ML20207H054
| ML20207H054 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 07/17/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207H040 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8607240060 | |
| Download: ML20207H054 (20) | |
Text
.
d o
UNITED STATES g
- ' [
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.107 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-16 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION AND JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-219
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated February 3, 1986, GPU Nuclear (the licensee) requested an amendment to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-16 for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (0yster Creek). This amendment would authorize changes to Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Appendix B, Environ-mental Technical Specifications (ETS). These changes pertain to Defini-tions, Environmental Monitoring, Special Monitoring and Study Activities, and Administrative Controls of the ETS, respectively.
2.0 DISCUSSION The licensee in its letter dated February 3,1986, has proposed Technical Specificati6n' Change Request (TSCR) 139 to change the ETS. This proposal is to revise or delete certain requirements and revise Section 4, Admin-istrative Controls. These changes would revise or delete the following:
(a) revise the table of contents including deleting the list of references, (b) delete the list of tables and figures, (c) delete the definitions, (d) delete the introductory paracraph in Section 2.1, (e) delete Table 2-1 and 2-2, (f) delete Section 2.1.1.A, Impingement of Organism, (g) revise Section 2.1.1.B. Fish Kill Monitoring Program, (h) delete Section 3.1, Woodborer Monitoring Program, (1) delete the second paraaraph in Section 3.2, Unusual or Important Environmental Events, (,1) revise Section 4.1, Responsibility, Administrative Controls, and Figure 4-1 for new titles, (k) delete reference to Section 4.4.3 in item F and H of Section 4.3, Review and Audit, Administrative Controls, (1) revise Section 4.4.1 and delete Sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3, Procedures, (m) revise item 1 of Section 4.5.1.A, Routine Reports, and (n) revise the page numbers of the ETS.
The licensee has proposed TSCR 139 to revise or delete the environmental monitoring requirements on impingement of organisms, fish kill monitoring, woodborer monitoring, water quality study, and reporting. The licensee stated that it is deleting references to limiting conditions for operation (LCO) which have been previously deleted from the ETS. The licensee 8607240060 860717 PDR ADOCK 05000219 p
2 explained that these requirements are either in other enforceable documents which rerder the environmental monitoring requirements in the ETS unneces-sary, the extensive data base which has been developed addresses the issue fully and it is no longer necessary to require the studies through the ETS, or the licensee maintains an Environmental Control Plan which sets forth the policies and objectives for conservation and protection of the environment and it is no longer necessary for Sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 to remain in the ETS. The licensee further explained that (1) Section 316 (a) and (b), Clean Water Act, demonstrations before the State of New Jersey, Department of environmental Protection (NJDEP), has the ob,iective to assess the impingement, entrainment and thermal effects associated with station operation and (2) the woodborer monitoring program has a data base developed and presented in 42 quarterly reports submitted to NRC. The licensee stated that the TSCR also includes administrative changes to achieve consistency throughout the ETS and to revise titles to reflect the licensee's organization which has responsibility for the implementation of the ETS.
3.0 EVALUATION The licensee submitted TSCR No. 139 to change the ETS for Oyster Creek.
The requested changes are summarized as follows:
(1) Deletion of the definitions section; (2) Deletion of several monitoring requirements; (3) Mnintaining the fish kill / station shutdown monitoring with its reporting criteria; and (4) Revise the Administrative Controls.
We have reviewed the licensee's TSCR against the Final Environmental Statement (FES) dated December 1974, the Environmental Assessment for the Full Term Operating License (EA) dated April 10, 1986, and the current NRC practice of replacing ETS with an Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) that places NRC reliance on the State-issued discharge permit for protection of the aquatic environment. The licensee proposes to retain the ETS, with a monitorina program for fish kills related to station shutdowns in winter.
It is NRC's practice not to require monitoring for water quality and aquatic biota at operational nuclear facilities and to place reliance on the station discharge permit for protection of the aquatic environment.
The backoround for this practice was summarized in Section 4.0 of the 1986 EA, and is restated here for clarity. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPAI has developed regulations and procedures for implementation of Clean Water Act provisions applicable to aquatic and water quality aspects of nuclear steam electric generatino stations. The Clean Water Act procedures apply to and constrain the ma,ior impacting features of the NRC licensed reactors. The NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board decided in the Yellow Creek Case (ALAB-515; 8 NRC 702, 1978) that the NRC should not impose any non-radiological license conditions for the protec-tion of the aquatic environment because the Clean Water Act places full
3 responsibility for such matters with the USEPA (or those states to which authority has been delegated).
Effluent limitations and water quality monitoring at power plants are imposed by USEPA via the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit issued for each facility.
Amendment 66 dated March 24, 1983, for Oyster Creek deleted from the ETS the non-radiological requirements related to the following: LCOs; thermal plume analysis; hydrographic analysis; and ecological studies. Amendment 83 dated May 30, 1985, changed the location of three woodborer exposure panels.
The EA updated the status of station-related environmental impacts, and placed reliance on the State of New Jersey under authority of the Clean Water Act, for assessment cf operational impacts and for any monitoring requirements or mitigation for protection of the aquatic environment, should they be necessary.
In this regard, the State of New Jersey is conducting its review of impacts under Section 316(a) and (b) of the Clean Water Act and is in the process of reissuing the NJPDES permit for Oyster Creek that will contain operational requirements for protection of the environment.
The staff met with the State of New Jersey on October 24, 1985, and informed the State of the following: the existing Oyster Creek Provisional Operating License (POL) to Full Term Operating License (FTOL) conversion; the EA process; and the staff's intent to eliminate all non-radiologica3 !nonitoring requirements from the ETS and rely on the NJPDES permit. The meeting summary is dated November 15, 1985. The State was officially notified of these actions with the issuance of the EA.
NRC, therefore, has exercised its responsibility under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), and in accordance with current practice, the licensee's request to delete definitions and aquatic moni-toring reouirements from the ETS is acceptable. The proposed ETS format and the inclusion of fish kill / station shutdown monitoring; however, are not in conformance with the current practice. This practice is to include an EPP as the ETS to the license. The EPP is a performance docu-ment and contains no monitoring requirements for matters under the jurisdiction of the NPDES pennitting authority (here, the State of New Jersey). To aid in this transition, a draft EPP has been written specifi-cally for Oyster Creek and is attached.
Fish kills related to winter station shutdowns are included as examples of potential " unusual or important events" in EPP Section 4.1, as are events related to woodboring organisms.
In summary, the TSCR to delete definitions, to delete or revise certain non-radiological monitoring programs and to revise the Administra-tive Controls is acceptable because it conforms with current NRC practice of relying on the NPDES permit (issued here by the State of New Jersey, under authority of the Clean Water Act) for protection of the aquatic
4 environment. It is NRC practice to remove all non-radiological moni-toring from the ETS and to modify the ETS to conform with the EPP format as the Appendix B to the facility operating license. The licensee will be requested to propose the following: (1) delete the fish kill monitoring from Section 1.1 of the ETS, and (2) have the ETS conform with the attached EPP format.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
4.1 Deletion of Monitoring Programs This amendment deletes the following environmental monitoring programs from the Appendix B TS at Oyster Creek:
(1) impincement of organisms and (2) woodborers. These were required because of the inadequacies and speculative nature of the analyses of the impacts of impingement and woodborers in the FES. This has been addressed in the staff's EA dated April 10, 1986.
In the EA, the staff concluded that the licensee's impingement studies since 1974 have substantiated the FES predictions of impingement losses and the FES conclusions remain valid. The FES conclusion was that the impact of this loss is significant. Therefore, the staff concludes that the further study of the impingement of organisms is not needed and it is acceptable to delete this requirement from the Appendix B TS.
In the EA, the staff stated that the licensee has conducted studies of cooling system altegnatives and mitigative measures to reduce the mortality of impinge-ment and entrainment and the mortality of returning impinged biota to the environment via the effluent discharge canal. Mitigative measures implemented i
since the FES include: elimination of copper as a corrosion product in the effluent; reduction in the addition of chlorine to the circulating and effluent water; replacement of the conventional traveling screens with bucket i
screens using a low-pressure screen wash system for removal of biota and reduction of initial impingement mortality; and rerouting of the screen-wash fluent so that impinged biota are returned to ambient water in the i
discharge canal, for reduction of thermal stress. The overall success in reducing mortalities and mitigating impacts are yet to be quantified. The NRC eliminated most of the monitoring reouirements defined by the FES with the approval of Amendment 66 to the Oyster Creek license (effective March 24, 1983) and is eliminating additional monitoring requirements in this action.
In so doing, NRC is relying on the State of New Jersey, under the authority of the Clean Water Act, for assessment of operation l
impacts and for any further requirements for intake-related mitigation, should that be necessary.
In this regard, the State is in the process of renewing the NPDES Permit and reviewing the 316(a) and (b) demonstration for Oyster Creek.
l
5 The staff also addressed woodborers in its EA. The staff stated that marine borers and foulers have been studied for many years in relation to. thermal effluents and habitat conditions in Oyrter Creek, Forked River, and Barnegat Bay. Since the publication of the 1974 FES, the licensee has undertaken extensive studies, with comparative across-year sunnaries. The NRC Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research also sponsored an independent study of borers and foulers during the period September 1976 through December 1982, with a final report published in October 1983.
The staff concluded in the EA that the FES proiections on the introduction of shipworms into Forked River have been verified by the studies conducted.
Shipworms, especially the non-native species, have spread to Barnegat Bay, but only to those areas of the western bay under the immediate influence of the station thermal effluents. An apparent elimination of non-native species subseouent to a prolonged station outage, and no apparent influence of Oyster Creek on shipworms outside of the thermal plume area, suggest that wide-spread shipwom increase has not occurred as projected by the FES. The NRC sponsored study found that while Oyster Creek certainly contributed adult and larval shipworms to Barnegat Bay, no dramatic buildup of shipworms in the bay occurred (except in areas influenced by station themal effluents). Such a buildup is unlikely in the future, given the present thermal regime and the frequency of station outages.
The staff further stated in the EA that the natural introduction of non-native shipworms into the area during the early 1970s (coupled with their enhancemenf.b'y station operation) suggests that re-introduction at a future date is possible. The mitigative measures taken by the licensee decreased the suitability of the area as a shipworm habitat. However, the area still is habitable. The NRC sponsored study found that, as long as there is any unprotected wood in the area influenced by station discharges, a breeding population of borers will be maintained under present station operating conditions. The study concluded that the best course of action is for the licensee to continue to assist local affected property owners in replacing wooden structures with properly treated wood. Nevertheless, data suggests that the widespread shipworm impact projected by the FES has not occurred and nothing beyond the FES recommendations are warranted. Therefore, the staff concludes that further woodborer study is not needed and it is acceptable to delete this requirement from the Appendix B TS.
4.2 Conclusion This amendment relates to changes to a license for a reactor pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 which changes an inspection or surveillance requirement, as well as changes to recordkeeping, reporting, and administrative pro-cedures and requirements and deletion of monitoring requirements
6 applicable to matters subiect to the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9),(10) and (17).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
The EA issued April 10, 1986 (51 FR 12754, April 15, 1986) in connection with the FTOL for Oyster Creek t.lso addresses the environmental consider-ations affected by this amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
6.0 REFERENCES
1.
Letter from P. Fiedler (GPUN) to J. A. Zwolinski (NRC) dated February 3, 1986.
2.
Final Environmental Statement (FES) related to the operation of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station dated December 1974.
3.
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Full Term Operating License, issued by the NRC staff and dated April 10, 1986.
4 NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board decision in the Yellow Creek case, ALAB-515, 8 NRC 702, 1978.
Principal Contributor:
C. Hickey Dated:
July 17, 1986
ATTACHMENT TO 0YSTER CREEK SAFETY EVALUATION rt n a m APPENDIX B TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
1 0{itta Cwh n<uhm 6 milly s7&e, 6'P(d W$'M kWN%
- 2 19
- i. :
DOCKET NO. 50 W
e ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN (NONRADIOLOGICAL)
cud 1% km 6 w % S4 6 d(;ishj~l.
n = -.
I.
o ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN (NONRADIOLOGICAL)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
{
Section Page 1.0 Objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan............ 1-1 I
2.0 Envir:nmental Protection Issues............................ 2-1 i
I 3.0 Consistency Requirements................................... 3-1 3.1 Plant Design and Operation................................. 3-1 N ODES
(
3.2 Reporting Related to the Permit and State Cgrtifications........................................... 3-2 f
3.3 Changes Required for Compliance with Other Environmenta'i
)
l Regulations.............................................. 3-3 4.0. Environmental Conditions...................................
4-1 i
4.1 Unusual or Important Environmental Events.................. 4-1 4.2 Environmental Monitoring................................... 4-1 e
5.0 Administrative Procedures..................................
5-1 5.1 Review and Audit........................................... 5-1 5.2 Records Retention.......................................... 5-1 5.3 Changes in Environmental Protection Plan................... 5-2 5.4 Pl ant Reporting Requi rements............................... 5-2 l
I
Tgjir2 u fITAb 1.0 Objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan The Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) is to provide for protection of
,nonradiological environmental values during operation of the nuclear facility. The principal objectives of the EPP are as follows:
(1) Verify that the facility is operated in an environmentally acceptable manner, as established by the Final Environmental Statement - Operating Licensing Stage (FES-OL) and other NRC environmental impact assessments.
(2) Co, ordinate NRC requirements and maintain consistency with other Federal, State and local requirements for environmental protection.
(3) Keep NRC informed of the environmental effects of facility construction s:
and operation'and of actions taken to control those effects.
Environmental concerns identified in the FES-OL which relate to water quality N OPb ES matters are regulated by way of the licensee's -
permit.
1-1
2.0 Environmental Protection Issues In the FES-OL dated December 1974, the staff considered the environmental impacts associated with the operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS). Certain environmental issues were identified which required study or license conditions to resolve and to assure adequate protection of the environment. On April 10, 1986, NRC staff evaluated the effects of con-tinued operation of OCNGS by issuance of an " Environmental Assessment by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Relating to the Conversion of the Provisional Operating License to a Full-Term Operating License." Several of the en/ironmental issues identified in the 1974 FES-OL were resolved in the 1986 Environmental Assessment. The remaining issues are listed below.
2.1 AquaticIssges, (1) The effects of cooling water withdrawal (impingement and entrainment) on aquatic biota of Barnegat Bay; and the overall success of mitigation measures in reducing mortalities and impact.
(2) The effects of Chlorine (used for biofouling control) on an acuatic biota of Oyster Creek and Barnegat Bay.
I 2-1
~~
2.1 Continued (3) The effect of thermal discharges on:
the mortality of impinged and entrained organisms returned to the aquatic enviornment via the discharge canal; the maintenance of a breedina population of marine wood boring organisms in Oyster Creek; and the licensee's continued assistance to property owners in replacing unprotected wooden structures with properly treated wood.
Aquatic matters are addressed by the effluent limitations and monitoring requirements contained in the effective NJPDES permit issued by the State of New Jersey, and by the determination of the State of New Jersey on the Section 316 (a) & (b) demonstration submitted by the licensee. The NRC will rely on s:
the State for regulation of matters involving water quality and aquatic biota.
J
^
2.2 Terrestrial Issues (1) Control of erosion and the revegetation of acres of denuded site property.
2-la
p m r., j LN 5fk[ h 3.0 Consistency Requirements 3.1 Plant Design and Operation The licensee may make changes in station design or operation or perform tests or experiments affecting the environment provided such activities do not involve an unrev'iewed environmental question and do not involve a change in the EPP*. Changes in station design or operation or performance of tests or experiments which do not affect the environment are not subject to the requirements of this EPP. Activities governed by Section 3.3 are not subject to the requirements of this Section.
Before engaging in additional construction or operational activities which may significantly affect the environment, the licensee shall prepare and record an environmental evaluation of such activity. Activities are axcluded from th$s: requirement if all measurable nonradiological environ-mental effects are confined to tht on-site areas previously disturbed during site preparation and plant construction. When the evaluation indicates that such activity involves an unreviewed environmental question, the licensee shall provide a written evaluation of such activity and obtain prior NRC approval. When such activity involves a change in the EPP, such activity and change to the EFP may be implemented only in accordance with an appropriate license amendment as set forth in Section 5.3 of this EPP.
This provision does not relieve the licensee of the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59.
3-1 i
~..
{3 m,
U k A proposed change, test or experiment shall be deemed to involve an unreviewed environmental question if it concerns:
(1) a matter which may resultinasignificantincreaseinanyadverseenvironmeAnt1impactW Ns sq %
-tlk l98b PTOL Evnthw previously evaluated in thegFES-OL,genvironmental impact appraisals, or in any decisions of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; or (2) a significant charige in effluents or ower level; or (3) a ratter, not previously reviewed and evaluated in the documents specified in (1) of this Subsection, which may have a significant adverse enviror. mental impact.
The licensee shall maintain. records of changes in facility design or operation and of tests and experiments carried out pursuant to this Sub-section. These records shall include written evaluations which provide bases for the determination that the change, test, or experiment does not involve an unreviewed environmental question or constitute a decrease in the effectiveness of this EPP to meet the objectives specified in Section 1.0.
The licensee shall' include as part of.the Annual Environmental Operating Report (per Subsection 5.4.1) brief descriptions, analyses, interpretations,~
and evaluations of such changes, tests and experiments.
N7?D6 1
3.2 Reporting Related to the WBE& Permit and State Certification NJPWS Changes to, or renewals of, the $3025 Permit or the State certification shall be reported to the NRC within 30 days following the date the change or renewal is approved.
If a permit or certification, in part or in its entirety, is appealed and stayed, the NRC shall be notified within 30 days following the date the stay is granted.
3-2
in NyPDES The licensee shall notify the NRC of changes to the effective
':, a Pemit proposed by the licensee by providing NRC with a copy of the proposed change at the same time it is submitted to the pemitting agency. The licensee
~'
NJPDES shall provide the NRC a copy of the application for renewal of the Permit at the same -time the application is submitted to the pemitting
~
agency.
3.3 Changes Required for Compliance with Other Environmental Regulations Changes in plant design or operation and perfomance of tests or experiments' which are required to acitieve compliance with other Federal, State, and local environmental regulations are not subject to the requirements of Section 3.1.
b:
O O
3-3
,w- - - ---,
,.-,---c-,
n-
m
[
4.0 Environmental Conditions 4.1 Unusual or Important Environmental Events
. Any occurrence of an unusual or important event that indicates or could result in significant environmental impact causally related to plant operation shall be recorded and reported to the NRC within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> followed by a written report per Subsection 5.4.2.
The following are examples: excessiv b ction events; onsite plant or animal disease outbreaks; mortality,grunusualoccurrenceofany/s e te b. protected by the M M 5J ref&J 3to </
w/5 cn 44*TM Endangered Species Act of 1973; fish kills; increase in nuisance organisms or cond.itions ticipated or emergency discharge of waste water er n
chemical substancegy;.J f:::;^ '- ;;;;t;um..,m.1 Mr.; fr; :::l' ; t;.;;r-uceva.. A ) a m[) M ica S @ A d M h N a m u) M
- m ii6 p s(eg>kn%4 # M > & 'b"5"W&)k eQ, M tb 9 W 530 b d3h Boy S'P"S 00 "C" bk ##IS F)-
g
-No routine monitbring programs are required to implement this condition.
4.2 Environmental Monitoring 4.2.1 Aquatic Monitoring The certifications and permits required under the Clean Water Act provide mechanisms for protecting water quality and, indirectly, aquatic biota.
llt e W
,< - 6dder The NRC will rely on the decisions made by the State of the authority of the Clean Water Act for any requirements for aquatic monitoring.
4-1
m q e n,.
OE.k.*l 4.2.2 Terrestrial Monitoring No terrestrial monitoring is required.
~'
4.2.3 Noise Monitoring No noise monitoring is required.
~
O W
s e 4-2
. g
$$2h 5.0 Administrative Procedures 5.1 Review and Audit
. The licensee shall provide for review and audit of compliance with the EPP.
The audits shall be conducted independently of the individual or groups r'esponsible for performing the specific activity. A description of the organization structure utilized to achieve the independent review and audit function and results of the audit activities shall be maintained and made available for inspection.
5.2 Records Retention Records and logs relative to the environmental aspects of station operation shall be made and retained in a manner convenient for review and inspection.
TheserecordsanbiogsshallbemadeavailabletoNRConrequest.
~
Records of modifications to station structures, systems and components l
I determined to potentially affect the continued protection of the environ-ment shall be retained for the life of the station. All other records, data and logs relating to this EPP shall be retained for five years or, where applicable, in accordance with the requirements of other agencies.
,a 5-1
e GDar
, l-unhr?
i 5.3 Changes in Environmental Protection Plan Requests for changes in the EPP shall include an assessment of-the environmental impact of the preposed change and a supporting justification.
Implementation of such changes in the EPP shall not commence prior to NRC a'pproval of the proposed changes in the form of a license amendment incorporating the appropriate revision to the EPP.
5.4 Plant Reporting Requirements 5.4.1 Routine Reports An Annual Environmental Operating Report describing implementation of this EPP for the previous year shall be submitted to the NRC prior to May 1 of each year. The period of the first report shall begin with the date of FJ T4 W r issuance of thy'y'erating Sicense, and the initial report shall be submitted prior to May 1 of the year following issuance of the operating
~
a
~
license.
The report shall include summaries and analyses of the results of the environmental protection activities required by Subsection 4.2 (if any) of this EPP for the report period, including a comparison with related preopera-tional studies, operational controls (as appropriate), and previous nonradiological environmental monitoring reports, and an assessment of the observed impacts of the plant operation on the environment.
If hamful 5-2
[Iji) byg/1pwl g'
e*
effects or evidence of trends toward irreversible damage to the environment are observed, the licensee shall provide a detailed analysis of the data and a proposed course of mitigating action.
The Annual Environm. ental Operating Report shall also include:
f (1) A list of EPP noncompliances and the corrective actions taken to remedy them.
(2) A list of all changes in station design or operation, tests, and
(
ex'periments made in accordance with Subsection 3.1 which involved
)
a potentially significant unreviewed environmental question.
(3) A list of nonroutine reports submitted in accordance with Subsection 5.4.2.
e.
In the event that some results are not available by the report due date, the report shall be submitted noting and explaining the missing results. The missing results shall be submitted as soon as possible in a supplementary l
report.
5.4.2 Nonroutine Reports A wrftten report shall be submitted to the NRC within 30 days of occurrence of a'nonroutine event. The report shall:
(a) describe, analyze,andevaluate 5-3
3 7q q /
L7;..a; ;
- 4 the event, including extent and magnitude of the impact, and plant operating characteristics; (b) describe the probable cause of the event; (c) indicate the action taken to correct the reported event; (d) indicate the corrective
, action taken to preclude repetition of the event and to prevent similar occurrences involvi,ng similar components or systems; and (e) indicate the agencies notified and.their preliminary responses.
Events reportable under this subsection which also require reports to other Federal, State or local agencies shall be reported in accordance with those reporting requirements in lieu of the requirements of this subsection. The.
NRC sha,ll,, be provided with a copy of such report at the same time it is submitted to the other agency.
i- :
D
\\
l l
5-4
,_,,,.,._,.,m.______.,_____
_--.,_._wm,_.,_,
_,.,-,__