rejected since they would not result in any substantial improvement to the regulatory framework.

Item 4. How the issue will be addressed through rulemaking Covered in answer to Item 1.

! Item 5. How the public, industry and NRC will be affected as a result of rulemaking, including benefits and costs, occupational exposure and resources.

i l

t i

Current costs of reporting under Part 21 and $50.55(e) are estimated I at $11,040,000 annually for industry and $1,980,000 annually for NRC evaluations. With the proposed rulemaking it is anticipated that industry burden should decrease by 38,800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br />, or $2,320,000. NRC burden will not be reduced but will be shifted to increase followup of safety concerns related to these reports. Additional burden is l anticipated for industry in the area of time schedules for evaluation; 1

burden due to adherence to reasonable time schedules is estimated at 4800 hours0.0556 days <br />1.333 hours <br />0.00794 weeks <br />0.00183 months <br /> or $288,000. Additional burden of 1 man year or $100,000 is j anticipated for NRC in the area of enforcenent.

t I

i Item 6. NRC resources and scheduling needed for the rulemaking I

Present IE resources are adequate to complete rulemaking on the proposed schedule. No additional manpower is anticipated.

Some slippage of the schedule occurred due to temporary reassignment of the agency contact to another high priority task. However, his return to this task is imminent and a revised schedule has been prepared. i i i i

I l

l l

1 4

,. -----.v,,-,v ,--+,m -m.u-,,,, ---,m- ,-w. -----,a,._.-m-m - n.,--,--- -,.n . .v--,, , -- ,,rr-r-e-----

e e g4 t

BACKGROUND INFORMATION l-

..p o %

g UNITED STATES

[  %} NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k ..... pf ,

. NOV 3 01984 MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Guy H. Cunningham, Director Office of the Executive Legal Director Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Clemens J. Heltemes, Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data Patricia G. Norry, Director Office of Administration Joseph J. Fouchard, Director Office of Public Affairs FROM: Richard C. DeYoung, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED RULE CONCURRENCE REQUEST - 10 CFR 21, " REPORTING '

OF DEFECTS AND NONCOMPLIANCE" AND 10 CFR 50.55(e), " REPORTING DEFECTS IN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION" Your concurrence and comments are requested on the enclosed draft Comission paper containing proposed revisions to 10 CFR 21. " Reporting of Defects and-Noncompliance" and 10 CFR 50.55(e), " Reporting of Defects in Design and Con-struction." This draft has been updated to include Headquarters Office coments made on the July 18, 1983, version of this document, recent Regional input and additional Office of Inspection and Enforcement inputs. I would request your concurrence and coments by Friday, December 14, 1984. I also would like to extend our appreciation for the assistance and review that your staff has already provided on this proposal. I believe that we have reached a consensus on the format and substance of the proposed rule. -

The following is a sumary of this request:

1.

Title:

Draft Comission Paper, November 1984, " Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance" and " Reporting of Defects in Design and Construction."

8 Multiple Addressees t

. 2. IE Task Leader: J. J. Zudans, Events Analysis Branch, IE

3. Requested Action: Coment and Concurrence

4. Requested Completion Date: December 14, 1984

5.

Background:

Task II, J.4 of the TMI Action Plan directed the staff to evaluate and revise, if necessary, the existing requirements of 10 CFR 21 and 10 CFR 50.55(e) to ensure prompt and comprehensive reporting. In addition, the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) in their review of 10 CFR 50.73, " Licensee Event Report System," recomended that a plan be developed to ensure the coordination of'all reporting requirements imposed on licensees by 10 CFR 50. The Executive Director for Operations (EDO) endorsed this recomendation, and Item #7 in the Plan to Coordinate the Reporting of Operational Events calls for the proposed revision of 10 CFR 21 and 10 CFR 50.55(e) to utilize, to the extent practicable, the same criteria for notification and reporting as that developed for 10 CFR 50.73. Accordingly, based on the above recommendations, and on current staff experience with 10 CFR 21 and 10 CFR 50.55(e), the proposed revision of the, existing regulations focuses on the following issues:

1. eliminating duplicative evaluation and reporting and establishing consistency with other NRC safety deficiency reporting requirements;

2. more clearly defining the deviations that need to be reported;

3. establishing time limits for reporting and evaluation;

4. establishing a uniform format for reporting.

Final editing of the enclosed drafts will' be accomplished in parallel with your review. Thus, any coments should address substantive issues.

In addition, this Office is contemplating amendments to 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73 to clarify reporting requirements for events which are precursors to comon mode failures. Enclosure H outlines the proposed changes to 10 CFR 50.73 which will be similarly implemented in 10 CFR 50.72.

ichar . DeYoung, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement

Enclosures:

As stated cc: J. M. Taylor, IE J. Axelrad, IE G. Zech, IE E. Blackwood, ED0

_-- - - _ ,_ _ _ _..~,.____ ,___. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,, - - __ ,

t For: The Commissioners From: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

Subject:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR 21, " REPORTING 0F DEFECTS ,

AND NONCOMPLIANCE" AND 10 CFR 50.55(e), " REPORTING 0F DEFECTS IN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION"

Purpose:

To obtain approval to publish for public connent proposed amendments that clarify the criteria and procedures for the reporting of safety defects by licensees and nonlicensees.

Category: Minor policy question.

Issue: Should 10 CFR 21 and 10 CFR 50.55(e) be revised to establish uniform criteria and procedures for the reporting of safety defects?

Discussion: BACKGROUND Existing Commission regulations contain several safety deficiency reporting requirements applicable to the con-struction and operation of nuclear power plants:

Part 21 applies to all NRC licensees, as well as nonlicensees who supply basic components to these licensees, and requires the reporting of defects that could create a " substantial safety hazard."

- Paragraph 50.55(e) applies solely to the holders of construction permits under Part 50 and requires the reporting of "significant deviations" or "significant deficiencies" which could adversely affect safety.

- Section 50.73, published July 26,1983,[33850]

establishes a licensee event report system (LER) that applies uniformly to all operating nuclear power

Contact:

J. J. Zudans, IE 492-7205

I f

plants. This regulation requires the licensee to submit a written report for each significant operating event.

In the time period since Part 21 and i 50.55(e) were promulgated, the need for revision of these regulations has become apparent. Task II J.4 of the TMI Action Plan direc-ted the staff to evaluate and revise, if necessary, the existing requirements of 10 CFR Part 21 and i 50.55(e) to.

ensure prompt and comprehensive reporting. In addition, the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) in their review of proposed 10 CFR 50.73, " Licensee Event Report System" recomended that a plan be developed to ensure the coordination of all reporting requirements imposed on Part 50 licensees. The Executive Director for Operations (EDO).endcrsed this recommendation, and Item #7 3

in the Plan to Coordinate the Reporting of Operational Events (Enclosure D) calls for the revision of Part 21 i

and i 50.55(e) to utilize, to the extent practicable, the i

same criteria for notification and reporting as that developed for i 50.73. Accordingly, based on the above recomendations, and on current staff experience with Part i 21 and i 50.55(e), the proposed revision of the existing regulations would:

l 1. Eliminate duplicative evaluation and reporting and establish consistency with other NRC safety deficiency reporting requirements; i

2. More clearly define the deviations that need to be reported; ,

j 3. Establish time limits for evaluation and reporting; Establish a uniform fonnat for reporting.

4.

These revisions will reduce the amount of time expended by l industry in complying with existing reporting and evalua-l tion requirements, while still ensuring that safety devia-tions are identified and evaluated in a timely manner.

! .PART 21 i

i Part 21 was designed to implement section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5846). Section 206 requires directors and responsible officers of firms i

constructing, owning, operating, or supplying the compo-4 nents of any facility or activity licensed under the J

Atomic Energy Act to report to the Comission the discovery of " defects" in " basic components" that could create a

!. " substantial safety hazard." The purpose of section 206 4

) .

\ .

1

! was to assure that the Commission has prompt information concerning safety defects. In addition to imposing obli-

! gations on the directors and responsible officers of NRC

! licensees, section 206 also imposes obligations on the

) directors or responsible officers of nonlicensees that supply certain safety related components to licensed faci-lities or activities. Section 206 subjects any responsible

j. individual who knowingly fails to comply with the notifica-i tion requirements to civil penalties.

On March 3,1975, the NRC published a proposed rule designed i to implement section 206 (40 FR 8832), and on June 6, 1977, i

issued the final rule, adding Part 21 to the Comission's regulations (42 FR 28893)~. The regulations in 10 CFR Part 21 j impose reporting requirements on directors and responsible officers of finns constructing, owning, operating, or supply-ing components for any facility or activity licensed or otherwise regulated pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,

as amended. Approximately 300 reports are submitted to the j NRC annually under Part 21.

SECTION 50.55(e)

~

Section 50.55(e) of 10 CFR Part 50, originally promulgated

. as a final rule on March 30, 1972 (37 FR 6459), establishes

uniform requirements for reporting deficiencies occurring ,

i during the design and construction of nuclear power plants.

l The rule was designed to enable the NRC to receive prompt

notification of deficiencies and to have timely information on which to base an evaluation of the potential safety con- . ,

! sequences of the deficiency and determine if further regula-tory action is required. Therefore, the holder of a permit 4

for the construction of a nuclear power plant is required

to notify the Commission of each significant deficiency

found in the processes of design, manufacture, fabrication,

installation, construction, testing, and inspection, which l if it were to have remained uncorrected, could have adverse-

! ly affected the safety of operations of the nuclear power l plant at any time throughout the expected lifetime of the

, plant. Approximately 5000 reports are submitted to the NRC annually under i 50.55(e).

PROPOSED REGULATIONS .

1. Eliminating Duplicative Reporting Requirements As noted above, Comission regulations contain several safety deficiency reporting requirements. Although distinctions exist, instances have occurred where the same deficiency in a component was evaluated by two i

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

_,_,_,,__,___,_,,,,,,.,,,,,,-y ,m ..,.-,,..m _,_ ,,_____ , , . , , . - . ..y_y-, , . , . _ _ _ - , _ . . . , , _ , _ _ _ - m_,,I

i ,

1 -

4 different organizations, one attempting to satisfy the i

criteria of Part 21, and the other attempting to meet the differently worded criteria of 9 50.55(e). Al-though the original intent was for reporting under only one of these requirements thereby satisfying the other reporting requirements, in reality, this intended i method of reporting has not occurred. In addition to the fact that the reporting criteria were different for each requirement, the lack of any explicit language in j the regulations that addresses the duplicative report-ing issue has led to duplication of both licensee and NRC staff effort. The proposed revision to i 21.2 i would explicitly relieve the holders of construction j permits under Part 50 from the Part 21 reporting 4

requirements since previously unreported defects are to be reported by holders of construction permits under i50.55(e). Similarly, proposed i 21.2 would explicit-ly relieve the holders of operating licenses under i Part 50 from the Part 21 reporting requirements since previously unreported defects are to be reported by holders of operating licenses under $50.73. In addi-1 tion, 5 50.55(e)(7) is being added to relieve the i holders of construction permits under Part 50 from

. reporting a defect if a report under Part 21 has been previously submitted for that particular defect.

The intent of these revisions is to establish the filing of one report for each defect, with the reporting obligation resting on the entity that discovers the defect. Any additional reporting on a ,

, defect by other than the entity that discovers the defect would be.to supplement the original report. As an example, supplementary reporting would be required by parties other than the originator to inform the Comision about others who may be affected by the

defect. 5 50.55(e) will be exclusively used for the reporting of defects discovered by construction permit holders (or referred to them by a vendor who cannot evaluate the defect); i 50.73 is exclusively used for the reporting of defects discovered by the

holders of operating licenses (or referred to them by i

a vendor who cannot evaluate the defect); Part 21 will be exclusively used for reporting of defects discovered

by all others involved in constructing, owning, operat-ing or supplying components for any facility or activity licensed or otherwise regulated pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the

! Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. To help i eliminate the duplicative reporting and the potential uncertainty regarding requirements for reporting, the proposed revision also establishes similar reporting criteria and fonnat, discussed infra.

j

. These changes will also serve to implement the recom- l mendation contained in the ED0's Plan to coordinate the i reporting of operational events. It is anticipated

.that this proposed revision will significantly reduce i the reporting burdens on the regulated industry, as I well as reduce the Comission staff time necessary to evaluate these reports, without any loss of relevant ,

safety information. '

2. Defining Defects To Be Reported <

l Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act requires l the reporting of " defects which could create a substan- l tial safety hazard." '

Existing $21.3(k) defines substantial safety hazard as i "a loss of safety function to the extent that there is

! I a major reduction in the degree of protection provided 1 4

to public health and safety for any facility or activity i licensed, other than for export, pursuant to Parts 30, l 40, 50, 60, 70, 71, or 72 . . . ."

Section 50.55(e) requires the reporting of deficiencies I i

in design and construction which could adversely affect  !

the safety of operations of a nuclear power plant and l which represents: l A significant breakdown'in any portion of the j

. quality assurance program; or  !

- A significant deviation in a final design; or -

- A significant deviation in the construction of, or significant damage to a structure, system, or j component requiring corrective action involving

extensive effort; or

)

- A significant deviation from performance speci-fications requiring corrective action involving extensive effort.

NRC experience with both the Part 21 and i 50.55(e) reports has indicated that clarification of the type l

of deviation that is required to be reported would be

helpful. In addition, the plan for coordinating the

! reporting of operational events called for the estab- i l lishment of similar reporting criteria in Part 21 and j i 50.55(e) as that established in i 50.73. Accordingly,

' the reporting criteria in proposed i 21.3 and proposed i . 5 50.55(e)(1) are similar to those contained in i

proposed i 50.73, and are based on the specific safety

i

t l ,

functions of nuclear power reactor systems. The ori-i ginal definition of " substantial safety hazard" under l Part 21 for any facility or activity licensed, other

.than for export, pursuant to parts 30, 40, 60, 70, 71

! or 72 of this chapter has also been retained.

i The proposed criteria will set a uniform reporting threshold for the safety deficiency reporting require-ments of Part 21, 5 50.55(e) and i 50.73. This will.

add' more certainty to the reporting process, will eli-minate the licensee and staff resources now expended on reports for defects which do not represent signifi-cant safety problems, and will still ensure that the NRC is notified of defects for which corrective action

nay be necessary.

3. Establishing Time Limits for Reporting and Evaluation ,

Under existing i 21.21(b)(2), the initial notification of a defect must be made to the NRC within 2 days of the time a director or responsible officer obtains information on the existence of a reportable defect.

However, the existing rule is silent concerning the 1 time period between the identification of a deviation and the time when an evaluation of the deviation should be completed. Similarly, no deadline is established for when the director or responsible officer must be informed of a potentially reportable deviation. This absence of time schedules has sometimes resulted in long delays between the identification of a potential problem and the completion of an evaluation. Further- - ;

more, the existing regulations allow the directors and

' responsible officers of a firm to remain uninformed concerning potentially reportable problems during the

. period from identification through evaluation. The proposed revision to i 21.21 would establish time schedules for evaluating deviations, and for informing directors or responsible corporate officers, affected purchasers or licensees, and the NRC.

The proposed revision to i 50.55(e) would clarify the time period allowed for evaluating potentially report-able defects and extend initial notification of the Commission from 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to five days.

4. Reporting Format Both the Part 21 a'nd i 50.55(e) revisions establish a uniform format for the information that needs to be reported to the Commission. These revisions will ensure that the Commission obtains all the information J

g -..,--n-,-.- ----- ,w,,s.m,o,,e-

necessary to evaluate and take corrective action in reference to a particular defect. A unifonn format will also facilitate ease of reporting by the regulated industry.

It should also be noted that proposed 9 21.51 clarifies the specific-records that must be maintained to ensure compliance with Part 21.

RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS No additional NRC resource requirements are anticipated as a result of this action. In fact, the goal of reducing duplication of reporting should reduce the resources needed to review and process these reports. NRC time expended on identifying and tracking duplicate reports is expected to be eliminated, thereby, reducing the burden. It is esti-mated that the net reduction in burden is approximately

$98,000 annually.*

Recommendation: That the Commission:

1. Approve publication of a notice of the proposed amend-ments in the Federal Register (Enclosure A);

2. Certify that the proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substan-tial number of small entities. This certification is necessary in order to satisfy the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b); and

3. Note:

a. The notice of proposed rulemaking in Enclosure A will be published in the Federal Register allow-ing 60 days for public comment.

b. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration will be informed of the certification and the reasons for it as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

c. The proposed rule contains information collection requirements that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and

• Paragraph revised 12/04/84.

t Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirements.

d. Pursuant to 9 51.5(d) of Part 51 of the Commis-

- sion's regulations, neither an environmental impact statement or appraisal need be prepared since the proposed amendments are nonsubstantive I and insignificant from the standpoint of environ- )

mental impact. .

e. The Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Connittee, the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power of the. House Energy and Connerce Comittee, and

~

the Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources of the House Committee on Government Operations will be informed of the rulemaking by letter such as Enclosure E.

f. The Federal Register notice of proposed rulemaking will be distributed to affected licensees and nonlicensees.

g. A public announcement, Enclosure F, will be issued by the Office of Public Affairs when the proposed rulemaking is filed with the Office of the Federal-Register.

, h. A regulatory analysis, (Enclosure B), has been prepared for this rulemaking.

i. By letter dated November 9, 1982 (Fraley to

Dircks) ACRS agreed not to review this proposed rule at this time. Subsequent to the receipt of public comments and the nature of the comments, the ACRS may decide to review this rule before it is published as a final rule.

Scheduling: No specific circumstance is known to the staff which would require Commission action by any particular date in the near term.

I William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

See next page b

e

.e.., . , ., - - ,_ m _ , , . . . , , _ - ,- .- , , _ , - , . , . . - - ,.,,w,-r, , - - - - . - .

I l

- g.

t

Enclosures:

A - Draft Federal Register Notice B - Regulatory Analysis C - 10 CFR 50.73, " Licensee Event Report System", (48 Fed. Reg. 33850)

D - Plan to Coordinate the Reporting of Operational Events E - Draft Congressional Letter -

F - Draft Public Announcement G - OMB Supporting Statement G

we O

e l

1 i

l

-- ' - - ------- -- __ _r,__ , _, ,

a _,.

-- .-r v w 0

t t

I 0

O ENCLOSURE A l

e D

e

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

I

[7590-01]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 21 and 50 REVISIONS TO THE CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR THE REPORTING OF DEFECTS AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

'i i

ACTION: Proposed rule. .

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to amend its regulations on the reporting of safety defects. The proposed revisions are a result of Commission efforts to apply the experience gained at Three Mile Island and to also reflect Commission experience to date with the existing regulations. The proposed amendments, applicable to Commission licensees and to nonlicensees

. who supply components to facilities or activities licensed by the Commission, will eliminate duplicative reporting, establish consistency with other Commis-sion s.afety reporting requirements, clarify the criteria for reporting, and establish time periods, procedures, and formats for reporting.

] ,

1 DATES: Comments must be received on or before . Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received before this date.

ADDRESS: Submit written comments to the Secretary of the Commission, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. Copies of comments received and the regulatory analysis may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

J. J. Zudans

Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I Washington, DC 20555 Telephone (301-492-7205) ,

i l i i 1 Enclosure A

[7590-01]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background i Existing Commission regulations contain several safety deficiency report-ing requirements applicable to the construction and operation of nuclear power plants:

- Part 21. applies- to all NRC licensees, as well as nonlicensees who supply components to these licensees, and requires the reporting of defects that could cre. ate a " substantial safety hazard."

- Paragraph 50.55(e) applies solely to the holders of construction permits under Part 50 and requires the reporting of "significant deviations" or "significant deficiencies" which could adversely affect safety.

- Section 50.73 (48 FR 33850, July 26, 1983) establishes a licensee event report system (LER) that applies uniformly to all operating

' nuclear power plants. This regulation requires the licensee to submit a writter, report for each significant operating event.

Section 5 50.73 4eplaced existing LER requirements in 5 50.36.

In the time period since Part 21 and 5 50.55(e) were promulgated, the need for revision of these regulations has become apparent. . Task II J.4 of the TMI Action Plan directed the staff to evaluate and revise, if necessary, the existing requirements of 10 CFR Part 21 and 50.55(e) to ensure prompt and comprehensive reporting. In addition, the Plan to Coordinate the Reporting of Operational Events (available a't the NRC Public Document Room as part of the regulatory analysis for this proposed rul'e) that was developed by the Comission staff to ensure coordination and consistency among the various safety deficiency  :

reporting requirements contained a recomendation that the proposed revisions to Part 21 and 6 50.55(e) utilize similar criteria and procedures for reporting as those for 10 CFR 50.73. Accordingly, based upon the above recommendations, and on current staff experience with Part 21 and i 50.55(e), the proposed revision  ;

would:

1. Eliminate duplicative evaluation and reporting and establish consistency with other NRC safety deficiency reporting requirements;

2. More clearly define the deviation ~s that need to be reported; 2 Enclosure A l

1

[7590-01]

3. Establish time limits for evaluation and reporting;

4. Establish a uniform format for reporting. ,

. These revisions will reduce the amount of time expended by industry in complying with existing reporting and evaluation requirements while still ensuring that safety deviations are identified and evaluated in a timely manner. It should be emphasized that the proposed revision is aimed at improving the evaluation and reporting of safety defects ,from Nuclear Power Plants. However, because Part 21 also applies to other Conaission facilities and activities, the proposed revisions will also affect these licensees and their suppliers of component parts. Any proposed amendments that apply exclusively to nuclear 1

power reactors will be clearly identified both in the text of the proposed rule, and in the supplementary information.

Part 21 Part 21 was designed to implement section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Actof1974(42U.S.C.5846). Section 206 requires directors and responsible officers of firms constructing, owning, operating, or supplying the components of any facility or activity licensed under the Atomic Energy Act to report to the Commission the discovery of " defects" in " basic components" that could create a " substantial safety hazard." The purpose of section 206 was to ensure that the Comission has prompt information concerning safety defects. In addi-tion to imposing obligations on the directors and responsible officers of hRC licensees, section 206 also imposes obligations on the directors or responsible officers of nonlicensees that supply components to licensed facilities or acti-vities. Section 206 subjects any individual officer or director who knowingly fails to comply with the notification requirements to civil penalties.

On March 3, 1975, the NRC published a proposed rule designed to implement section 206 (40 FR 8832), and on June 6, 1977, issued the final rule, adding Part 21 to the Comission's regulations (42 FR 28893).

The regulations in 10 CFR Part 21 impose reporting requirements on directors and responsible officers of firms constructing, owning, operating, or supplying components for any facility or activity licensed or otherwise regulated pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. Section 21.3 defines " constructing" as the design, manufacture, fabrication, placement, erection, installation, modification 3 Enclosure A

[7590-01]

( inspection, or testing of a facility or activity subject to Part 21 and l consulting services related to the ' facility or activity that are safety related.

The term " supplying" is defined as contractually responsible for a basic com-ponent used or to be used in a facility or activity that is subject to the

! Part 21 regulations. In addition to implementing the notification of defects i and civil penalty. provisions of section 206, the final rule went on to define such terms as " defects," " basic component," and " substantial safety hazard,"

and to require the development of procedures for evaluating potential defects l

and for ensuring that the director or responsible officer of the finn is .

informed of any such defect. Part 21 was amended on October 19, 1978 (43 FR 48721) to exempt "coninercial grade items" from Part 21 until the items were

" dedicated" for use as a basic component for a nuclear facility.

Approximately 25,000 organizations, licensees, and nonlicensees, are under the scope of Part 21 reporting requirements. Licensees are granted licenses under the'following parts: production and utilization facility licenses issued

! under 10 CFR Part 50, including nuclear power plants and research and test reactors at various stages in the licensing process; byproduct material licenses issued under Parts 30 to 35; source material licenses issued under Part 46; f

high-level radioactive waste disposal licenses issued under Part 60; special nuclear materials licenses issued under Part 70; the packaging of radioactive materials for transport under Part 71; and spent fuel storage under Part 72.

The nonlicensee suppliers covered under Part 21 are firms of many different I sizes, supplying many different types of basic components to NRC licensees. For example, construction and operation of a nuclear power plant involves a multi-l tier procurement chain. At the top of the chain is the electrical utility and l the utility's major contractors such as the nuclear steam system supplier. The next level includes manufacturers who produce components specifically designed for nuclear instrumentation and controls and major piping, pumps, and valves.

)

These manufacturers in turn procure necessary parts such as resistors, wiring, solid-state devices, and hardware from a multitude of sources. Ultimately, the procurement chain for such items goes back to the supplier of the facilities or activities and can be ordered from the manufacturer / supplier on the basis of specifications set forth in the manufacturer's published product description (e.g.,acatalog). Approximately 300 reports are submitted to the NRC annually under Part 21. These reports of potential ~ safety problems have resulted in NRC i

i -

4 Enclosure A 1

l

[7590-01]

l j bulletins, circulars, and information notices, and have contributed to the improved safety of the nuclear industry.

~

Section 50.55(e) I Section 50.55(e) of 10 CFR Part 50, originally promulgated as a final rule  !

on March 30, 1972 (37 FR 6459), establishes uniform requirements for reporting

deficiencies occurring during the design and construction of nuclear power plants. The rule was designed t.o enable the NRC to receive prompt notification of deficiencies and to have timely infonnation on which to base an evaluation of the potential safety consequences of the deficiency and determine if further regulatory action is required. Therefore, the holder of a permit for the con-struction of a nuclear power plant is required to notify the Comission of each

! significant deficiency found in the processes of design, manufacture, fabrica-tion, installation, construction, testing, and inspection, which if it were to have remained uncorrected, could have adversely affected the safety of opera-tions of the nuclear power plant at any time throughout the expected lifetime of the plant.

Approximately 5000 reports are submitted to the NRC annually under 550.55(e). As with Part 21, these 6 50.55(e) reports have formed the basis for NRC bulletins, circulars, and information notices.

The Proposed Action

) 1. Eliminating Duplicative Reporting Requirements. As noted above, Comission regulations contain several safety deficiency reporting requirements.

Although distinctions exist among these requirements, staff experience indicates

a need to eliminate duplication in reporting or evaluation among Part 21, 4

650.73,andi50.55(e). A number of instances have occurred where the same deficiency in a component was evaluated by two different organizations, one attempting to satisfy the criteria of Part 21, and the other attempting to meet the differently worded criteria of 6 50.55(e). The fact that the report-

ing criteria are different for each requirement and the lack of any explicit language in the regulations that address the duplicative reporting issue have i led to the duplication of both industry and NRC staff effort. The proposed j revision to i 21.2 would explicitly relieve the officers and directors of the holders of construction permits under Part 50 from the Part 21 reporting i

• i I 5 Enclosure A

} -

I

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

l

! [7590-01]

l .

! requirements since previously unreported defects are to be reported by holders of construction permits under i 50.'55(e). Similarly, proposed i 21.2 would

explicitly relieve the officers and directors of the holders of operating licenses under Part 50 from the Part 21 reporting requirements since previously I

unreported defects are to be reported by holders of operating licenses under l 6 50.73.

l Section 50.55,(e)(7) is also being revised to relieve the holders of

! construction permits under Part ,50 from reporting a defect if a nonlicensee had previously submitted a report under Part 21 for that particular defect. .

> It should be noted that the contents of the reports under Part 21 and i 50.55(e) will be structured in such a way as to ensure that the Comission is notified of the generic (i.e. how this defect may affect other facilities of licensees) and plant-specific implications of any reported defect. -

{ The intent of these revisions is to establish the filing of one report for each defe'ct, with the evaluation and reporting obligation resting on the entity i that discovers the defect. Any additional reporting on a defect by other than the entity that discovers the defect would be to supplement the original report.

As an example, supplementary reporting would be required by parties other than

! the originator to inform the Comission about others who may be affected by the defect. Section 50.55(e) will be exclusively used for the reporting of defects discovered by construction permit holders (or referred to them by a vendor who is unable to evaluate the defect); and i 50.73 is exclusively used for the reporting of defects discovered by the holders of operating licenses (or ,

referred to them by a vendor who cannot evaluate the defect). Part 21 will be i

exclusively used for reporting defects discovered by all others invol.ved in i constructing, owning, operating, or supplying components for any facility or

! activity licensed or otherwise regulated pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of j 1954, as amended, or the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. For l any defect identified, evaluated and reported pursuant to i 50.55(e) or i 50.73, j the vendor would not be required under Comission regulations to perform an l additional evaluation but would, if applicable, be required to provide the ,

Comission with supplementary information via Part 21 report (e.g., list o'f customers to whom he supplied a product) required to resolve the issue. For l any defect identified, evaluated, and reported under Part 21, the holder of a

! construction permit or operating license would not be required to evaluate and

! report that same defect under i 50.55(e) or i 50.73. f

( l l

6 Enclosure A

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

[7590-013 I

~

l

To help eliminate the dupli u tive reporting and the potential uncertainty regarding requirements for reporting, the proposed revision also establishes reporting criteria and fohnat similar to that contained in i 50.73, discussed infra. These changes will also serve to implement the recommendation contained in the staff's Plan to Coordinate the Reporting of Operational Events. It is l 3

anticipated that this proposed revision will significantly reduce the reporting i i burdens on the regulated industry, as well as reduce the Comission staff time l necessary to evaluate these rcports, without any loss of relevant safety information.

2. Defining Defects To Be Reported. Section 206 of the Energy

! Reorganization Act requires the reporting of " defects which could create a j substantial safety hazard." Existing $21.3(k)definessubstantialsafety i hazard as "a loss of safety function to the extent that there is a major i

! reduction in the degree of protection provided to public health and safety for

! any facility or activity licensed, other than for export, pursuant to Parts 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 71, or 72 . . . ." In addition, the supplementary information for the original Part 21 final rulemaking contained the following guidance on what constitutes a " substantial safety hazard":

- Moderate exposure to, or release of, licensed material, or 1

- Major degradation of essential safety-related equipment, or l

- Major deficiencies involving design, construction, inspection, a test, or use. .

Section 50.55(e) requires the reporting of ' deficiencies in design and

! construction which could adversely affect the safety of operations of a nuclear -

! power plant and which represent:

- A significant breakdown in any portion of the quality assurance program, or

- A significant deficiency in a final design, or  ;

i

- A significant deficiency in the construction of, or significant damage to a structure, system, or component requiring corrective I action involving extensive effort, or j

- A significant deviation from performance specifications requiring corrective action involving extensive effort. -

NRC experience with both the Part 21 and i 50.55(e) reports has indicated that clarification of the type of deviation that is required to be reported i would be helpful. In addition, the staff Plan for Coordinating the Reporting

! of Operational Events called for the establishment of.similar reporting I

l j

i 7 Enclosure A l

[7590-01]

i

! criteria in Part 21 and i 50.55(e) as that established in i 50.73. Accordingly,

! the reporting criteria in proposed 6 21.3 and proposed 6 50.55(e)(1) are similar

~

l to those contained in 5 50.73, and are based on the specific safety functions of nuclear power reactor systems. The definition of " substantial safety hazard" ,

. in proposed i 21.3 and the criteria contained in proposed i 50.55(e)(2) require the reporting of: -

! Any deviation that could pr, event the fulfillment of the safety function of structures or systems that are needed to:

(A) Shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, or -

(B) Remove residual heat, (C) Control the release of radioactive material, or (D) Mitigate the consequences of an accident.

j The intent of these paragraphs is to capture those deviations which could j cause a failure of a safety system to properly complete a safety function.

I These paragraphs are based on the assumption that safety-related systems and i structures are intended to mitigate the consequences of an accident. This rule

! covers a deviation where redundant structures, components, or trains of a safety system could fail to perform their intended function because of: equip-i ment failures; or design, analysis, fabrication, construction, or procedural

deficiencies. The deviation must be reported regardless of whether or not an I alternative safety system could be used to perform the safety function (e.g.,

j High Pressure Core Cooling could fail, but feed-and-bleed or Low Pressure Core

Cooling would be available to provide the safety function of core cooling).

l The applicability of this paragraph includes those safety systems designed j tomitigatetheconsequencesofanaccident(e.g.,containmentisolation,emer-

gency filtration).

It should be noted that there are a limited number of single-train systems l

i that perform a safety function (e.g., the High Pressure Coolant Injection i SysteminBWRs). For such systems, loss of the single train would prevent the I

fulfillment of the safety function of that system and, therefore, a deviation causing such a loss must be reported even though the plant Technical Specifica-l tions may allow such a condition to exist for a specified limited length of time.

l.

8 Enclosure A

, [7590-01]

The Commission recognizes that the application of this and other j paragraphs of this section involve ~the use of engineering judgment. In this case, a technical judgment must be made whether a deviation could affect redun-dant trains within the ESF system. If so, this would constitute a deviation j that "could have prevented" the fulfillment of a safety function, and, l accordingly, must be reported.

] Interaction between systems, particularly a safety system and a non-safety j system, is also included in this, criterion. ' For example, the Comission is increasingly concerned about the effect of a loss or degradation of what had been assumed to be non-essential inputs to safety systems. Therefore, this paragraphalsoincludesthosedeviationswhereaservice(e.g., heating, venti-lation, and cooling) or input (e.g., compressed air) which is necessary for reliable or-long-term operation of a safety system could be lost or degraded.

I Such a deviation is reportable if the proper fulfillment of the safety function

". cannot be assured. Deviations that affect inputs or services to systems that have no safety function need not be reported. -

It should be emphasized that the criteria in the proposed revision include j all causes of potential safety defects, including any deviations from quality j, assurance requirements which result in a defect in a basic component that would j create a " substantial safety hazard" in the case of Part 21 or i 50.55(e). Note that the original definition of " substantial safety hazard" under Part 21 for 4 any facility or activity licensed, other than for export, pursuant to parts 30, f 40, 60, 70, 71, or 72 of this chapter has been retained. ,

{ The proposed criteria will set a uniform reporting threshold for the safety deficiency reporting requirements of Part 21,550.55(e)andi50.73. l This will add more certainty to the reporting process, will eliminate the licensee and staff resources now expended on reports for defects which do not l

represent significant safety problems, and will still ensure that the NRC is l notified of defects for which corrective action may be necessary.

i 3. Establishing Time Limits for Reporting and. Evaluation. Under existing f 6 21.21(b)(2), the initial notification of a defect must be made to the NRC

] within 2 days of the time a director or responsible officer obtains information j on the existence of a reportable defect. However, the existing rule is silent concerning the time period between the identification of a deviation and the l time when an evaluation of the deviation should be completed. Similarly, no deadline is established for when the director or responsible officer must be i

! 9 Enclosure A

[7590-01]

l .

informed of a potentially reportable deviation. This absence of time schedules

) has sometimes resulted in long delays between the identification of a poten-

! tial problem and'the completion of an evaluation. Furthermore, the existing regulations allow the directors and responsible officers of a firm to remain uninformed concerning potentially reportable problems during the period from  ;

} identification through evaluation. Therefore, the person with the maximum (

j responsibility, judgment, capability, and experience remains detached during j the problem identification and e, valuation process. The proposed revision to 121.21 would establish time schedules for evaluating deviations, and for infor-

! ming directors or responsible corporate officers, affected purchasers or l licensees, and the NRC.

l Proposed i 50.55(e)(1)(ii) would also require the holder of a construction f permit to evaluate deviations within 30 days. While10CFR50.55(e)(2)and j (3) establish time frames for reporting deficiencies, the proposed revision to  ;

650.55(e) would clarify the time period allowed for evaluating reportable I defects, and extend initial notification of the Commission from 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to five days. The extension of the initial notification time from two days to

! five days in the case of 10 CFR Part 21, and from 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to five days in the case of 10 CFR 50.55(e), provides the industry with more flexibility, while still allowing sufficient warning of potential safety problems. As such, the five day initial notification period still falls within the ambit of the

) "immediate notification requirement" of Section 206(a) of the Energy Reorgani-l zation Act of 1974. In addition, because the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(e) only apply to reactors under construction, there is minimal safety significance l

j in extending.the initial notification time from 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to five days. Further-

{ more, all events at operating reactors that may require urgent notification l will be reported under the insnediate notification provisions of 10 CFR 50.72.

Finally, the use of the same notification period for both 10 CFR 21 and 10 CFR 50.55(e) is consistent with the objective of establishing uniform reporting criteria and format.

! 4. Reporting Fonnat. BoththePart21and650.55(e)revisionsestablish

! a uniform fonnat for the information that needs to be reporte'd to the Commis-sion. These revisions will ensure that the Commission obtains all the informa-f tion necessary to evaluate and take corrective action, in reference to a parti-i cular defect. A uniform fonnat will also facilitate ease of reporting by the 1

l regulated industry.

10 Enclosure A'

. - . . - . - - - - _ - , - - - . - . _ . - - __ L : .

l

[7590-01]

l

5. Miscellaneous. In addition to the major revisions, various minor changes have been proposed to improve the overall q ality and coherence of 2 Part21andSection50.55(e). It should also be noted tint 'roposed 9 21.51 and 9 50.55(e)(b) clarify the specific records that must be maintained to ensure compliance with Part 21.

Regulatory Analysis The Comission has prepared, a draft regulatory analysis on the proposed regulation. The analysis identifies and examines the costs and benefits of the proposed regulation and its alternatives. The draft analysis is available for inspection and copying for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC. -

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule has,been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification Statement As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b),

the Comission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not.have a signifi-cant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed revision to i 50.55(e) applies solely to the holders of construction permits for nuclear power plants, none of which can be considered small entities.

Although the proposed revision to Part 21 could potentially affect.a substan-tial number of small entities who supply components to NRC licensees, the negative economic impact on these firms is expected to be small for the follow-ing reasons. First, small business suppliers of components to NRC licensees will generally refer the safety defect to the licensee or purchaser, usually a large enterprise, for evaluation and reporting. This is reflected in the com-position of the Part 21 reports received annually by the NRC. The overwhelming majority are not from small businesses. Second, proposed i 21.2 eliminates duplicative reporting for those organizations subject to the safety defect reporting requirements, and therefore should reduce the economic impact on these organizations, including small businesses. Third, proposed i 21.21 l establishes time frames for the evaluation and reporting of defects. Although  ;

1 11 Enclosure A

[7590-01]

specified time periods may require that industry personnel complete a report or an evaluation over a potentially shorter time period than is currently i required, this should not result in any significant impact on small entities.

Any small entity subject to this regulation which determines that, because of its size, it is likely to bear a disproportionate adverse economic impact should notify the.Comission of this in a coment that indicates the following:

(a) The size of their business and how the proposed regulations would result in a significant economic, burden upon them as compared to larger organi-zations in the same business comunity. .

(b) How the proposed regulations could be modified to take into account their differing needs or capabilities.

(c) The benefits that would accrue, or.the detriments that would be avoided, if the proposed regulations were modified as suggested by the commenter.

(d) How the proposed regulations, as modified, would more closely equalize the impact of NRC regulations or create more equal access to the benefits of Federal programs as opposed to providing special advantages to any individuals or groups.

(e) How the proposed regulations, as modified, would still adequately protect the public health and safety.

The comments should be sent to the Secretary of the Comission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attn: Docketing and Service Branch.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Parts 21 and 50 Part 21 - Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Radiation protection, Reporting requirements.

Part 50 - Antitrust, Classified information, Fire prevention, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Radia-

tion protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting requirements.

l 12 Enclosure A l

[7590-01]

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, ,

as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Parts 21 and 50.

Part 21 - REPORTING 0F DEFECTS AND NONCOMPLIANCE

1. The authority citation for Part 21 is revised to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Sec.161, 68 St,at. 948, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, I

as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5846).

For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2273); il 21.6, 21.21(a) and 21.31 are issued under sec.161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); and il 21.21, 21.41 and 21.51 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).

I 2. Section 21.2 is revised to read as follows:

21.2 Scope.

(a) The regulations in this part apply and are directed toward the following, except as specifically provided otherwise in Parts 31, 34, 35, 50, 60, 70 or 72 of this chapter, or in paragraph (b) of this section:

(1) Each individual, corporation, partnership, or other entity doing business within the United States and each director and responsible officer of 1

an organization that supplied basic components for a facility or activity licensed other than for export under Parts 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 71, or 72 of this chapter.

(2) Each individual, corporation, partnership, or other entity doing business within the United States and each director and responsible officer of an organization that constructs-- l (i) A production or utilization facility licensed for manufacture, construction, or operation under Part 50 of this chapter; (ii) A geologic repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste under Part 60 of this chapter; or (iii) An independent spent fuel storage installation for the storage of spent fuel licensed under Part 72 of this chapter; I (b) The reporting, evaluation, and notification requirements of this Part are deemed satisfied when a defect has been reported by--

l f.

1 j 13 Enclosure A

, . i

[7590-01]  !

j (1) The holder of a construction permit for a nuclear power plant in accordancewith950.55(e)ofthischapter,providedthe550.55(e) report l l

j contains all information required by this part. Reports under this part need only include the information required by this part not included in the 650.55(e) f report.

l (2) The holder of an operating license for a nuclear power reactor in accordance with $50.73 of this chapter, provided the 550.73 report contains all infonnation required by this. Part. Reports under this part need only include the information required by this part not included in the $50.73 .

report.

! (c) To the extent the reporting, evaluation and notification requirements

) of this Part are not satisfied by paragraphs -(a) and (b) above, entities licensed under the regulations of this chapter are included in this regulations.

- (1) Each individual, partnership, corporation, or other entity licensed under the" regulations in this chapter to--

l (i) Possess, use, or transfer within the United States source material,  !

byproduct material, special nuclear material, or spent fuel; or f (ii) Construct, manufacture, possess, own, cperate, or transfer within l the United States any production or utilization facility, independent spent j fuel storage installation, or geologic repository for the disposal of high-i level radioactive waste; (2) Each director and responsible officer of a licensee identified

]

j inparagraph(a)(1)ofthissection; ,

j (d) These regulations do not preclude either an individual or a i manufacturer / supplier of a comercial grade item not subject to the regula-tions in this part from reporting to the Comission a known or suspected defect or failure to comply. Upon request, the identity of anyone making a report will be withheld from disclosure as authorized by law. NRC Regional

, Offices and HQ will accept collect telephone calls from individuals who wish l to speak to NRC representatives concerning nuclear safety-related problems.

The location and telephone numbers (answered during regular working hours, , j i nights, and holidays) for the five regions are listed below: l 4

14 Enclosure A

- .----.- .----- -,,-,- - - - - ,,-.-...,-,---_--.s- -- - , - , , - , - , . - - - . . - .

[7590-01]

IPhi1edelphia................................(215)337-5000 ,

IIAtlanta.....................................(404)221-4503 l

. IIIChicago.....................................(312)790-5500 IVDallas......................................(817)860-8100 l VSanFrancisco...............................(415)943-3700 NRC Operations Center, Washington DC. . . . . . . . . . (202)951-0550

3. Section 21.3 is revised to read as follows:

921.3 Definitions As used in this part (a) " Basic component" means--

(1) When applied to a nuclear power reactor, any plant structure, system, component, replacement part, or part thereof necessary to: (i) shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, (ii) remove residual heat, (iii) control the release of radioactive material or, (iv) mitigate the consequences of an accident.

(2) When applied to other facilities and activities licensed pursuant to Parts 30, 40, 60, 70, 71, and 72 of this chapter: means a component, struc-ture, system, or part thereof that is procured by the licensee of a facility or activity subject to the regulations in this part and in which a defect or failure to comply with any applicable regulation in this chapter or an order, or license of the Commission could create a substantial safety hazard. ,

(3) In all cases, " basic component" includes design, quality assurance, analysis, inspection, testing, or consulting services safety related that are associated with the component, whether these services are performed by the component supplier or others.

(4) A commercial grade item is not a part of a basic component until after dedication.

(b) " Commercial grade item" means an item that is--

(1) Not subject to design or specification requirements that are unique to facilities or activities licensed pursuant to Parts 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 71, l

or 72 of this chapter, and (2) Used in applications other than facilities or activities licensed pursuant to Parts 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 71, or 72 of this chapter, and 15 Enclosure A

[7590-01]

(3) To be ordered from the manufacturer / supplier on the basis of specifications set forth in the manufacturer's published product description (for example, a catalog).

(c) "Comission" means the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or its duly authorized representatives.

(d) " Constructing" or " construction" means the design, manufacture, fabrication, placement, erection, installation, modification, inspection or testing of a facility or activity that is subject to the regulations in this part and consulting services related to the facility or activity that are .

safety related.

(e) " Dedication" of a commercial grade item means that the purchaser, subsequent to receipt, has accepted and designated the item for use as a basic component.

(f) " Defect" means--

(1) ' A basic component delivered to a purchaser for use in a facility or activity subject to the regulations in this part, that contains a deviation that, on the basis of an evaluation, could create a substantial safety hazard; or -

(2) The installation, use, or operation of a basic component in a facility or an activity subject to the regulations in this part that, on the basis of an evaluation, contains a deviation that could create a substantial safety hazard; or l

l (3) A deviation in a portion of a facility subject to the construc- ,

tion permit or manufacturing licensing requirements of Part 50 of this chapter that.could, on the basis of an evaluation, create a substantial ,

safety hazard.

(g) " Deviation" means a departure from the technical requirements or quality assurance requirements included in a procurement document.

(h) " Director" means an individual, appointed or elected according to law, who is authorized to manage and direct the affairs of a corporation, partnership, or other entity. In the case of an individual proprietorship,

" director" means the individual.

(i) " Evaluation" means the process documented in writing, accomplished by or for a licensee to determine whether a particular deviation could create a substantial safety hazard.

l (j) " Operating" or " operation" means the operation of a facility or the conduct of a licensed activity that is subject to the regulations in 16 Appendix A

[7590-01]

this part, including consulting services related to operations that are 4

safety related. ,

(k) " Procurement document" means a contract that defines the requirements

. that facilities or basic components must meet in order to be considered 4

acceptable by the purchaser.

l (1) " Responsible officer" means the president, vice-president, or other j individual in the organization of a corporation, partnership, or other entity j who is vested with executive aut,hority over activities subject to this part.

l (m) " Substantial safety hazard" means--

i - (1) For any facility or activity licensed, other than for export, pursuant i to Parts 30, 40, 60, 70, 71, or 72 of this chapter, a loss of safety function which substantially reduces the protection provided to public and/or operating personnel health and safety.

] (2) In relation to construction permits and operating licenses for

} nuclear power plants under Part 50 of this chapter--

(i) Any deviation or condition that could prevent the fulfillment of the safety function of structures or systems that are needed to:

{

) (A) Shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown j . condition, (B) Remove residual heat, l (.C) Control the release of radioactive material, or

, (D) Mitigate the consequences of an accident.

4 (ii) Deviations and conditions covered in this part may include l inadequacies in one or more of the following: design, analysis, quality '

j assurance, fabrication, and/or construction.

l (n) " Supplying" or " supplied" means contractually responsible for a basic

) component used or to be used in a facility or activity that is subject to the l regulations in this part.

l

4. Section 21.5 is revised to read as follows:

i 621.5 Communications All comunications and reports concerning the regulations in this part should be addressed to the Document Control Desk, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

! Comission, Washington, DC 20555, with a copy to the Director, Office of l Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

! 20555 and in the case of a licensee also to the appropriate Regional Admini-i

! strator at the address specified in Appendix D of Part 20 of this chapter.

5. "In$21.6, paragraph (c)isremoved. ,

17 Enclosure A

[7590-01]

6. Section 21.21 is revised to read as follows:

921.21 Notifica' tion of failure to comply or existence of a defect and its evaluation (a) Each individual, corporation, partnership, or other entity subject to the regulations in this part shall adopt procedures to--

(1) Evaluate deviations as soon as practicable, and in all cases, within thirty days of discovery pursuan,t to 921.21(a)(2), in order to identify reportable defects.

(2) In cases in which the organization discovering the deviation does not have the capability to perform the evaluation, notify purchasers or affected licensees within five working days of discovery so that they may evaluate the deviation, unless the deviation has been previously evaluated and

! adequately corrected; and (3) ~ Ensure that within five working days of identification of a defect, a director or responsible corporate officer is informed of the construction or operation of a facility or activity for which a basic component was supplied that-- -

(i) Fails to comply with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or

! any applicable rule, regulation, order, or license of the Comission relating to a substantial safety hazard, or

'(ii) Contains a defect.

(b) A director or responsible officer subject to the regulations of this ,

j part or a designated person shall notify the Commission and any purchasers or affected licensees when he or she obtains infonnation reasonably

{ indicating a failure to comply or a defect. l (c) Thenotificationrequiredby921.21(b)mustconsistof--

(1) Notification by telephone to the NRC Operations Center at l

. 202-951-0550 within five days following receipt of infonnation on the identifi-cation of a defect.

(2) Written notification to the NRC at the address specified in 921.5 within thirty days following receipt of information on the identi-fication of a defect or within thirty days of receipt of notification pursuant to21.21(a)(2).

(3) Notification of affected purchase'rs and licensees within five days following receipt of information on the identification of a defect. j l

18 Enclosure A

[7590-01]

(4) In cases in which sufficient information is not available for a complete evaluation within thirty days, preparation and filing of an interim r report in accordance with 6 21.21(d) that contains all available infonnation and a statement as to when a complete report will be filed.

(d) The written notification required by 5 21.21(c)(2) must clearly indicate that the notification is being submitted under Part 21 and include the following information, to the extent known --

(1) A brief abstract describing the defect or deviation, including any significant corrective action taken or planned.

(2) (1) A clear, specific, narrative description of the defect or deviation se that knowledgeable readers conversant with the design of commer-cial nuclear power plants, but not familiar with the details of the particular component, system, or plant, can understand the significance of the defect or deviation.

(ii) The narrative description must include the following specific information as appropriate for the particular defect: -

(A) Name and address of the individual or individuals informing the l

Comission.

(B) Name and type of facility to which the report is applicable.

(C) Nature and cause of the defect including the safety hazard which is created or could be created by the defect, and any generic implications of the defect.

(D) The date on which the defect was discovered and the manner of ,

discovery.

(E) The corrective action which has been, is being, or will be taken, and the length of time necessary to complete this action.

(F) Identification of all affected purchasers and licensees. j (G) The manufacturer and model number (or other identification) of each defective component.

(3) The name and telephone number of a person within the reporting organization who is knowledgeable about the defect and can provide additional information concerning the defect. ~

(B) All reports submitted under this part must contain the designation

" PROPRIETARY INFORMATION," if appropriate, on the top and bottom of the cover sheet, and on the outside of the back page. l (F) The director or responsible officer may authorize an individual to

provide th'e notification required by this paragraph, but this shall not 19 Enclosure A

l [7590-01] ,

j relieve the director or responsible officer of his or her responsibility under

! this paragraph. t l (G) Individuals subject to paragraph (b) of this section may be required l

by the Commission to supply additional information related to the defect or i

! failure to comply.

l (H) Individuals subject to paragraph (b) of this section are not required i to make notifications to the Commission if they have actual knowledge that the

- Commission has been adequately infonned in a written report of such defect or such failure to comply and provided with the infonnation required on paragraph

]

{ (d)ofthissection.

i 7. Section 21.51 is revised to read as follows:

3 5 21.51 Maintenance of Records .

Each individual, corporation, partnership, or other entity subject to the ,

resulations in this part shall maintain records necessary to effectuate the l purposes 'of this part, specifically--

l (a) Procurement documents required under $21.31, to be retained for the j lifetime of the basic component; j (b) Evaluations of all deviations for which no reportable defect was found must be retained for a minimum of three years; f

.' (c) The procedures required under $21.21, to be retained for the lifetime l of the facility or business; f (d) Notifications sent to purchasers and affected licensees, to be

! retained for a minimum of three years. '

I Part 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES l 8. The authority citation for Part 50 is revised to read as follows:  ;

j AUTHORITY: Sec. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat.

j 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, 95 l amended (42U.S.C.2132,2133,2134,2135,2201,2232,2233,22362239); secs.

) 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244,1246(42U.S.C. l 5841,5842,5846).

I Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42U.S.C.5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat'. 936, 956,asamended(42U.S.C.2131,2235);sec.102, Pub.L.91-190,83 Stat.853 l (42U.S.C.4332). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, 50.56 also issued under sec.185,68 Stat.955(42U.S.C.2235). S'ctions e 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec.102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332).

{

Section 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat.1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844).

20 Enclosure A i

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

1

[7590-01]

, Sections 50.58, 50.91 and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 l (42U.S.C.2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42  :

U.S.C.2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954,

~

I -

as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Sections 50.100-50.102 also issued under sec. 186, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236). Section 50.103 also issued under sec.108, 68 Stat.939,asamended(42U.S.C.2138). Appendix F also issued under sec. 187,

]

l 68 Stat.955(42U.S.C.2237).

l For the purposes of sec. 22,3, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273),

j ll50.10(a)(b)and(c), 50.44,50.46,50.48,50.54,and50.80(a)areissued l

undersec.161b,68 Stat.948,asamended(42U.S.C.2201),il50.10(b)and I (c) and 50.54 are issued under sec. 1611,68 Stat.949,asamended(42U.S.C.

2201(i));andil50.55(e),50.59(b),50.70,50.71,50.72,and50.78areissued j under sec. 1610,68 Stat.950,asamended(42U.S.C.2201(o)).

I 9. Remove the authority citations following il 50.2, 50.10, 50.21, 50.22, t 50.23, 50.30, 50.33, 50.33a, 50.34, 50.35, 50.38, 50.41, 50.42, 50.43, 50.44,

! 50.47, 50.53, 50.54, 50.55, 50.55a, 50.56, 50.70, 50.72, 50.80, 50.103, and l Appendices A, E, F L and Q.

l 10. In i 50.55, paragraph (e) is revised to read as follows:

'. 9 50.55 Conditions of construction permits, j

1 (e)(1) The holder of a facility construction permit shall--

4 (i) Notify the Connission of any defect found in construction or in the

! final design of a facility as approved and released for construction. This notification requirement applies to all defects resulting from any cause, f

including a breakdown in any portion of the quality assurance program conducted pursuant to the requirements of Appendix B to this part and regardless of whether or not extensive evaluation, redesign, or repair is required to conform i to the criteria and bases stated in the safety analysis report or construction f permit.

(ii)Evaluatedeviationsassoonaspracticable,adinallcaseswithin thirty days of discovery, in order to identify a reporable defect; which could i create a substantial safety hazard were it to have remained uncorrected l throughout the expected lifetime of the plant.

(2) Definitions

. As used in this section (1) 'A " defect" means-- .

l i

~

I 21 Enclosure A l i .

l l

_-m- _______ __._ _ _. _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _

l [7590-01]

i

! (A) A basic component for use in a facility or activity subject to the

regulations in this part, that contains a deviation, that on the basis of an evaluation, coul'd create a substantial safety hazard if it were to remain uncorrected throughout the expected lifetime of the plant, or f ,

] (B) The installation, use, or operation of a basic component in a facility

) or an activity subject to- the regulations of this part that, on the basis of l an aviluation, contains a deviation that could create a substantial safety

• l hazard, if it were to remain unc,orrected throughout the expected lifetime of i the plant or ,

(C) A deviation in a portion of a facility subject to the construction l

j permit of this part that could, on the basis of an evaluation, create a sub-stantial safety hazard if it were to remain uncorrected throughout the expected lifetime of the plant.

(ii)Deviationmeans--

l A departure from the technical or quality assurance requirements provided for j safety related structures or systems installed in a facility subject to the >

) requirements of this part.

{ (iii) " Substantial safety hazard" means--

i (A) Any deviation or condition that could prevent the fulfillment of

[ the safety function of structures or systems that are needed to:

(J_) Shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, (2) Remove residual heat, I (3_) Control the release of radioactive material, or i f (4_) Mitigate the conseque'nces of an accident. .

(B) Deviations and conditions covered in this section may include one or more design, analysis, fabrication, quality assurance, and/or construction

! inadequacies.

f (iv)Basiccomponentmeans--

(A) Any plant structure, system, component, replacement part, or part j thereof necessary to: (i) shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe j shutdowncondition,(ii)removeresidualheat(iii)controlthereleaseof 1 radioactive material or, (iv) mitigate the consequences of an accident.

! (B) In all cases, " basic component" includes design, analysis, inspec-l tion, testing, or consulting services that are associated with the component, j whether these services are performed by the' construction permit holder or others.

i '

22 Enclosure A i

[7590-01]

(v) " Evaluation" means the process, documented in writing, accomplished by or for a construction permit holder to determine whether a particular devia- i tion could create a substantial safety hazard.

(3) The notification required by 650.55(e)(1)(i) must consist of--

(i) Notification by telephone, telegram, mailgram, or facsimile to the Administrator of the appropriate NRC Regional Office listed in Appendix D of Part 20 of this chapter within five days following receipt of information on the identification of a defect. .

(ii) Written notification submitted to the Document Control Desk, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, with a copy to the appropriate Regional Administrator at the address specified in Appendix D to Part 20 of this chapter and a copy to the vendor of the product or service affected, within thirty days following receipt of infonnation on the identifi-cation of a defect.

(iii) In cases in which sufficient information is not available for a complete evaluation within thirty days, preparation and filing 6f an interim report in accordance with 6 50.55(e)(4) that contains all available information and a statement as to when a complete report will be filed.

(4) The written notification required by $50.55(e)(3)(ii) must clearly indicate that the notification is being submitted under i 50.55(e) and include the following information, to the extent known --

(i) A brief abstract describing the defect or deviation, including any significant corrective action taken or planned.

(ii)(A) A clear, specific, narrative description of the defect or deviation so that knowledgeable readers conversant with the design of commercial nuclear power plants, but not familiar with the details of the particular plant, can understand the significance of the defect or deviation.

('B) The narrative description must include the following specific informa-tion as appropriate for the particular defect:

(1,) The name and address of the individual or individuals informing the Comission.

(2) Name and type of facility to which the report is appligable.

( 3_) Nature and cause of the defect including the safety hazard which is l created or could be created by the defect, and any generic implications of the )

defect.

(4_) The date on which the defect was discovered and the manner of discovery. .

23 Enclosure A

! ~

[7590-01]

(5) The corrective action which has been, is being, or will be taken, and the length of time necessary to complete this action. t (6) Identification of all known affected purchasers and licensees.

Q) The Energy Industry Identification System component function identi-  !

1 fier and system name of each component or system referred to in the report.

(A_) The Energy Industry Identification System is defined in:

IEE Std 803,1983(May16,1983) Recommended Practices for j Unique Identification Plants and Related Facilities -

i Principles and Definitions.

(B) IEE Std 803-1983 has been approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal Register. A

! notice of any changes made to the material incorporated by reference will be published in the Federal Register. Copies may be obtained from the Institute of Electrical and Elec-l tronics Engineers, 345 East 47th Street, New York, NY 10017.

A copy is available for inspection and copying for a fee i at the Comission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. and at the Office of the Federal Register, 1100 L St. NW, Washington, D. C.

j (8_) For defective components with multiple functions, a list of all ,

systems or secondary functions 't hat would have been affected.

j (9_) The manufacturer and model number (or other identification) of each defective component.

(iii) Reference to any previous similar defects at the same plant that

, are known to the reporter.

l (iv) The name and telephone number of a person within the reporting organization who is knowledgeable about the defect and can provide additional

information concerning the defect and the plant's characteristics.

! (5) All reports submitted under i 50.55(e)(3)(ii) shell' contain the designation " PROPRIETARY INFORMATION," if appropriate, on the top and bottom of

the cover sheet, and on the outside of the back page.

neces y o eff ctuate the p r e f th s ction pe f 1y-4 24 Enclosure A

[7590-01)

(1) Procurement documents which define the requirements that facilities or basic components must meet in order to be considered acceptable by the holder of ,

the construction permit, to be retained for the lifetime of the basic component.

. (ii) Evaluations of all deviations for which no report was necessary must be retained for a minimum of three years.

(iii) Evaluations of all deviations for which a report was submitted must be retained for a minimum of three years.

(7) The reporting, evaluat, ion, and notification requirements of this section are deemed to be satisfied by the holder of a facility construction permit when the safety defect has been previously reported under 10 CFR Part 21, 5 50.55(e) or 5 50.73, provided the previous report contains all information required by this section including existence of the defect at that construction permit holder's facility. Reports under this section need only include the information required by this section not included in a Part 21 or 5 50.73 report.

Dated at Washington, DC, this day of , 1985.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission.

25 Enclosure A

~

I REGULATORY ANALYSIS i

10CFRPart21and150.55(e)

Criteria and Proced'ures for The Reporting of Defects

1. Statement of the Problem i Existing Commission regulations contain several safety deficiency reporting requirements applicable to the construction and operation of nuclear power plants:

)

1

- Part 21 applies to all NRC licensees, as well as nonlicensees who supply components to these licensees, and requires the reporting of defec'ts that could create a " substantial safety hazard."

- Paragraph 50.55(e) applies solely to the holders of construction permits under Part 50 and requires the reporting of."significant deviations" or "significant deficiencies" which could adversely affect safety. -

- Section 50.73, published July 26, 1983, [48 FR 33850] establishes a licensee event report system (LER) that applies unifcrmly to all operating nuclear power plants. This regulation requires the licensee to submit a written report for each significant operating event.

l In the time period since Part 21 and i 50.55(e) were promulgated, the need for revision of these regulations has become apparent.' Task II J.4 of the TMI Action Plan directed the staff to evaluate and revise, if necessary, the existing requirements of 10 CFR Part.21 and 150.55(e) to ensure prompt and comprehensive reporting. In addition, the Committee l

1 Enclosure B

l to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) in their review of proposed ,

10 CFR 50.73, " Licensee Event Report System," recommended that a plan

- be developed to ensure the coordination of all reporting requirements

! imposed on Part 50 licensees. The Executive Director for Operations (EDO) endorsed this recomendation, and Item 7 in the Plan to Coordinate i the Reporting of Operation Events (Attachment D) calls for the proposed

) revision of Part 21 and $50.55(e) to utilize, to the extent practicable, l the same criteria for notif'ication and reporting as that developed for ,

proposed $50.73.

Approximately 25,000 organizations, lice.nsees, and nonlicensees, are under the scope of Part 21 reporting requirements. Licensees are granted licenses under the following parts: production and utilization facility licenses issued under 10 CFR Part 50, including nuclear power plants and research and test reactors at various stages in the licensing process; byproduct material licenses issued under Part 40; high-level radioactive waste disposal licenses issued under Part 60; special nuclear materials licenses issued under Part 70; the packaging of radioactive materials for transport under Part 71; and spent fuel storage under Part 72. The nonlicensee suppliers covered under Part 21 are firms of many different sizes, supplying many different types of basic components to NRC licensees. Approximately 300 reports are submitted to NRC annually under Part 21. These reports of potential safety problems have resulted in NRC bulletins, circulars, and information notices, and have contributed to the improved safety of the luclear industry.

Approximately 5000 reports are submitted to the NRC annually under 550.55(e). As with Part 21, these 650.55(e) reports have formed the basis for NRC bulletins, circulars, and infonnation notices.

Existing regulations have resulted in problems of duplicative reporting and evaluation of defects.

i Taking no action would continue the potential for duplicative reporting  ;

and evaluation that now exists, and ignores the opportunity for estab-lishing a more coherent regulatory framework that would reduce the

. l 2 Enclos0re B

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

burden for reporting on the regulated industry, without sacrificing safety effectiveness. 8

2. Objectives Accordingly, based on the above recomendations, and on current staff experience with Part 21 and $50.55(e), the proposed revision of the existing regulations focuse's on the following four objectives:

1. Eliminating duplicative evaluation and. reporting, and establishing consistency with other NRC safety d,eficiency reporting requirements;

2. More clearly defining the deviations that need to be reported;

3. Establishing time limits for reporting and evaluation;

4. Establishing a uniform format for reporting.

3. Alternatives

} The alternatives considered for each of the objectives in Section 2 of the Analysis were as follows:

3.1 Eliminating Duplicative Reporting Requirements As noted above, Comission regulations contain several safety deficiency reporting requirements. Although distinctions exist among these require-ments, staff experience indicates a need to eliminate any duplication in reporting or evaluation among Part 21, 650.73 and $50.55(e). A number of instances have occurred where the same deficiency in a component was evaluated by two different organizations, one attempting to satisfy the criteria of Part 21, and the other attempting to meet the differently wordedcriteriaof95.0.55(e). Although the original intent was for reporting under only one of these requirements thereby satisfying the other reporting requirements, in reality, this intended method of  !

reporting has not occurred. In addition to the fact that the reporting l

\

3 Enclosure B  !

l

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

criteria were different for each requirement, the lack of any explicit language in-the regulations that addresses the duplicative reporting issue has led to duplication of both licensee and NRC staff effort. The pro-posed revisions to 621.2 would explicitly relieve the holders of construc-tion permits under Part 50 from the Part 21 reporting requirements since previously unreported defects are to be reported by holders of construc-tion permits under 9 50.55(e). Similarly, proposed 521.2 would explicitly

~

relieve the holders of operating licenses under Part 50 from the Part 21 .

reporting requirements since previously unreported defects are to be reported by holders of operating licenses under 6 50.73. However, it should be noted, that the 650.55(e) and 550.73 reports would have to identify, as far as practicable, any generic (i.e., how this defect may affect other facilities and licensees) implications of the reported defe'ct.

Section 50.55(e)(7) is being revised to relieve the holders of construction permits under Part 50 from reporting a defect under 550.55(e) if a nonlicensee had previously submitted a report under Part 21 for that particular defect. It should be noted that the contents of the reports under Part 21 and 550.55(e) will be structured in such a way as to ensure that the Comission is notified of the generic and plant-specific implica-tions of any reported defect.

3.1.1 Alternative - Incorporation of all Safety Defect Reporting Requirements Into One Regulation One alternative would be to incorporate all safety defect reporting by the holders of construction permits and operating licenses under Part 50 now combined in Part 21,950.55(e),650.72,and650.73into a single regulation to be codified in 10 CFR Part 50. This alterna- ,

tive was rejected because it would not result in any substantial l improvement to the regulatory framework.

3.2 Defining Defects To Be Reported Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act requires the reporting of

" defects which could create a substantial safety hazard."

4 Enclos0re B l

l

4 Existing 521.3(k) defines substantial safety hazard as "a loss of safety function to the extent that there is a major reduction in the degree of '

protection provided to public health and safety for any facility or activity licensed, other than for export, pursuant to Parts 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 71, or 72 ...." In addition, the supplementary infonnation for the original Part 21 final rulemaking contained the following guidance on what constitutes a " substantial safety hazard":

- Moderate exposure to, or release of, licensed material;

- Major degradation of essential safety-related equipment; and

- Major deficiencies involving design, construction, inspection, test, or use.

Section 50.55(e) requires the reporting of deficiencies in design and con-struction which could adversely affect the safety of operations of a nuclear po'wer plant and which represents:

- A significant breakdown in any portion of the quality assurance program; or

- A significant deficiency in a final design; or ,

- A significant deficiency in the construction of, or significant damage to a structure, system, or component requiring corrective action involving extensive effort; or A significant deficiency from performance specifications requiring corrective action involving extensive effort.

NRC experience with both Part 21 and 550.55(e) reports has indicated that clarification of the, type of deviation that is required to be reported would be helpful. In addition, the Plan for Coordinating the Reporting of Operational Events called for the establishment of similar reporting i

l 5 Enclosure B

criteria in Part 21 and 550.55(e) as that established in proposed 550.73.

Accordingly, the reporting criteria in proposed 21.3 and proposed 8 550.55(e)(1) are similar to those contained in proposed 550.73, and are based on the specific safety functions of nuclear power reactor systems.

Note, that the original definition of " substantial safety hazard" under Part 21 for any facility or activity licensed, other than for export, to parts 30, 40, 60, 70, 71 or 72 of this chapter has been retained.

3.2.1 Alternative - Establishing Different Reporting Criteria One alternative to the criteria established in the proposed revision would be to establish different criteria based on factors such as potential for specific levels of radiation exposure or the cause of

.the defect. This alternative was rejected because it would be inconsistent with the ED0's Plan to Coordinate the Reporting of Operational Events, which reconnended that criteria similar to those contained in 550.73 be utilized in the Part 21 and 550.55(e) revision. This alternative was also considered unnecessary because of the staff judgment that the criteria established in the proposed revision would not only provide adequate safety infonnation to the Commission, but would also reduce the existing burden on licensees.

3.3 Esi;ablishing Time Limits for Reporting and Evaluation Under existing 521.21(b)(2), the initial notification of a defect must be made to the NRC within 2 days of the time a director or responsible officer obtains information on the existence of a reportable defect.

However, the existing rule is silent concerning the time period between the identification of a deviation and the time when an evaluation of the deviation should be completed. Similarly, no deadline is established for when the director or responsible officer must be informed of a potentially reportable deviation. This absence of time schedules has sometimes resulted in long delays between the identification of a poten-tial problem and the completion of an evaluation. Furthennore, the 6 Enclosure B

- existing regulations allow the directors and responsible officers of a firm to remain uninformed concerning potentially reportable problems '

during the period from identification through evaluation. Therefore, the person with the maximum responsibility, judgment, capability, and experience remains detached during the problem identification and evalu-ation process. The proposed revision to 921.21 would establish time schedules for evaluating deviations, and for infoming directors or responsible corporate offic^ers, affected purchasers or licensees, and i

the NRC.

i While 10 CFR 50.55(e)(2) and (3) establish time frames for reporting deficiencies, the proposed revision to 650.55(e) would clarify the time period allowed for evaluating potentially reportable defects and extend initial notification of the Comission from 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to 5 days. Both Part21and$50.55(e)proposedrevisionsestablishconsistenttimeframes for reporting and evaluating deficiencies.

3.3.1 Alter' native - Establishing Different Reporting Times The alternative to establish different time frames was rejected on the basis of past experience as to what was a reasonable time period from the standpoint of licensee resources and public health and safety. ,

3.4 Reporting Format i

Both the Part 21 and 550.55(e) revisions establish a uniform fomat for the infonnation that needs to be reported to the Comission. These revisions will ensure that the Comission obtains all the information necessary to evaluate and take corrective action in reference to a particular defect. A uniform format will also facilitate ease of

~

reporting by the regulated industry.

It should also be noted that both proposed 521.51 and 50.55(e)(6) clarify

. tlie specific records that must be maintained to ensure compliance with Part21and650.55(e). .

7 Enclosure B

3.4.1 Alternative - Maintaining Different Reporting Formats  :

- The alternative of maintaining different formats for reporting was considered unacceptable because it would continue to create a unnecessary burdens on the industry and the NRC staff with no off-setting benefits. Different formats would also be incompatible with the data base being developed by AE0D for managing and analyzing the information reported u'nder $50.55(e) and Part 21. ,

3.4.2 Alternative - Maintaining the Status Quo for Required Records under $21.51(a) ,

Existing paragraph 21.51(a) requires NRC licensees to maintain "such

. records ... as may be required to assure compliance with ..." Part

21. Retention of this general requirement was considered unaccept-able as not providing sufficient guidance to the licensee.

4. Consequences 4.1 Costs and Benefits

, 4.1. Existing Benefits l

The reports of potential safety problems submitted under Part 21 and  !

$50.55(e) have contributed to improved safety of nuclear power plants and have resulted in NRC Bulletins, Circulars, and Information Notices.

A few notable examples follow:

4 FAILURE OF GATE VALVES TO CLOSE AGAINST DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE (Bulletin No. 81-02) 4 During late 1980 various individual organizations reported to the NRC that testing and/or analysis indicated that many gate valves that failed to fully close were motor-operated and were used in various safety-related applications. The valves ranged up to 18 inches in size.

I l

8 Enclosure B

DEFICIENT SELF-ALIGNING R0D END BUSHINGS FOR PIPE SUPPORTS ,

(Circular No. 81-02)

I In mid-1980, an Architect-Engineering organization informed the NRC of generic deficiencies in pipe support sway struts furnished by certain vendors. The specific deficiencies identified involved the clamp end of the sway strut becoming loose and possibly being dis-engaged from the bushing. This could result in a large gap in the

. support system not accounted for in the original analysis.

POTENTIAL PROBLEM WITH WATER-SOLUBLE PURGE DAM MATERIALS USED DURING INERT GAS WELDING (Information Notice No. 81-07)

It was reported to the NRC that experiences with water-soluble purge dam materials at several nuclear construction sites have shown the need to develop welding procedures that address the potential for thennally decomposing the purge dam material during inert gas weld-ing or post-weld heat treatment operations. Specifically, polyvinyl alcohol film manufactured by a certain manufacturer was found by testing to decompose at temperatures above 300"F causing the mate-rial to lose its solubility in water. As a result the purge dam material cannot be completely dissolved during subsequent piping system flushing and cleaning operations. The failure of this '

material to completely dissolve could cause significant plugging problems during reactor plant operation.

POTENTIAL MISAPPLICATION OF PRESSURE TRANSMITTERS (Bulletin NO. 80-16)

In 1980 a vendor notified the NRC that a potential misapplication problem existed with certain of its pressure transmitters. The pressure transmitters were used in both pressure and differential pressure applications. Applications included pressurizer pressure monitoring (pressure transmitters) and reactor vessel level moni-toring (differential pressure transmitters).

9 Enclosure B

Ambiguous signal output from the transmitter to the control and indication components could result if the transmitters were used in an application where they could experience certain overpressure or reverse pressure conditions. These ambiguous signals could result l in erroneous control action, such as an open signal to a solenoid valve rather than a close signal, or an erroneous indication signal, such as an indication in the normal range which did not actually ,

) exist. l 4

4.1.2. Existing Costs l

Approximately 300 nuclear-power-plant-related Part 21 reports are submitted annually to the NRC by licensees and component suppliers.

~

Approximately 80% of these Part 21 reports are submitted by a licensee, with the remainder coming from nuclear steam system suppliers, i l

architect-engineers, and other nonlicensee vendors. Approximately 5000 950.55(e) reports, all from the holders of construction permits under Part 50, are submitted annually to the NRC. A substantial number of these reports are in the nature of interim or follow-up reports on the j same deficiency. Therefore, in reality, a more representative number j would be approximately 1700 550.55(e) reports of individual deficiencies

and 3300 interim or follow-up reports. The following estimates are j based on 1700 950.55(e) reports. -

Based on estimates provided by utilities and vendors, wide variations exist in the amount of effort expended in evaluation and reporting ofPart21and$50.55(e) defects. The following analysis, is based on a value of 160 man-hours for evaluation and reporting of a single Part 21 report, and 80 man hours for evaluation and reporting of a single 650.55(e) report. These estimates represent an average, and l l

include management review time, as well as the time expended on the evaluation of defects which are ultimately determined to be nonre-portable. The annual industry time expended on Part 21 is approxi-

! mately 48,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> (160 hours0.00185 days <br />0.0444 hours <br />2.645503e-4 weeks <br />6.088e-5 months <br /> x 300 reports), or $2,880,000 (based 1

on $60.00 per hour of professional staff time).

i 10 Enclosure B e

e

_ ---_ _ _ . _ . _ _ , , _ _ _--__-,-,rm-, . . . - - - - . - ._,,m_,,,_ ., y .- _.. , , . . - . . . . . _ . _ , .-.,._y ne ,__ ,,__,m,y_. . -.

The annual industry time expended on 650.55(e) reporting is i approximately 136,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> (1700 x 80) or $8,160,000 (at $60.00 per hour). The annual NRC staff time expended on Part 21 evaluations is approximately 7500 hours0.0868 days <br />2.083 hours <br />0.0124 weeks <br />0.00285 months <br /> (300 reparts x 25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br />) or $450,000 (at

$60.00 per hour) and approximately 25,500 hours0.00579 days <br />0.139 hours <br />8.267196e-4 weeks <br />1.9025e-4 months <br /> (1700 reports x 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br />) or $1,530,000 (at $60.00 per hour) for 550.55(e) evaluations.

4.1.3 Proposed Benefits The proposed rule would augment existing benefits by--

i o Eliminating duplicative licensee evaluation reporting and estaolishing consistency with other reporting requirements.

o Providing more certainty to the determination of what constitutes a reportable defect, thereby reducing licensee time as well as providing more assurance that critical safety defects are reported; o Ensuring that safety deficiencies are evaluated and reported in a timely manner; o Simplifying the reporting process by establishing a uniform reporting fonnat.

4.1.3.1 Eliminating Duplication; Establishing Consistency with Other Reporting Requirements The proposed revision would establish a system of a single evaluation and report for any particular safety defect, submitted by the entity that discovers the defect. Discovery of a defect by a vendor would be reported under Part 21, by a holder of a construction permit under 550.55(e), and by the holder of an operating license under $50.73.

In order to ensure that this objective is achieved, the proposed revision also establishes a reporting threshold for Part 21 and

%50.55(e) that is similar to the threshold contained in proposed 550.73. These revisions would have the following effects:

11 Enclosure B

A redistribution of the burden on the industry currently '

1.

associated with Part 21 reports submitted by licensees (approxi-mately 240 reports based on 1981 statistics) to the holders of i construction permits (reporting under 650.55(e)) and the holders of operating licenses. This will substantially reduce the number of Part 21 reports that would be submitted, but would not decrease the overall reporting burden.

2. A decrease in the burden on the tjustry by eliminating--

l

- The dual evaluation process for the same defect because of the different reporting thresholds associated with Part 21, 550.55(e),and$50.73;

- The submission of two different reports on the same defect.

These changes are anticipated to decrease the industry reporting burden by 10%. The reduction of industy burden on Part 21 and 50.55(e) combined will be approximately 18,400 hours0.00463 days <br />0.111 hours <br />6.613757e-4 weeks <br />1.522e-4 months <br /> (10% of 300 x 160 hours0.00185 days <br />0.0444 hours <br />2.645503e-4 weeks <br />6.088e-5 months <br /> plus 10% of 1700 x 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br />) or $1,104,000 annually.

i

3. NRC staff time expended on identifying and tracking duplicate i

reports will also be eliminated. However, this reduction in i burden will be offset by increased follow-up of safety concerns related to these reports.

4.1.3.2 New Reporting Criteria The proposed revision of Part 21 and $50.55(e) would establish a new reporting threshold, similar to that contained in 150.73. This new threshold substantially raises the existing reporting threshold for

$50.55(e) and adds considerably more detail to the current Part 21 threshold of " substantial safety hazard."

i The number of Part 21 reports submitted under the new criteria should not change substantially. However, the detailed guidance should make 12 Enclosure B l

\ _ -.

it easier to determine what is reportable and therefore reduce industry evaluation time. The higher threshold contained in the proposed revi-sion will reduce the number of 950.55(e) reports submitted to the NRC. However, evaluations for reportability must still be performed.

Thus, the reduction in evaluation effort will not be as great as the reduction in the number of reports. Including both effects, it is anticipated that the industry burden due to raised threshold will decrease by approximately 10%, without any resulting decrease in important safety information. The decrease in industry burden result-ing from the new 950.55(e) threshold will be approximately 13,600 hours0.00694 days <br />0.167 hours <br />9.920635e-4 weeks <br />2.283e-4 months <br />  ;

(10% of 1700 reports x 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br />) or $816,000 (at $60.00 per hour).

There will be a no decrease in the amount of NRC evaluation time because the change in reporting threshold will simply eliminate reports of low threshold problems on which little effcrt is currently expended.

4.1.3.3 Time Schedules for Evaluation The proposed changes to Part 21 establish a definite time frame for evaluation and reporting of a defect. The proposed changes to

$50.55(e) extend the time available for evaluation of and reporting

' of a defect. Although, difficult to quantify, establishing a reason-able schedule for the evaluation of a potentially reportable defect will be beneficial in terms of safety, by ensuring that potential j safety problems are brought to the NRC's attention as soon as possible after discovery.

On the other hand, extending the time schedules for 650.55(e) l evaluating and reporting would eliminate reports concerning a number of problems which, on further evaluation, are judged to be not significant safety hazards. Since 550.55(e) reports generally concern construction sites, there is minimal impact of safety of l operating reactors due to the slightly extended reporting schedule. l We estimate that the reduction in burden on industry due to extended reporting time for 550.55(e) is approximately 5% with no decrease in important safety information. The decrease in industry burden resulting from the new 50.55(e) time schedule will be approximately 13 Enclosure B

6800 hours0.0787 days <br />1.889 hours <br />0.0112 weeks <br />0.00259 months <br /> (5% of 1700 x 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br />) or $408,000 (at $60.00 per hour).  :

There will be no decrease in the amount of NRC effort because this change will eliminate reports on which little effort is currently expended.

I 4.1.3.4 Uniform Formats Similar reporting formats for all safety defect reporting will reduce industry reporting costs. Although the reduced costs will be minimal  ;

in the short term, the uniform format will be used as the basis for I a Part 21, 650.55(e) data base that could achieve considerable reduc- l l

tions in the future through such mechanisms as machine-to-machine  !

communication.

4.1.4 Proposed Costs 4.1.4.1 Eliminating Duplication and Establishing Consistency with Other Reporting Requirements.

Additional NRC enforcement costs will result from the establishment of a single report system. These additional costs will be incurred from NRC follow-up enforcement activities related to the generic implications of 650.55(e) reports and the facility-specific implica-tions of Part 21 reports. However, it is anticipated that these additional costs will be relatively small, approximately one man year of staff time, or $100,000. No additional costs will be imposed on the industry.

4.1.4.2 New Reporting Criteria No additional costs on the industry or NRC.

4.1.4.3 Time Schedules for Evaluation Establishing time schedules for evaluation and reporting under Part 21 may require the industry to devote more staff resources at a particular time to the evaluation of defects. However, the existing regulations 14 Enclosure B

f require industry evaluation and reporting already. Adherence to reasonable time schedules should not impose any substantial new resource requirements on the industry. We estimate that this require-ment will increase industry burden due to Part 21 evaluation and reporting by 10%. The increase in industry burden due to the time schedule will be approximately 4800 hours0.0556 days <br />1.333 hours <br />0.00794 weeks <br />0.00183 months <br /> (10% of 300 x 150 hours0.00174 days <br />0.0417 hours <br />2.480159e-4 weeks <br />5.7075e-5 months <br />) a

$288,000 (at $60.00 per hour).

4.1.4.4 Uniform Formats No additional costs on the industry or NRC.

4.1.5 Costs and Benefits of Alternatives See discussion under heading 3 " Alternatives."

4.2 Impacts on Other Requirements As discussed supra, a primary rationale for the proposed revision was to ensure coordination and consistency among NRC safety defect reporting requirements. Although the proposed revision focuses on nuclear power reactors, implications for the nonreactor area were considered in the development of the proposed rule.

4.3 Constraints Legal and institutional constraints, including issues related to enforceability, were discussed supra, under " Alternatives."

5. Decision Rationale i

An assessment of the costs and benefits of the proposed revision leads to the conclusion that there will be a substantial overall decrease in indus-try costs, a moderate overall decrease in NRC costs, and an important increase in the effectiveness of safety defect reporting. Therefore, the 15 Enclosure B

proposed action is recommended. No alternatives were judged to be satis- t factory. Our decision is supported by both the quantified cost data and a reasoned judgment on improvements to safety.

6. Implementation 6.1 Schedule No implementation problems are anticipated. The framework for implementation is already well-established in both the industry and the NRC.

6.2 Relationship to Other Schedules The proposed action will follow as closely as possible the rule in already promulgated LER rule. No effect on other schedules is anticipated.

1 -

l i

16 Enclosure B

If

- 1 i

1 ENCLOSURE C 1

i I

\

b e

decisi:n c:n whither the crd;r shruld be AcT ow: Fin:1 rule. IL Ruhmaking initiati:n ~

cmindrd to lower the pooling st:ndard in the annn:r proposed. In the cbsence sUMMAnn The Come ission le cmending Tha Nuclear Plant Reliability Data cf a suspension, costly and inefficient its regulations to require the reporting of (NPRD) system is a voluntary pr: gram m:vements of producer milk would have operational experience at nuclear power f r the reporting of reliability data by to be make solely for the purpose of plants by establishing the Ucensee nuclear power plant licensees. On .

January 30,1980 (45 FR 8793) 5 the NRC r pooling the milk of dairy farmers who Event Report (ER) system.The final ,

published an Advance Notice of h:ve historically supplied the fluid milk rule is needed to codify the LER Proposed Rulemaking that desen, bed the nseds of the market. reporting requirements in order to it is hereby found and determined that establish a single set of requirements NPRD system and invited public .

thirty days' notice of the effective date c mment on an NRC plan to make it ,f that apply to all operating nuclear hereof is impractical, nnnecessary and power plants. The final rule a pplies only mandatory. Forty.four letters were .

received in response to the advanced contrary to the public interest in tha t: to licensees of commercial nuclear .

(c) This suspension l's necessary to n dee.nese comments guinaHy  ;

reflect current marketing conditionstheand . power that plants.The pposed making the NPRD system requirements define the final eventsrule will change mandatory on the grounds that reporting ta maintain orderly marketing and situations that must be rep'c ried, f reliability data should not be made a ,

conditiona in the marketing area in that and will define the information that without the suspension costly and must be provided in each report.

@at ry req nment.

In December 1980, the Comm,ssion i inIfficient movements of milk would EFncTrys oAm January 1.1984.The i

h .va to be made solely for the purpose decided that the requirements for }

Jnc rp radon by reference of certain reporting of operational experience data cf pooling the milk of dairy farmers who publica tions listed in the regulations is needed major revision and approved the  ;

have historicaHy supplied th'e fluid milk approved by the Director of the Federal development of an Integrated 't nIeds of the market. .

Register as of January 1.1984. Operational Experience Reporting j (b) his suspension does not require .

cf persons affected substantial or roR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (IOER) system.The IOER system would .j

~ FrederickJ.Hebdon Chief. Program have combined, modified, and made '

cxt:nsive preparation prior to the .1 effretive date; and Technology Branch. Office for Analysis mandatory the existing Ucensee Event .{

(c) ne marketing problems that and Evaluation of Operational Data. Report (1.ER) system and the NPRD .i provide the basis for this suspension . U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, system.SEC1( 80-5072 discusses the j cction were fuHy reviewed at a public Washington D.C. m550 Telephone (301) '

IOER system. j ht :Ang held on November 9-10.1982 492-4480. .

As a result of the Commission's {

whtre all interested parties had an supngugxygny ,upo,ug73ou: approval of the concept of anIOER j cpportunity to be heard on this matter. . system, the NRC published another . .j nerefore. good cause exists for. L Background advance notice on January 15.1981 (48 j making this order effective up'on FR 3541).This advance notice explained On May 6.1982. the NRC published in publicat2on m the Federal Regtstec. the Federal Register (47 FR 19543)' a W 8 De e pug, nal Llst of Subjects In 7 CFR Part 1131 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that . [cncies the exas I and  !

would modify and codify the existing Milk marketing orders. Milk. Dairy Ucensee Event Report (LER) system.

NPRD systems. i products. gg g. .

Interested persons were invited t -E PART 113j--[ AMENDED) submit written comments to the N& Pm @&m W)

Secretary of the Commission by July 6.

announced that because of its role as an active user of NPRDs data it would

) 1131.7 fAmended) ,

1982. Numerous comments were r assume responsibility for management Itis therefore ordered. That the received. After consideration of the and funding of the NPRD system.

aforesaid provisions In i 1131.7(c) of the comments and other factors involved.  ;

Further. INPO decided to develop .

order are hereby suspended for the the Commission has amended the criteria that would be used in its -

months of August and September 1933. proposed requirements published for ,

t2es Effective dater July 25.1983.

(Sec.1-19,48 Stat. 31. as amended (7 U.S.C. ~

public comment by clarifying the scope and content of the requtrements.

" ",",8,,I', # #fy *'y y, '(i t 9, particularly the enteria that define Me NpRD s7sh e 6c1-674)) e two p cipald fic en ht ed at Washington D.C.on: July 21, witich o erational events must be

"" ' U' C. W. MchGSa'n. The majority of the com[nents on the

, were e bil of its co tte AssistantSecretary.Marketles cod proposed rule:(1) Questioned the management stnacture to provide the Inspection Semca.

• meaning and intent of the entena that necessary technical direction and a low Ira c s>.znr nwd r-o-as ac .ml defined the events which must be level of participation by the utilities.The s w eocoot m oe w , reported. (2) questioned the need for commitments and actions by INPO reportmg certain specific types of prodded a basis for confidence that

• 8 events, and (3) questioned the need for these two deficiencies would be NUC1. EAR REGut.ATORY certain Information that would be corrected. For example. centralizing the COMMISSION ,

. required to be included in artLER. management and funding of NPRDS Section III of this notice discusses the. within INPO should overcome the 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50 ,

comments in more detaII. . previous difficulties associated with

• 8 Ucensee Event Report Systein . copie, of the docurnents .n avausble for pubt'* fu d g ual e en ofeMY .Nr$s N.

ActMCf. Nuclear Regulatory s$on, organizations. Further, with INPO Cornrnission. . . O c. focusing upon a utility's participation In s

e. e

e -_ . _ _ . _ _ _ __

NPRDS es a specific ev:lusti:n comprehensive integrited cn-lytically. 1 Four c:mmenters felt that the level pirameter during routina m:nrgement versatile system. cf effort w:uld be incre: sed but n:t '

end pl nt audit activitira, the Itvel ef. The Brookhaven Study, published as significantly.

utility participati:n, end theref re, the BNL/NUREG 51609, NUREC/CR 3206, 3.One commenter felt that the quality and quantity of NPRDS data, discusses data collection and storage proposed rule would have a minimal should significantly increase. However, procedures to support multivariate, effect on the level of effort required. .

the Commission will continue to have an multicase analysis.While the range of 4.Two commenters felt that the active role in NPRDS by participating in reactor configurations in the U.S. proposed rule would significantly red 6ce an NPRDS User's Group, by periodically nuclear industry presents some the number of LERs filed. .

, assessing the quality and quantity of methodological and interpretative 5. Thirteen commenters endorsed the information available from NpRDS, and problems, these difficulties should not objective of improving LER reportingbut by auditing the timely availability of the be insurmountable.ne Commission felt that changes in the proposed rule information to th.e NRC. believes that the NRC should have as a were needed.These commenters did not.

Since there was a likelihood that

• specific objective the development. ' directly address the resotirce issue. .

! NPRDS underINPO direction would demonstration, and implementation of 6. Five commenters endorsed the '

meet the NRC's need for reliability data, an integrated system for collecting and proposed rule and/or felt that'it was a it was no longer necessary to proceed - analyzing operational data that will significant improvement ove'r the with the IOERS.Hence ,the collection of kmplo'y the predictive and analytical existing reporting requirements, detailed techmeal desenptions of . potential of multicase, multivariate Based on these commer.ts and its own sigmficant events could be addressed in analyses. Accordingly, the staff has - assessment of the impact of this rule,thir a separate rulemakieg to modify and been directed to undertake the work Commission has concluded that the codify the existing LER reporting necessary to develop and demonstrate ' impact of this rule will be no greater requirements. See SECY 81-494 for . such a cost-effective integrated system than the impact of the existing LER I perational data colle.ction and requirements, and this rule will not o ever i e onmis o s to 88tlY8'8- - Pl ace an unacceptable burden on the

- make it explicitly clear that it is relaxing . If the design of the system affected licensees.

the reporting requirements with the demonstrates that such,a system is

~

expectation that sufficient utility Relationship Between the LER Rule participation, cooperation, and support fee sible and cost-effective, development (f 50.n) ond the immediate Notification

a co pfe 1 MON teh system d s not b com *p '

operational at a satisfactorylevelin a ' IIL Analysis'of Comments . - p ,,,ti i Commission .

He Commission received forty-seven is amending its regulations (i 50.72)

Is a th$foi ofId anal  : (47) letters commenting on the proposed which require that beensees for nuclear rufemaking may become necessary. rule. Copies of those letters and a power plants notify the NRC Operations On October 6,1981, the NRC Center of significan,t events that occur at

~

detaued analysis of the comments are published an advanced notice (46 FR available for public inspection and their plants. On December 21.1981, the 49134) th:1 deferred development of the Commission published in the Federal copying for a fee at the NRC Public IOER system and sought public Document Room at 1717 H Street. NW., Register a proposed rule (46 FR 61894) comment on the scope and content of that described the planned changes in Washington,D.C. A number of the more the LER system. Six comment letters I5052. I were received in response to this substantive issues are discussed below.

ANpRM. All of the comments received LicenseeResources accompanying the proposed LER rule were reviewed by the staff and were (i.e., i 50.73) stated that additional considered in the development of the Of particular concern to the Commission was the impact that the changes anticipated to { 50.72 would be proposed LER rule.Sie SECY 82-3

• for made but they would be '" *

• largely proposed rule would have on the ,

additional detaus. resources used by licensees to prepar'e administrative and the revised i 50J2 This rule identifies the types of would not be significantly modified nor reactor events and problems that are LERs.The Commission's goalwas to assure that the scope of the rule would would it be published again for public believed to be significant and usef il to' comment." Several commenters the NRCin its effort to identify and not increase the overalllevel of efiert above that currently required to comply disagreed with this conclusion.

resolve threats to public safety. It is ne commenters did, however, agree designed to provide the information with the existing LER requirements. ,

Thirty letters of the 47 received with the Commission's position that necessary for engineering studies of

• inconsistencies and overlapping operational anomalies and trends and contained comments on the overall acceptability of the proposed rule or requirements between the two rules patterns analysis of operational occurrences. The same information can commented directly on the question of . need to be eliminated.

scope and/or resources associated with ne Commission has carefully also be used for other analytic the proposed rule.The views of the reviewed the proposed requirements in procedures that wiu sid in identify'mg aceident precursors. commenters can be characterized as the LER andimmediate Notification follows: - rules and has concluded that although The Commission believes that the changes to both have been made 1.Five commenters felt that the scope NRC.should continue to seek an andlevel of effort would be greatly (largely in response to public comments) improved operational data system that wiU maximize the value of operational expanded by the proposed rule. - to clarify the intent of the rules, the data.The system should encompass and Estimates included an increase of100 originalintent and scope have not been integrate operational data of events and man-years for the entire industry, an significantly changed. Therefore, the problem sequences identified in this increase of three times the cunent effort, Commission has concluded that these and an increase of $100.000 and 2 man- two rules need not be published again rule. NpRDS data, and such other .

information as is required for a years annually for each plant. for public comment.

~ .

~ . . . . ,. . .- . a;. mn

33852 Fed;ral Registir / Vcl. 48. Ns.144 / Tu;sdry, July 28, 1983 / Rufen and Regulati:ns . Y.;

EngineeringfudgmInt  : LERs).%ey notd th:t reports cf RPS this rule, but did n:t ch'nge the original Nl cetuations are clready reported ts the scIpe cfintent cf the requirements.In 1 In the Federal Register notice that - NRC in the Monthly Operating Status addition,in order to make the . A accompanied the proposed rule. the Report, as well as telephoned to the requirements in il 50.72 and 5053 more .;

Commission s'tated that IIcensee's. NRC Opustions Center. ,

sngineering judgment may be used to- In addition, the Institute of Nudear _ compatible.

the criteria in i 50J3 hasthe beenorder changed. (i.e., numberi J

decide if an event is reportable. Several Power Operations (INPO) analyzed the ne changes are noted in the discussion :j

. commenters expressed the belief that frequency f reactor scrams during a of each paragraph below. .

1 some wording should be added to the on-muth eriod.ms analysts Finlly, conforming amendments are rule of reflect that the NRC will also use P 3 I".dicated that an avera e of 55 reactor being made to various sections of Parts  ;

judgment in enforcement of this tnps would be reportab e each month 20 and 50 in order to reduce the .

regulation where the licensee is under the proposed rule. INPO equated redundancy in reporting requireme,nts .%

requ:sted to use engineering judgment. this to 660 additional LERs per year for that, apply to operating nuclear power j ne Commission believes that the LER all currently operating plants, or plants. In general, these amendments ,.i rule adequately discusses the need for approximately 32 man. years of will require that: -  !

and cpplication of the concept of additional effort for all the currently t Licensees that have an Emergency ;j ingineering fudgment."The concept Perating plants based upon the Notification System (ENS) make the j itselfincludes the recognition of the *Humphon that each I.ER mquiru W

• nports required by the subject sections 1 existence of a reasonable range of via the ENS. All other licensees will d.

interpretation reganiing this rule, and mayh un f eff it t Prepare and

' "h dmi a r of e a propriate! RC re [e and he b owledges~ .

a s du ac r tn s.

• b" "' '

the need for flexibility in enforcement frequently are associated with ten npos' nqM We cetions associated with this rule.%e 2 n significant plant transients and are subject sections be submitted to the j Commission believes that this concept is indicative of events that are of safety N cument CW Duk in sufficiently clear and that additional significance.In addition if the ESFs are as ngton.E e a copy to b j3 cxplicit guidance is not necessary. being challenged during routine appropriate Regional Offices. .g tting Schedule transients, that fact is of safety 3. Holders of licenses to operate a R  ; ;

sign!Ecance and should be reported. nudear power plant submit the wn,tten 4; In the FederalRegister notice that In addition, the Commission does not reports required,by the subject sections  ; 1 cecompanied the proposed rule, the agree with the estimate that 'each LER Coinmission stated that it had not yet in accordance with the procedures $

submitted for a routine reactor trip decided if the reports should be would require, on the average.100 man- described in i 50.73(b). .

submitted in fifteen days or thirty days hours to prepare and analyze. Licensees ne criteria contained in the subject h]

followmg discovery of a reperfable are already required to make internal sections which define a reportable event .j event. Many commenters stated that the evaluation of and document significant have not been modified. 4 time frame for reporting LERs should not events, including reactor trips. Similar changes are also planned as J be less than thirty days after the Herefore, the incrementalimpact of ' Part of curent activities to make more j discovery of a reportable event. preparing and analyzing the LER should substantive changes to Part 21  ;

One commenter estimated the impact be significantly less th'an 300-m'an hours. . I 50.55(e), and i 73 7L ,;

cf c requirement to submit a report In addition. the actual increase in Nonconservative Interdependence j sooner than 30 days following discovery burden would be offset by reductions in of a reportable event would.be an Several commenters expressed  ;

the burden of reporting less significant increase of approximately 40 man years events that would no longer be difficulty in understanding the meaning per year for the currently operating reportable. of the phras's "nonconservative . ..

plants. In ' addition the commenter interdependence" as used in the

• estimated that if a summary report were Coordination With OtherReporti"8 proposed i 50.73(a)(3).The wording of also required the reporting burden Requirements i 50.73(a)(3)(I 50.73(a)(2)(vii) of this would increase an additional 12 man Several commenters noted that the ' final rule) has been changed to eliminate yerrs for the currently operating plants. proposed rule did not appear to be - the phrase "non conservative .

In response to these comments, the coordinated with other existing interdependence" by specifically Commission has decided to require that reporting requirements, and that defining the types of events that should LERs be submitted within 30 days of duplication of licensee effort snight be reported.The revised paragraph does discovery of a reportable event or result.%ey recommended that LER not, however, change the intent of the situa tion. reporting be consolidated to eliminate original paragraph. ,,

Reporting of Reactor Trips "P ** I' "8 abotage and Threats of Violence P*l'

, q cnt Several commenters noted that the Szction 50.73(a)(1) of the proposed %e Commission has reviewed existing NRC reporting requirements security.related reporting requirements i 50.73(a)(2)(iv) of the final rule) rulg(ired requ reporting of any event which (e.g 10 CFR Parts 20 and 21. I 50.55(e). of i 50.73(a)(o) {l 50.73(a)(2)(iii) of this results in an unplanned manual or i 50.72. 5 50.73. ! 73.71, and NUREC- final rule)) were already contained in automatic actuation of any Engineered 0651) and has attempted, to the extent greater detailin to CFR 73.71.For Safety Feature (ESF) including the practicable, to eliminate redundant - instance,173.71 requires an act of '

Reactor Protection System (RpS). Many . reporting and to ensure that the various sabotage to be reported immediately.

commenters agreed that these events reporting requirements are consistent. followed by a written report within 15 should be trended and analyzed, but Many of the changes in the final LER days.ne proposed rule would have g disagreed that they deserve to be rule are as a result of this effort.nese required an LER to be filed within 30 .

singled out as events of special changes resulted in extensive revisions . days. Although distribution of reports is significance (i e., events reportable as in the wording of criteria contained in somewhat different, redundant reporting .

i

~ ~ WArdfWegider lf WeK UDM. WJUTutsif.Qf M7 MJ WNTMMGD NGFWpomhu ----- atis would hava occurred.Le commenters in NPRDS as an alternative. !t is cur Several commenters argurd that the recommended that the Comm! st:n undIrst .nding.h wever, the NPRDS will inclusi n cf the requirement th t the ensure consistency oetween il 50.73 soon adopt the EIIS system titles, so a licensee perfrrm an enginstring and 73.71. .

distinction should no longer exist. In evaluation of certain events at the staff's In response to these comments the addition.LERs frequentlyinclude request appeared unjustified and would Cornmission has deleted the reporting of systems that are not included in the add substantially to the burden of r sabotage and threat's of violence from - scope of NPRDS (i.e., an NPRDS system reporting.%ey argued that the lice'nsee i 50.73 because thes'e situations are while EDS. should be required to submit only the

- adequately covered by the reporting . identification on the other hand, does includesnot a exist)ll of the ' additional information reglired

- specific requirements contained in i 73.71. systems commonly found in commercial for the necessary engirieering evaluation nuclear power plants. Further. NPRDS rather than to pedorm the evaluation.

Evoeuation ofRooms orBuildings-includes only 39 component identifiers %e rule has been modified to require Many commenters stated that th.e (e.g valve, pump).ne Commission only the submittal of any necessa reporting ofin-plant releases of believes that this limited number does additional information requested by the ra onctivity that require evacuation of not provide a sufficiently detailed . Commission in writing' ' -

individual rooms (i 50.73(a)(7) in the description of the component function proposed rule or (i 50J3(a)(2)(x) of this IV.S PeciSc Findings involved. ' ..- ,

final rule) was inconsistent with the - .

Overview of the f.ER System. e general thrust of the rule to require Function ofFailedComponents and reporting of significant events.ney Status ofRedundant Components When this finall.ER rule becomes noted that minor spills, small gaseous Many commenters said that effective, the LER will be a detailed waste releases, or the disturbance of information required in (i 5073(b)(2) (vi) narrative description of potentially contaminated particulate matter (e.g., and (vil) of the proposed rule should not significant safety events. By' describing dust) may all require the temporary be a requirement in the LER.ney in detail the event and the planned evacuation of Individual rooms until the argued that this information is readily corrective action. It will provide the airborne concentrabons decrease or ava!}able in documents previously. basis for the careful study of events or until respiratory protection devices are submitted to the NRC bylicensees and conditions that might lead to serious utilized.They,noted that these events are available fot reference. ' accidents. If the NRC staff decides.that are fair y common and should not be the event was especially significant

%e final rule (150J3(b)(2)(1)(G)) has bem modined to narrow Ge scope of - hem ee MpoW safety ee daH v cuation ec : the en scility or a the information requested by the may request that the licensee provide y . g g additionalinformation and data In re p nse to t$ese commedts the Commission. .

While this generalinformatie may be associated with the event.

wording of this criterion (i 5053(a)(2)(x) 'Thelicensee wiD prepare an LER for In the final rule) has been changed to available in licensee documents previously submitted to the NRC, the those events or conditions that meet one significantly narrow the scope of the or more of the criteria contained in Caunission believes that a general criterion to include only those events which significantly hamper the ability of understanding of the event and its i 5073(a).The criteria are base.d significance should be possible without primarily on the nature, course, and site personnel to perform safety-related consequences of the event.nerefore, activities (e.g, evacuation of the main reference to additional documentation which may not be readily or widely the final LER rule requires that events control room), which meet the criteria are to be a,vallable.particularly to the public.'

Energy Industry Identification System The Commission continues to belleve reported regardless of the plant -

that the licensee should prepare an LER operating mode or power level, and Many commenters noted that the - regardless of the safety significance of requirement to report the Energy "in sufBelent depth so that .

knowledgeable readers who are the components. systems, or structures Industry identification System (Ells) involved. In trying to develop criteria for component function identifier and conversant with'the design of commercial nuclear power plants, but the identi5 cation of events reportable as system name of each component or LERs. the Commission has concentrated

~

system referred to in the LER are not familiar with the details of a particular plant, can understand the on the potential consequences of the

' description would be a significant event as the measure of significance.

burden on the licensee. general characteristics of the event (e.g

'the cause, the sign!Scence, the Derefore, the reporting criteria. in They suggested instea(1 that the NPRDS component identifiers be used in corrective r.ction). As suggested by the general, do not specifically address commenters, more detailed information classes ofinitiating events or causes of place of the Ells component identifiers the event. For example, there is no which are not yet widely used by the to support engineering evaluations and case studies will be obtained, as requirement that all personnel errors be industry. reported.However,many reportable ne Commission continues to believe needed, directly from the previous 1p -

that EUS system names and component . submitted licensee deuments. events willinvolve or have been Initiated by personnel errors. -

function identifiers are needed in order .

Engm.eennsEvoluotions that LERs from different plants can be Finally,it should be noted that compared. We do not.however, suggest The overview discussion of the licens'ees are permitted and encouraged that the EIIS identifiers be used - proposed rule contains the following to report any event that dces not meet throughout the plant. but only that they statement:"If the NRC staff decides that the criteria contained in i 50.73(a). If the the event was especially significant  !!censee believes that the event might be be added to the LER as it is written. A simple, inexpensive table could be used , from the standpoint of safety, the staff of safety significance, or of generic .

to translate plant identifiers into may request that the licensee perform interest or concern. Reporting

' an engineering evaluation of the event requirements aside. assurance of safe equivalent Ells IdentlSers.

The Commission considered the and describe the results of that operation of all plants depends on system and component identifiers used evaluation." accurate and complete reporting by each G

, c_ _- _ - _ _ _ _ _ - -

- _ _ __--_===__:=------ - - - - - _ _ - _ _ -

_ = _ - - = =_ _ a ll;ensle cf all events having potIntial consIquences cf an event (e.g at th1 cccident (e.g., containment isslatirn, .

• safety significance. -

discreti:n cf the licensee as part cf a s:mergency filtra tion). Hence, minor Pamgmph by-PamsmphIxp'lanation of P rnned i procedure er evtlutian). cperationil events involving a specific Sections 50.73(a)(2)(v) and (vi) comp rdnt such cs valve packing leaks, the LER Rule (Proposed i 50.73(a)(2]) require reporting which could be considerd a lack of ne s.ignificant provisions of the final of: control of radioactive material should LER rule are explamed below.The . . . , . . . * ' '

not be reported under this paragraph. -

sxplanation follows the orderin the (v) Any event or condition that alone could System leaks or other similar events Propsed rule. beve prevented the fulfi!! ment of the safety may, however, be reportable under other Paragraph 50.73Ta)(2)(iv) (' proposed lunction of structune or systems that an hs.

Pa '

P:ragraph 50.73(a)(1)) requires reporting needed to: ) be noted that th'" **

• ci:"Any event'or condition that resulted (A) Shut down the reactor and metatsin it limited number of single. train systems in manual or automatic actuation of any in a safe shutdown condition: -

that perform safety functions (e.g., the (B) Remove moldualheat: , j High Pressure Coolant Infection System Engineered Safety Fea ture (ESF)' System including the Reactor Protection (C) control the release of radioactive materfah or . In BWRs). For neh systems, lou of the  !

(RPS). However, actuation of an ESF, single train would pnvent the 1 including the RPS, that resulted from M # 8 .e the consequeces of an fulMment of the safety function of that l

- accident.

and was part of the prepIanned (vi) Events covered in paragraph (a)(2)(v) system and, therefore, must be reported - i sequence uring testing or react of this section may include one or more even though the plant Technical '

cperztion need not be reported.,or personnel errora, equipment failures, and/or Specifications may allow such a - I his paragraph requires events to be discovery of design, analysis, fabrication. condition to exist for a specified limited I reported whenever an ESF actustes construction, and/or procedural length Wme.

aither manually or automatically, inadequacies.However.tadividual it should also be noted that,if a .

l regardless of plant status. It is based on component fa!!une need not be reported -

Pursuant to this paragraph if redundant ' Potentially serious human error is made ,

, the premise that the ESFs are provided that could have prevented fulfillment of

' equipment in the same system was operable .

13 mitigate the consequences of a and available to perform the mquind safety a safety function, but recovery factors signiLcant event and, therefore: (1) %e'y resulted in the error being corrected, t,ne

)

funeta n. . . )

' should work properly when called upon, error is still reportable, cnd (2) they should not be challenged %e wording of this paragraph has been changed from the proposed rule to %e Commission recognizes that the frequently or unnecessarily.ne make it easier to read.%e intent and , application of Jhls and other paragraphs Commission Is interested both in events where an ESF was needed to mitigate scope of the paragraph have not been of this section involves the use of changed.

-- engineering judgment on the part of the consequences (whether or not the licensees.In this case, a technical Equipment performed properly) and Deintent of this paragraph is to . ,

capture those events where there would judgment must be made whether a

events where an ESF operated, .

unnecessarily. have been a failure of a safety system to fa'!ure or operator action that did

" Actuation" of multichannel ESF properly complete a safety function,

• actually disable one train of a safety .

Actuation Systems is defined as regardless of when the failures were system, could have, but did not, affect a discovered or whether the system was redundant train within the ESF system. .

cctustion of enough channels to .

needed at the time. If so, this would constitute an event that

} complete the minimum actuation logic (Le., activation of sufficient channels to This paragraph is also based on the "could have~ prevented" the fulfillment 1

cause activation of the ESF Actuation assumption that safety-related systems of a safety function, and, accordingly, System).Therefore, single channel and structures are intended to mitigate must be reported.

i actuations, whether caused by failures the conseque'nces of an accident.While If a component fails by an apparently l rando,m mechanism it may or may not or otherwise, are not reportable if they i 50.73(a)(2)(iv) of this final rule applies do not complete the minimum actuation to actual actuations of an ESF, be reportable if the functionally logic.

~

l 50.73(a)(2)(v) of this final rule covers redundant component could fall by the Operation of an ESF as part of a an event or condition where redundant same mechanism. Reporting is required planned operational procedure or test structures, components, cr trains of a if the failure constitutes a condition" (e.g., startup testing) need not be safety system could have failed to where there is reescuable doubt that the reported. However,if during the planned perform their intended function because functionally redundant train or channel operating procedure or test, the ESF of: one or more personn'el errors, would remain operationaluntilit actuates in a way that is not part of the including procedure violations; completed its safety function or is ,

p!taned procedure, that actuation must , equipment failures; or design, analysis, repaired. For example,if a pump in one .

be reported.For example,if the normal fabrication, construction, or procedural train of an ESF system fails because of reactrr shutdown procedure requires deficiencies.ne e' vent must be reported imprcper lubrication, and engineering that the control rods be inserted by a . regardless of the situation or condition judgment indicates that there is a .

manual reactor trip, the reactor trip need that caused the structure or systems to reasonable expectation that the not b reported.However,if conditions be unavailable, and regardless of functionally redundant pump in the  :

devilop during the shutdown that whether or not an alternate safety other train, which was also improperly i I

require an automatic reactor trip', such a syst'em could have been used to perform lubricated, would have also failed reactor trip must be reported. the safety function (e.g., High Pressure before it completed its safety function. l

%e fact that the safety analysis Core Cooling failed, but feed.and-bleed then the actiial failure is reportable and I assumes that an ESF will actuate or Low Pressure Core Cooling were the potential failure of the functionally

automatically during certain plant available to provide the safety function redundant pump must be discussed in conditions does not eliminate the need J the I.ER.

to report that actuation. Actuations that of.The core coolinkility of this paragraph ,For safety systems that include three applica

need not be reported ar.e those initiated

• includes those safety systems designed or more trains, the failure of two or more far reasons other than to mitigate the to mitigat,e the consequences of an c trains should be reported if,in the S

h l

!l .

Judgement cf the licensee, the functi:el (D) Mitigate the consequences af an within th'e time limit specifird la the

1 cap bilitycf the evml! system wts cecidtnt " *

• Technical Sp'ecificati:ns, the action

. )e:ptrdized. . . This paragraph hrs been chsnged ts need nst be rep:rted under this .

Interaction cl :rify theintent cf the phress paragraph. Hswever. If, while the train

. particularlysafety a.betwun system and systems.

a non- "abaconservative interdependence." or component is out of service, the 1I safety system,is also included in this Numerous comment letters expressed licenses identifies a condition that could

- .. criterion.For example the Commission difficulty. in understanding what this have prevented the whole system from is increasingly concerned about the phrase meant: so the paragraph has performing its intended function (e:3, effect of a loss or degradation of what - been changed to be.more specific.ne h licenses finds a set of relays that is

. had been assumed to be non-essential new paragraph is narrowerin scope wired incorrectly), that condition hust

inputs to safety systems' Therefore, this than the original paragraph because the be reported.

! paragraph alsoincludes those cases term is specificaUy defined, but the Section 50.73(a)(2)(i)(proposed

, where a service (e.g., heating, basic intent is the same. .

I 50.73(a)(41) requires reporting of:

ventilation. and cooling) or input (e.g, %1s paragraph requires those events "(A) He completion of any nucle'ar compressed air) which is necessary for to be reported where a single cause . plant shutdown required by the plant's reliable orlong. term operation of a Produced a component or group of . .g.Md SpaiSado@ -

safety s stem is lost or degraded.Such' ~ components to become inoperable in P])jgtion hibitedb the I -

loss or egradation is reportable if the redundant or independent portions (i.e, ons; pe proper fulfillment of the safety function trains or channels) of one or more systems having a safety function.Thess

"(C) Any deviation from the plant's

is not cannot be assured. Failums that Technical Specifications authoriad affect inputs or services to systems that evedts can identify previously umcognized common cause failures Pursuant to i 50.54(x) of this part.,

l have no safety function need not be and systems interactions. Such failures. -

• %is paragraph has been reworded to reported.

can be simultaneous failures which . more clearly define the even'ts that must l

Finally the Commission recognizee that thelicensee may also use occur becaun d a singleinidating be nported.In addition, the scope has cause (i.e the single cause or been changed to mquire the reporting of I engineering judgment to decide when .

mchanisrn sma as a canon input to events or conditions " prohibited by the l personnel actions could have prevented

• ee faHms) e se faums can be plant's Technical Specifications" rather 1 fulfillment of a safety function.For than events where "a plant Technical

. ~ example, when an Individual improperly "9"*"U*I II#". cascade failures). such as the case where a s e component Specification Action Statement is not 1

operates or maintains a component.he might conceivably have made the same faum smits in ne fa m d 9ne w mt."nis change accoinmodates plants more additional components. that do not have requirements that are

' error for all of the functionally ,

To be reportable, however, the event specifically de, fined as Action redundant components (e. ,if he ~

or fauure must result in or involve the Statements.

incorrectly calibrates one istable failure of I"d* Pendent portions of more l amplifier in the Reactor Protection

- This paragraph now requires events to than one train or channelin the same or be reported where the licenseeis System, he could conceivably different systems.For example,if a Incorrectly calibrate aD bistable . - required to shut down the plant because

• • * " **" the requirements of the Technical amplifiers). However. for an event to be in Train . Aand .dluon "B" ofcaused a single components system . .

! reportable it is necessary that the Specifications were not met. Fo'r the I

actions actually affect or involve to become inoperable, e ven if additional purpose of this paragraph." shutdown" .

trains (e.g, Train "C") wm still is defined as the point in time where the i components in more than one train or

> - channel of a safety system, and the available, the event must be reported. In Technical Specificatioris require that the addition.if the cause or condition plant be la the first shutdown condition i result of the actions must be undesirable c8und compents in Train A, of a required by a Limiting Condition for 4

' from the perspective of protectmg the system an rab B danoner health and safety 6f the public.The Operation (e.3, hot standby (Mode 3) for Wem p, a tradam anumd b - PWRs with the Standard Technical 1 components can be functionally -

redundant (e'3, two pumps in different the safety analysis t be independent) to specifications).lf the conditionis becom inoperable, the event must be ' corrected before the time limit for being trains) or not functionally redundant

",P o shut down (i.e,before completion of the

, , (e.g. the operator correctly stops a pump ,n us d$ "

nts$ Tmin in Train "A" and,instead of shutting the "A" gf one system and Train "A" of .e utdown). &e mot md no@

purnp discharge valve in Train "A." he another system (i.e., trains that are not

- Np M mistakenly shuts the pump discharge ' assumed in the safety analysis to be

• In addition. if a condition that wa's prohibited by the Technical

, valve in Train "B"). Independent), the event need not be SPecifications existed fu a period d l Section 50.73(a)(2)(vil) (proposed mported unless it meets one or more of l 50.73(a)(3)) requires the reporting of: time longer than that permitted by the J the other criteria in this section. .

"Any event where a single cause or in addition, this paragraph does not Technical Specifications. it must be

) . condition caused at least one -

Include those cases where one train of a Mported even if the condition was not ,

independent train or channel to become system or a component was removed discovered until after the allowable time ,

laoperable in multiple systems or two from service as part of a planned had elapsed and the condition was independent trains channels or to actified immediately after discovery.

4 evolution. in accordance with an become inoperable in a system designed appmved procedure, and in accordance Section 50.73(a)(2)(II](proposed to: with the plant's Technical l 50.73(a)(5)) requires mporting of:"Any i (A) Shut down the t' sctor and e

• Specifications.For example. lf the event or condition that resulted in the i maintain it in a safe shutdown licensee removes part of a system from condition of the nuclear power plant.

condition. . service to perform maintenance, and the including its principal safety barriefs.

Technical Specifications permit the . being seriously degraded, or that

! (B) Remove residual heat. resultedin the nuclear power plant j [C] Control the release of radioactive . resulting configuration, and the system materiah or . or component is returned to service being:

j .

j .,* . . g

- - - - - - - - - - - --_w ,

--- m . - " m"'

- ~ - -[ Q 3 - A S y- K

-,n. _ _ . _ - - - - _ _ _ _

33856 Fediril Regist:r / Vcl. 48 N2.144 / Tutsdity }uly 26, 1983 / Rules and Regulatisns -

7 "fA)In en un:ndyzid conditi:n that redirect!vitylivels ct a BWR cir eject:r. safety cf the nuclear power pl:nt er .

significantly c:mpromisid pl:nt safety: m: nit:r that exc:eded thi Technic:1 significantly hampered site pers:nnelin -  !

"(B)In a condition that was outside

• Specificationlimits. . the performance of duties necessary for  ?

th2 design basis of the plant; or (c) Cracks and breaks in piping. the ' the safe operation of the nuclear power -

"(C)In a condition not covered by the reactor vessel, or major components in plant including fires, toxic gas releases, t pl*nt's cperating and emergency the primary coolant circuit that have or radioactive releases."

procedures." . - . safety relevance (steam generators. This paragraph has been reworded to This paragraph requires events to be reactor coolant p , valves, etc.) include physical hazards (internal to the -i reportdd where the plant. Including its (d) Significant we ing or material -

plant) to personnel (e.g, electrical fires). ,

principal safety barriers, was seriously defects in the primary coolant system. In addition. in response to numerous i degraded or in an unanalyzed condition. (e) Serious temperature or pressure comments, the scope has been narrowed Far example, small voids in systems transients (e.g., transients that violate .so that the hazard must hamper the .

d; signed to remove heat from the the plant's Technical S ecifications). ability of site personnel to perform i re:ct:r core which have been previously . (f) Loss of relief and or safety valve safety-related activities affecting plant .

shown through analysis not to be safety operabili during test or operation ,,f,,y' signiScant need not be reported. (such that e number of operable . ,

H: wever, the accumulation of volds that valves or man-way closures is less than In-plant releases must be reported if -

could inhibit the ability to adequately required by the Technical they nquin nacuadon of rooms or . j buildings containing systems impo'r tant  ;

remtve heat from the reactor core. Specifications). ,

particularly under natural circulation (g)Ioss of containment function or to safety and, as a nsult, the abt!!!y pf, j~

i conditions, would constitute an integrity (e.g containment leakage rates the operators to perform necessary, l untn:lyzed condition and must be exceeding the authorized limits). safety functions is significantly ,

I reported.In addition, voiding in Section 50.73(a)(2)(iii) (proposed hampered. Precautionary evacuations of .; l i 50.73(a)(6)) requires reporting of;"Any rooms and buildings that subsequent Instrument lines that results in an ,

crrontous indication causing the natural phenomenon or other external evaluation determines were not required  :

oper:ttr to significantly misunderstand condition that posed an actual threat to need not be reported. t j the true condition of the plant is also an the safety of the nuclear power plant or Proposed i 50.73(a)(8) was intended to unanslyzed condition and must be . significantly hampered site personnelin capture an event that involved a i reportzd. - the performance of duties necessary for controlled release.of a significant . j The Commission recognizes that ihe the safe operation of the nuclear power amount of radioactive material to offsite .;

licenste may use engineering judgment planL" . . areas. In addition, "significant" was ]

and experience to determine whether an This paragraph has been reworded to based on the plant's Technical ';

unanalyzed condition existed. !t is not make it clear that it applies only to acts Specification limits for the release of  :.

Intended that this paragraph apply to . of nature (e.g, tornadoes) and external radioactive material. However, this  ;

minor variations in individual hazards (e.g, railroad tank car section has been deleted becatise the

.p:rameters, or to problems concerning explosion). References to acts of reporting of these events is already t single pieces of equipment. For example, sabotage have been removed because required by I 50.73(- }(2)(i) and i 20.405.

ct any time, one or more safety-related they are covered by i 73.71. In addition. . Section 50.73(a)(2)(viii) and (ix) components may be out of service due threats to personnel from internal (proposed i 50.73(a)(9)) requirgporting ta testing, maintenance, or a fault that . . hazards (e.g, radioactivity releases) are og:

his not yet been repaired. Any trivial now covered by a separate paragraph . . . . . ,

single failure or minor error in (i 50.73(a)(2)(x)). (viii)(A) Any airbome radioactivity release performing surveillance tests could This paragra h requires those events that exceeded 2 times the applicable  :

produce a situation in which two or to be reported here there is an actual concentrations of the limits specified in Table '

mire cften unrelated, safety-related threat to the plant from an extemal  !!of Appendix B to Part 20 of this chapterin c mponents are out-of service. conditio~n ornatural henomenon, and unrestricted areas, when averaged over a Technically, this is an unanalyzed where the threat or amage challenges time period of one hour.

condition. However, these events should the abil'ity of the plant to continue to .(B) Any liquid effluent release that operate in a safe manner (including the exceeded 2 times the limiting combined be reported only if they involve ,

functionally related components or if orderly shutdown and maintenance of Maximum Permissible Concentration [MN)

'be i'

they significantly compromise plant shutdown conditions . $','p(*j', P,'"dl

t of t .

s:fety.

• The beenseeis to ecide if a receiving water (i.e unrestricted areal for all Fin:lly, this paragraph also includes phenomenon or condition actual!Y radionuclides except tritfum and dissolved m:terial (e.g., metallergical, chemical) threatened the plant. For example, a . noble gases, when averaged over a time .

problems that cause abnorrnal minor brush fire in a remote area of the period of one hour.

- degradation of the principal safety site that was quickly controlled by fire (lx) Reports submitted to the Comm!ssion .

brrriers (i.e., the fuel cladding, reactor fighting personnel and, as a result, did in accordance with parag:aph (ax2)(viii) of coolarit system pressure boundary, or not present a threat to the plant need this section also meet the effluent release the conta!nment), not be reported. However, a major forest reporting requirements of paragraph 20m(aXs) omart 20 of Gli chapter. -

Addi6onal examples of situations fire large. scale flood, or major * * * *

• included in this paragraph are: earthquake that presents a clear threat .

(a) Fuel cladding failures in the to the plant must be reported. Industrial Paragraph (vill) has been changed to ,

reactor er in the storage pool, that or transportation accidents that clarify the requirements to report Exceed expected values, that are un!que occurred near the site and created a releases of radioactive material.The cr widespread, or that resulted from . plant safety concem must also be paragraph is similar to i 20.405 but ,

unexpected factors. reported.. . places a lower threshold for reporting (b) Reactor coolant todioactivity Section 50.73(a)(2)(x)(proposed events at commercial power reactors.

livels that exceeded Technical 150.73(a)(7)} requires reporting of:"Any The lower threshold is based on the 4 SpIcification limits for lodine spikes or, event that posed an actual threat to the significance of the breakdown of the

. 1

Ped:rd (hgis0cr / Vcl. de No. 800 / TueRcy. RVXmMFlnmFN Nbs* N licensee's program,n:cessary is have o in a conditi:n nst entlyzed in the Safety 'Speci:1 Reports" cf the Technictl release cf this size.rsther than en the Analysis R'eport) under reasonable and Specifications are stilt required.

si8nificance of the impact of the actual credible alternative conditions, such as V. Regulatory Analysis .

release. power level or opereting mode. For .

Reports of events covered by example,if an event occurred while the ne Commission has prepared e p'lant was at 15% power and the same regulatory analysis for this final rulee i 50.73(a)(2)(viii) are to be made in lieu of reporting noble gas releases that event could have c*ccurred while the The analysis examines the costs and exceed to times the instantaneous plant was at 100% power, and, as a benefits of the alternatives considered

- release rate, without averaging over a result, the consequences would have ,

by the Commission. A copy of the .'

time period, as implied by the . been considerably more serious, the regulatory analysis is available for inspection and copying for a fee at the requirement of i 20.405(a)(5). licensee must assess and report those Paragraph 50.73(b) desenbes the conseguences. NRC Public Document Room.1717 H format and content of the LER. It Paragrapli 50.73(b)(4) requires that the Street. N.W., Washington, D.C. Single requires that the licensee prepare the licensee describe in the I.ER any copies of the analysis may be obtained LER in sufficient depth so that -

corrective actions planned as a result of from Frederick J. Heben. Chief. Program knowledgeable readers conversant with .the event that are known at the time the Technology Branch. Office for Analysis the design of commercial nuclear power LER is submitted, including actions to and Evaluation of Operational Data, plants,but not familiar with the details ' reduce the probability of similar events U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, of a particular plant, can understand the occurring in the future. After the initial Wa shington. D.C. 20555; Telephone (301) complete event (i.e the cause of the LER is submitted only substantial 492-4480. .

"'ed be VL Paperwork Reduction Act Statement nd ee ence o ne s e a su emental .

. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission the event). Paragraph 50.73(c) authorizes the NRC Paragraph 50.73(b)(1) requires that the staff to require the licensee to submit -has submitted this rule to the Office of licensee provide a brief abstract specific supplementalinformation .

. Management and Budget for such desenbmg the major occurrences during beyond that required by i 50.73(b). Such review as may be appropriate under the the event,includmg all actual Paperwork Reduction Act. Pub. L 96-component or system failures that information may be rekuired if the ata!!

finds that supplementa materialis

$11.The' date on which the reporting contributed to the event, a!I relevant necessary for complete understanding of requirements of this rule become operator errors or violations of effective reflects Indusion of the 60-day an unusually complex or significant procedures, and any significant . event. Such requests for supplemental period which the Act allows for such

. corrective action taken or planned as a information must be made in writing. redew.

- result of the event.This paragraphis and the licensee must submit the VU. Regulatory Flexibility Certification needed to give LER data base users a pplem t

]','g,et g ,

brief description of the event in order to hrma o as a ty of1 5U d

a graph .73 2frequires that the "," d t yS upon by the NRC staff {e

' this rule will not have a significant ,

speci$c'nart tive at te Paragraph 50.73(f) gives the NRC's to actly Executive Director for Operations the ec c impa t on a sub nt 1 ,

what happened during the entire event authority to grant case-by-case so that readers not familiar with the affects electric utilities that are -

details of a particular plant can , exemptions to the reporting dominant in their respective service requirements contained in the LER areas and that own and operate nuclear understand the event.The licensee should emphasize how systems

• system.%Is exemption could be used to utilization facilities licensed under components and o ersting personnel limit the collection of certain data in sections 103 and 104b of the Atomic those cases where full participation performed. Specific hardware problems Energy Act of1954 as amended.The would be unduly difficult because of a amendments clarify and modify should not be covered in excessive detail. Characteristics of a plant that are Pl ant's unique design or circumstances. Presently existing notification unique and that influenced the event Paragraph 50.73(g) states that the requirements.

(favorably or unfavorably)must be reporting requirements contained in Accordingly, there is no new.

described.The narrative must also i 50.73 replace the reporting significant economic impact on these describe the event from the perspective requirements in all nuclear power plant TechnicalSpecifiestions that are  !!censees. nor do these licensees fall of the operator (e g., what the o erator

• within the scope of the definition of saw did. perceived.understoc or typically associated with Reportable .

small entitle:, set forth in the Occurrences. Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small misunderstood)'

Paragraph 50.73 (b)(3) requires that the The reporting requirements Business Size Standards set out in LER include a summary assessment of supdrseded by i 50.73 are those ,

regulations issued by the Small Bus,iness the actual and potential safety ' contained in the Technical Specification sections that are usually titled'" Prompt Administration at 13 CFR P, art 121. .

consequences andimplications of the event nis assessment may be based on Notification with Written Followup" Ust of Subjects (Section 6.9.1.8) and " Thirty Day Written the conditions existing at the time of the 20 NW event.De evaluation must be carried Reports" (Section 6.9.1.9).De reporting out to the extent necessary to fully . requirements that have been superseded Ucensed material. Nuclear power assess the safety consequences and are also described in Regulatory Culde . plants and reactors: Penalty. Reporting safety margins associated with the 1.16. Revision 4. ** Reporting of Operating and recordkeeping requirements.

event. An assessment of the event under Information-Appendix ATechnical 10 50 '

alternative conditions must be included Specification." Paragraph 2. " Reportable

• Occurrences." ne special report incorporation by reference. Antitrust.

If the incident would have been more Classified information. Fire protection.

severe (e.g., the plant would have been typically described in Section 6.9.2

I i

,i  :

'l ,

~

t

~

Interg:vernmentilrelati:ns Nuchar (C) Any deviati:n from tha pl nt's (D) Mitigate the consequ'enezs cf an power pl:nts and reactors. P;nalty. T;chnical Sp:cificati:ns cuth:rized cecident.

Radiation protection. R: porting cnd pursurnt ta i 50.54(x) cf this p:rt. (viii)(A) Any cirborne radioactivity .

recordkeeping requirementa. -(ii) Any event or condition that release that exceeded 2 times the .

' resulted la the condition of the nuclear applicable concentrations of the limits Under the authority of the Atomic specified in Appendix B. Table II of Part Power plant, including its principal Energy Act of1954, as amended, the safety barriers, being seriously 20 of this chapter in unrestricted areas, r Energy Reorganization Act of1974, as degraded, or that resulted in the nuclear when averaged over a tirne pen,od of aminded, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553. the one hour.

Power plant being: ,

fs!!owing amendments to 10 CFR Parts (A)In an unanalyzed condition that (B) Any liquid effluent release that 20 and 50 are published as a document exceeded 2 times the limitmg combined significantly compromised plant safety; cubject to codification. * .

[B)In a condition that was outside the Maximum Permissible Concentration design basis of the plant: or (MPC)(see Note 1 of Appendix B to Part PART 50-DOMESTIC 1.lCENSING OF 20 of this chapter) at the point of entry PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION ' (C)In a condition not covered by the Plant's operating and emergency into the receiving water (i.e .

FACILITIES  :

' procedures, unrestricted area) for all radionuclides 1.The authority citation for Part 50 (iii) Any naturalphenomenon or other except tritium and dissolved noble .

continues to read as follows: external condition that posed an actual gases, when averaged over a time period .

threat to the safety of the nuclear power of one hour.

Authodty: Seca.103.104.181.182.183.186 (ix) Reporta submitted to the 189. 68 Stat. 936. s37. 948. 953. 954. 955. 958, as Plant or signiBeantly hampered site cmended, sec.234.83 Stat.1244, as amended personnelin the performance of duties Commission in accordance with (42 UAC. 2133. 2134. 22ot. 2232. 2233. 2236, necessary for the safe operation of the paragraph (a)(2)(viii) of this section also

• 2239,2282); secs. 201,202,2od. 88 Stat.1242. nucleat power plant.

meet the effluent release reporting '

1144.1245, as amended (42 UAC.'5641,5842 (iv) Any event or condition th'at requirements of paragraph 20.405(a)(5) 5846). unless otherwise noted. . resulted in manual or automatic of Part 20 of this chapter l

• Sectfin 50.7 also issued under Pub. L 95- actuation of any Engineered Safety (x) Any event that posed an actual ,

80L sec 10. 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). . Feature (ESF), including the Reactor threat to the safety of the nuclear power Protection System (RPS).However, plant or signiScantly hampered site, un r$b of 5. 9 S nt. 2 (2 .C.

actuation of an ESF,lacluding the RPS, personnelin the. performance cf duties 2239). Section so.7s also issued under sec. that resulted from and was part of the necessary for the safe operation of the 122. 68 Sta.t. s39 (42 USC. 2152). Sections nuclear power plant including fires.

50.8040.81 also issued under sec.164,68 Stat. Preplanned sequence during testing or *

. reactor operation need not be Teported. toxic gas releases, or radioactive 954. es amended (42 USC 2234). Sections '

$0.100-50-102 also issued under sec.186. 68 (v) Any event or condition that alone releases. ,

St:t. 955 (42 USC 2236). ,

could have prevented the fulfillment of (b) Contents.he Ilcensee Event Fct the purposes of sec 223. 68 Stit.958, as the safety function of structures or Report shall contain: ,

- cmended (42 USC 2273). Il saio (a). (b). systems that are needed to: (1) A orief abstract describing the cad (c) 50.44. 50.46. 50.48. 50.54, and 50.ao(a)

(A) Shut down the reactor and major occurrences during the event.

maintain it in a safe shutdown including all component or system .

c e d d (4 2 ) !! 50.1 and '

failures that contributed to the event condition:

(c) and 50.54 are issued under sec.1611.es (B) Remove residualhbat; and significant corrective action taken Stat. 949, as amended (42 UAC 2201(1)): and (C) Control the release of radioactive or planned to prevent recurrence.

iI 50.55(e). 50.59(b). 50.70. 50.71. 50.72, and 50.78 cre issued under sec.1610,68 Stat. 950. material or (2)(i) A clear, specific, narrative (D) Mitigate the consequences of an description cf what occurred so that cs aminded (42 USC 2201(o)). .

accident. knowledgeable readers conversant with

2. A new I 50.73 is added tfread as (vi) Events covered in paragraph, the design of commercial nuclear power - , '

g,y ** plants, but not familiar with the details

• - - (a)(2)(v) of this section may include one '

or more procedural errors, equipment of a particular plant, can understand the I 50.73 Uoen.see event report system. complete event.

failures, and/or discovery of design,

} ' bo d" analysis, fabrica tion, construction. and/ (ii) The narrative description must of ar p ra ing icense or a uc!,), or procedural inadequa cies. However, include the following specific 3 Individual component failures need not information as appropriate for the c ee Eve t port ) r ry be repgrted pursuant to this paragraph if particular event: ,

svent of the type describedin this redundant equipment in the same (A) Plant operating conditions before paregraph withfn 30 days after the system was operable and available to the event.

d d" . Perform the required safety function. (B) Status of structures, components, sicYe i th s se$t$on,theIfee se or systems that were inoperable at the -

(vil) Any event where a single cause hall '

r condition caused at least one start of the event and that contributed to plant od or po . nd independent train or channel to become the event.

8 ' ' h in perable in multiple systems or two (C) Dates and approximate tirnes of ft ue e,'s n npone t the independent trains or channels to occurrences.

inmated the est. become Inoperable in a single system (D)ne cause of each component or (2) The, licensee shall report: designed io: system failure or personnel error, if (i)(A) he completion cf any nuclear known.

(A) Shut down the reactor and (E) The failure mode, mechanism, and plant shutdown required by the plant's . maintain it in a safe shutdown Technical Specifications; or condition:

effect of each falled component. If -

(B) Any operation or condition known.

(B) Remove residual heat: (F) The Energy Industry Identification prohibited by the plantYTechnical (C) Control the release of radioactive . System component function identifier Specifications; or material: or ,

• 1m

{

~

_.~m._ , -- --

e end system name cf ecch c:mponent er components th:t could h:ve performed PART 20-STANDARDS FOR .

system referred to in th IIR. the same functi:n es the components PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION (J)The Energy. Industry Identificatica and systzms that failed during the event.

3. In $ 20.402, paragraph (a) is. revised:

System is defined in:IEEE Std 803-1983 (4) A description of any corrective the introductory text of paragraph (b)is (May 18,1983) Re~ commended Practices actions planned as a result of the event, revised; and a new paragraph (e)is -

for Unique Identification Plante and d th t R la Facilities-Principles and ,g,hj,,,y,t incl ding th ',* ng in the fu a ed to nad as foHow .,

(5) Reforence to any previous similar $20.402 Mnorts of theft w losa e' g 1 (2)IEEE Std 803-1983 has been events at the same plant that are known soew material - t

' approved forincorporation by reference (a)(1) Each licensee shaU report to the by the Director of the Federal Register, to the lipensee.

• A notice of any changes made to the (6)he name'and telephon numberbf Commission, by telephone, immediately a person within the licensee's after it determines that a loss or theft of  !

materialincorporated by reference will organization who is knowledgeable licensed material has occurred in such be published in the Federal Register. l about the event and can provide .guantities Copies may be obtained from the at it appearsand to theunder L,censaiesuchthat circumstanc a

. Institute of Electrical and Electronica additional information concerning the substanual hazard may resuh to penons

• Engineers,345 East 47th Street, New event and the plant's characteristics.

York, NY 10017. A copy is available for (c)Supplemenfolinformation. The epes sh mak as hw inspection and copying for a fee at the Commission may require the licensee to (i) Licensees having an installed Commission's Public Document Room. submit specific adadonalinfonnation 1717 H Street. NW., Washington, D.C. Emergency Notification System shall beyon<l that nquired by paragraph (b) . make the reports to the NRC Operations i and at the Office of the Federal Register,. of eis secdonif de Commission Ands Center in accordance with 150.72 of this 1100 L St. NW., Washington, D.C.

that supplemental materialis necessarY chapter.

(C) For faDures of components with -

multiple functions, include a list of for complete understanding of an * (H) AD othslicensen shah make systems or secondary functions that unusually complex or significant event. reports to the Administrator of the were also affected. Rese requests for supplemental appropriate NRC Regional Office listed (H) For faDure that rendered a train of information will be made in writing and in Appendix D of this part. 1 a safety system' inoperable, an utimate the licensee shall)ubmit the requested (b) Each licensee who makes a report I of the elapsed time from the discovery information as a supplement to the under paragraph (a) of this section shall. l I

of the failure until the train was returned initialIIR. . .

withing 30 days after learning of the loss 1

to service. . (d)Subminion of~mports. Licensee or theft, make a report in writing to the -

(I)ne method of discovery of each Event Reports must be prepared on U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I component or system failure or

• Form NRC 306 and submitted within 30 Document Control Desk. Washington, I procedural enor. days of discovery of a reportable event D.C. 20555, with a copy to the

())(JJ Operstor actions that affected or situation to the U.S. Nuclear appropria te NRC Regional Office listed I the courst of the event. including Regulatory Commission, Document in Appendix D of this part.De report I operator errors, procedural deficiencies. shall include the following infonnation:

Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555. '

or both, that contributed to the event.

(2)For eoch persor.nel error, the he licensee shall also submit an ~ , ,

additional copy to the appropriate NRC. (e) For holders of an operating. license l licensee shall discuss: .

for a nuclear power plant, the events (i)Wther the error was a cognitive Regional Office listed in Appendix A to includedinparagraph(b)of this section i error c s., failure to recognize the actual Part 73 of this chapter. must be reported in accordance with the plant condition, failure to realize which -(e)1teportlegibility.%e reports and Procedures described in 150.73 (b),(c).

systems should be furictioning, failure to copies that licensees are required to I d o a ep a d mut acognize the true nature of the event) or submit to the Commission under the ')E d b ,9 a procedural error, provisions of this section must be of Paragra h(b)of this section. Events sufficient quality to permit legible (ii) Whether the error was contrary to "

an approved procedure, was a direct reptbduction and micrographic th ap a tbe rePorte by result of an error in an approved procusing '

procedure, or was associated with an (f) Exemptions. Upon written request on.

activity or t sk the was not covered by from a licensee including adequate

4. In i 20.403, the introductory text of cadon or at ee inidade of es paragraphs (a) and (b)is revised and

(/J y un alch recteristics of the NRC stan, ee NRC Executive Dinctor naragraph (d)is revised to read as work location (e.g., heat. noise) that fo'r Operations may, by a letter to the JoHows:

directly contributed to the error, and

' " r nts under s l 20.403 Noencauens oHnWonta. .

Po req (i. cots rp or ut ty.

section.

(a)Immediate notification.Ench licensed operator, utility nonlicensed' licensee shall immediately report any operator, other utility personnel). (g)1teportable occurrences.ne requirements contained in this section . events involving byproduct, source. or (K) Automatically and manually special nuclear ma'erial possessed by initiated safety system responses. . replace all existing requirements for the licenen that may have caused or

(L) ne manufacturer and model . licensees to report " Reportable thmatens to caum number (or other identification) of each Occurrenen" as defined in ladividual * * * *

• component that failed during the event. plant Technical Specifications. .

(3) An assessment of the safety . De following additional amendments (b) Wenty-farharnotificofion.

consequences andimplicadons of the Each licensee shall within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of are also made to Parts 20 and 50 of the event. nis assessment must include the discovery of the event.nport any event regulations in ele chapter, involving licensed material possessed availability of other systems or 9

g .

.- 1

\

l

9 .

I

?

o O

e O

e ENCLOSURE D m

e 1

I l

l l

a

, COORDINATION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH OPERATIONAL EVENTS "The draft proposed LER rule (10 CFR 50.73) was recently considered by the NRC Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR). The Committee noted (Attachment 1) that the LER rule is significantly interrelated with other reporting requirements. The Committee recommended that the appropriate offices coordinate an outline of these reporting requirements and describe a plan to assure their coordination. The outline is included here as Attachment 2 and the plan to assure their coordination, which has been reviewed hnd concurred in by the affected offices, is included here as Attachment 3."

O O

9

e. 1 4

4 .

1

! i o

O e

e ENCLOSURE E e

W

l l

DRAFT CONGRESSIONAL LETTER l

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Enclosed for your information are copies of a notice of proposed rulemaking to be published in the Federal Register and a public announcement concerning that rulemaking.

The Commission is proposing to amend its regulations on the reporting on safety defects, 10 CFR Part 21 and 10 CFR 50.55(e). The proposed revisions are a result of Commission efforts to apply the experience gained at Three Mile Island and to also reflect Commission experience to date with the existing regulations. The proposed amendments concentrate on the evaluation and reporting of significant safety defects in the construction and operation of nuclear power plants, and apply to both Commission licensees and to non-licensees who supply components to facilities or activities licensed by the Commission.

The revisions will eliminate duplicative reporting, establish consistency with other Commission safety reporting requirements, clarify the criteria for reporting, and establish time periods, procedures and formats for reporting.

Sincerely, James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement

Enclosure:

As stated

• t 4

8 e

e ENCLOSURE F .

l 1

1 l

l l

l 1

l l

l l

l l

l

- - . 1

5 1

DRAFT PUBLIC ANN 0UNCEMENT NRC PROPOSES TO CHANGE SOME NUCLEAR PLANT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulation governing the reporting of deficiencies in the design and construction of .

nuclear power plants.

The proposed amendments would: (1) eliminate duplicative reporting

. requirements; (2) define the kinds of defects and deficiencies which must be reported and provide time limits for evaluation and reporting; and (3) establish a uniform format for reporting deficiencies and defects.

Presently, Part 50 of the NRC's regulations requires utilities building nuclear power plants to report significant deviations or deficiencies which could adversely affect safety. Under the same part, utilities operation nuclear power plants are required to report all significant operating events. ,

Part 21 of the regulations applies both to licensees and to nonlicensees.

It requires directors and responsible officers of firms constructing, owning, operating or supplying components of any facility or activity licensed by the Commission to report the discovery of defects in basic components that could create a substantial safety hazard.

9

• s A

l As proposed, the amendments to Part 21 and 50 would:

-- Make clear the duplicative reports under Parts 21 and 50 are not requi red. This would establish one report for each defect--either under Part 21 or Part 50 depending on the entity that discovers the defect.

-- Define and make similar the kinds of deviations and deficiencies which must be reported under Parts 21 and 50. This would make them similar to the kinds of significant operating events which would have to be reported under another amendment to Part 50 published in July 1983.

-- Require, under Part 21, that deviations be evaluated as soon as practical or within 30 days in order to identify reportable defects and require th'e director or responsible officer to notify the NRC within five days follow-t ing receipt of the information. The same time limits would be imposed on utilities building nuclear power plants and required to report under Part 50.

Comments on the proposed amendments should be received by (date). They should be addressed to the Secretary of the Commission, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.

l

6 O

ENCLOSURE G (pending) 4

(

l l

l

't 1

O O

e 9

ENCLOSURE H e

- l 1

1

{

\

J

WhW T ~ _-gMl w mrawvun9== B.

WN5 - - m bh

{ 50.73 Title 10-Energy

( .

,E.5.

I d[ (A) Its an unanalyzed condition that compromised (C) Control the release of radioac-l

! ' '.' A $' -N significantly safety; plant tive material; or I

-M .,

kf; ..-[

q h@ (B) In a condition that was outside ,

(D) Mitigate the consequences of anj accident.

{g r;

• s we-r.5-A G L '

the design basis of the plant; or ~ (v11tX A) Any airborne radioactivity (C) In a condition not covered by the release that exceeded 2 times the ap- -

p< . - plant's operating and emergency pro- plicable concentrations of the limits a cedures. specified in Appendix B Table II of (f!t* ( 111 ) Any natural phenomenon or Part 20 of this chapter in unrestricted E O other external condition that posed an areas, when averaged over a time actual threat to the safety of the nu- period of one hour, E

r t- -

clear power plant or significantly ham- (B) Any liquid effluent releate that -

f.E 4 '

1l l- J pered site personnel in the perform- exceeded 2 times the limiting com-ance of duties necessary for the safe bined Maximum Permissible Concen- E y operation of the nuclear power plant.

(iv) Any event or condition that re-tration (MPC)(see Note 1 of Appendix -

.i i B to Part 20 of this chapter) at the E

sulted in manual or automatic actu- point of entry into the receiving water f], ation of any Engineered Safety Fea- (i.e., unrestricted area) for all radionu- E ture (ESP), including the Reactor Pro- clides except tritium and dissolved  ;

!{! tection System (RPS). However, actu- noble gases, when averaged over a yp. ation of an ESF, including the RPS, that resulted from and was part of the time period of one hour.

(ix) Reports submitted to the Com-a y preplanned sequence during testing or mission in accordance with paragraph t; ! reactor operation need not be report- (aX2Xvlii) of this section also meet the

- y{ ed. effluent release reporting require-U (v) Any event or condition that ments of paragraph 20.405(aX5) of -

alone could have prevented the fulfill- Part 20 of this chapter.

(x) Any event that posed an actual ment of the safety function of struc-tures or systems that are needed to:

threat to the safety of the nuclear l

p.

(A) Shut down the reactor and main- power plant or significantly hampered s tain it in a safe shutdown condition; site personnel in the performance of k (B) Remove residual heat; duties necessary for the safe operation {

h (C) Control the release of radioac. of the nuclear power plar}t including y tive material; or fires, toxic ga.s releases, or radioactive l

y' (D) Mitigate the consequences of an releases. .

accident. (b) Content.s. The Licensee Event (vi) Events covered in paragraph Report shall contain:

, (aX2XV) of this section may include (1) A brief abstract describing the

{j one or more procedural errors, equip- major occurrences during the event, t ment failures, and/or discovery of including all component or system f all-r e design, artalysis, fabrication, construc- ures that contributed to the event and P tion, and/or procedural inadequacies, significant corrective action taken or E

However, individual component fall- planned to prevent recurrence.

ures need not be reported pursuant to (2X1) A clear, sper'fic, narrative de-this paragraph if redundant equip- scription of what occurred so that ment in the same system was operable knowledgeable readers conversant and available to perform the required with the design of commercial nuclear c safety function 4---T O5 E12.T* .i_ f power plants, but not familiar with the details of a particular plant, can For(Vil) Any caused condition event where at least aone awgic inde-M understand the complete event.

1l pendent train or channel to become in- (!!) The narrative description must a

operable in multiple systems or two in- include the following specific informa-

' trains or channels to tion as appropriate for the particular fdependent become inoperable in a single system event:

'o designed to: (A) Plant operating conditions t < (A) Shut down the reactor and main- before the event.

B) Status of structures, compo-tain (B) itRemove in a safe heat; condition;ne(nts, shutdown residual j or systems that were inoperable 7

l 456

^

I'N S 6 W Z.

e *e _.

T l

1

,i 3

t Insert 1 Unless the provisions of .(a)(2)(vii) apply.

~

Insert 2 (vii) Any event that may be a precurser of a coninon mode or common cause failure that could have prevented fulfillment of any of the safety functions listedin(a)(2)(v). This includes:

A. Any event in which more than one failure occurred or became apparent

during the course of the event.

B. A single failure that could be indicative of a common. mode failure (e.g., a design error; a misapplication of a component; a procedural, mainte-

! nance, or installation error that may have also occurred in a redundant safety system; rapid d'egradation conditions; and fabrication or manufacturing -

deficiencies).

+

1 Y

e

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