ML20209C196
| ML20209C196 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/20/1983 |
| From: | Philips J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Weiss E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209B956 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-729 NUDOCS 8306290019 | |
| Download: ML20209C196 (14) | |
Text
S tQ ft!
l
- [og UNITED STATES 8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20s55 0 :
j
%...../
MAY 2 01983 MEMORANDUM FOR: Eric Weiss Office of Inspection and Enforcement FROM: John Philips, Chief Rules and Procedures Branch Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
SUBJECT:
DRR REVIEW OF FINAL IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION RULE (MAY 5, 1983, VERSION)
Attached with required format and suggested style changes indicated are pages of the Federal Register notice and the Regulatory Analysis from the final rule package noted above. Since the style changes supplied add substantially to the clarity of the language used in both documents we ask that you review them carefully.
The revised citation of authority for 10 CFR Part 50 should be inserted in place of the existing citation (which is obsolete) on page 26 of the Federal Register notice.
Although seemingly a minor point, we have replaced the word "his" (on page five of the Regulatory Analysis) with the words "this individual's". This eliminates a potential sexist connotation for the statement involved.
DRR concurs in this version of the final rule with corrections as noted.
Please call me on extension 27086 if you have any questions concerning the matters discussed above.
7 h M M&f - v g,3 EN John Philips, Chief Rules and Procedures Branch Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration Attachments: As stated T124-86729 9W ,
/, . / tl /
- i. ly
'o: .
[7590-01]
_4_
and is sent to a hospital for evaluation, or the vent stack monitor moves upward a few percent yet radiation levels remain 100,000 times below technical speciff-cation limits, or the security computer malfunctions for a few minutes.
This rulemaking eliminates such reporting requirements from 150.72 and in general clarifies and narrows the scope of reporting. However, revision of Part 73 of the Commission's regulations is necessary to resolve all problems with security reports.
- 3. Terminology, Phrasing.and Reporting Thresholds -
The various sections f 10 CFR 50 have different phrasing, terminology, and thresholds in the reporting criteria. Even when no different meaning is intended a change in wording can cause confusion.
This rulemaking has been carefully written to use terminology, phrasing yand -
reporting thresholds that are either identical to or similar to those in @-
950.73, whenever possible. Other conforming amendments to Parts 20, 21, hf3, ad
~ -'-
i [50.5Qnd hpendix E of Part 50 are under development.
As a parallel activity to the preparation of $50.72, the Commission is promulgating a Licensee Event Report (LER) Rule (650.73) which wculd require licensees for operating nuclear power plants to prepare detailed written reports for certain events. On May 6, 1982, the NRC published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (47 FR 19543) a notice of Proposed Rulemaking that describes the codification of the exist.ing LER system. ,
- 4. Coordination with Licensee's Emergency Plan The current scheme for licensee [y emergency plans includes four Emergency m A
Classes. When the licensee declares one of the four Emergency Classes, he must report this to the Commission as required by 950.72. The lowest of the four
- - - ~ . . - - , ..-..-me.-,. , . . . . . . - . . - - . - - . ~ - - -.<w. . . - 7 .p w *,
[7590-01]
8-
- b. The procedures cover events that are not of concern to the NRC, and
- c. The procedures vary from plant to plant.
. While the plant operating personnel should be familiar with plant proce-dures, it is true that procedures vary from plant to plant and cover events '
other than those which compromise plant safety. However, the wording of the reporting criteria has been modified (550.72(b)(1)(1)(B) in the final rule) to narrow the reportable events to those that significantly compromise plant safety.
Notwithstanding the fact that the procedures vary from plant-to-plant, the Commission has found that this criterion results in notification indicative of serious events. The narrowerj nore specific wording will make it possible for A
plant operating personnel tc identify reportable events under their specific operating procedures.
Building Evacuation (Final Rule $50.72(b)(1)(1)(C))
Ten commenters said that the proposed $50.72(b)(6)(iii) regarding "any accidental, unplanr.ed or uncontrolled release resulting in evacuation of a building" was unclear and counterproductive in that it could cause reluctance to evacuate a building. Many of these commenters stated that the reporting of in-plant releases of radioactivity that require evacuation of individual rooms was inconsistent with the general thrust of the rule to require reporting of significant events. They noted that minor spills, small gaseous waste releases, or the disturbance of contaminated particulate matter (e.g., dust) may all require the temporary evacuation of individual rooms until the airborne concen-trations decrease or until respiratory protection devices are utilized. They noted that these events are fairly common and should not be reportable unless the required evacuation affects the entire facility or a major part of it.
[7590-01]
The Commission agrees. The wording of this criterion has been changed to include only'those events which significantly hamper the ability of site personnel in performance of duties necessary for safe operation. .
One comenter was concerned that events occurring on land owned by the utilityadjacenttoitsplant[ightbereportable. This is not t,he intent of -
this reporting requirement. The NRC is concerned with the safety of plant and personnel on the utility's site and not with non-nuclear activities on land
. adjacent to the plant.
Explicit Threats (Final Rule $50.72 (b)(1)(1)(F))
A few comenters said that the intent of the term, " explicitly ' threatens,"
was unclear. Those commenting wondered what level of threat was involved. The term, " explicitly threatens," has been deleted from the final rule. Instead, the final rule refers to "any event that threatened the safety of the nuclear power plant" ($50.72(b)(1)(1)(F)), and gives examples so that it is clear the Commission is interested in real or actual threats as opposed to threats without credibility.
Notification Timing (Final Rule 650.72(b)(2))
The comenters generally had two points to make regarding the timing of reports to the NRC. First, the comments supported notification of the NRC after appropriate State or local agencies have been notified. Second, two comenters requested a new four-to six-hour report category for events not warranting a report with one hour.
Allowing more time for reporting some non-Emergency events would lessen the impact of reporting on the 6dMdude nstom:ble.,
egentr; m; _rm"itier for maintaining the
~
[7590-01]
plant in a safe condition. Limiting the extension of the deadline to four hours ensures that the report is'made when the information is fresh in the minds of those involved and that it is more likely to be made by those involved '[.:tudANe -
Oss chers 0% -
y by{a later shift Qf operatorsYa Other more sig ificant non-Emergency events nd all declarations of an Emergency must continue to be reported within on our. The one-hour deadline -
is necessary t"e Comissio to fulfill its responsibilities during and following tne most serious events occurring at operating nuclear power plants.
one A 4har than J hour was not adopted because the Commission does not ,,,,
want to interfere with the operator's ability to deal with an accident or transient in the first few critical minutes.
Therefore, based on these comments and its experience, the NRC has established a "four-hour report," as was suggested.
Peactor Scrams (Final Rule 650.72(b)(2)(1)(B))
Several comenters said that reactor scrans, particularly those scrams below power operation, should not require notification of the NRC within one hour.
In response to these comments, the Comission has changed the reporting deadline to four hours. However, the Commission does not regard reactor scrams as "non-events," as stated in some letters of comment. Information related to reactor scrams has been useful in identifying safety-related problems. The Commission agrees that four hours is an appropriate deadline for this reporting Oeso requirement because W events are not as important to imediate safety as are some other events.
. . . . . . .. .., . . . . .. . . . ~ . . _ _ , _ , . , - - _
- e.
[7590-01]
O Radioactive Release Threshold (Final Rule 650.72(b)(2)(1)(D))
Cowmen err Several eemen)ts said that the thrsshold of 25% of allowable limits for -
radioactive releases was too low for one-hour reporting. -
%c.se. comatods A Based upon O.t'~ -and its experience, the Consnission has changed the -
%e9b thresholdofreportingtogreleasesexceedingtwotimesPart20 concentrations when averaged over a period of one hour. This will eliminate reports of .
releases that represent negligible risk to the public.
The Commission has found that low level radioactive release be' low two times ----
Part 20 concentrations do not)in themselves warrant inineijate radiological response.
g yqpg, ,1 This paragraph requires those events t 50 pe-ted that cause an unplanned or uncontrolled release of a significant amount of radioactive material to offsite areas. Unplanned releases should occur infrequently; however, when they design or operatior.al occur, at least moderate defects have occurred in the safety 4 %.se control established to avoid their occurrence and, therefore,6 events should be reported.
Personnel Radioactive Contamination (Final Rule 650.72(b)(2)(1)(E))
Several coninenters objected to the use of vague terms such as " extensive onsite contamination" and "readily removed" in one of the reporting criteria of the proposed rule.
Based on this comment, new criteria have been prepared that use more specific tenns. For example, one new criterion requires reporting of "Any event requiring transport of a radioactively contaminated person to an offsite medical facility." Experience with telephone notificationsmade to the NRC Operations A A Center suggests that this new criterion will be easily understood.
3
- + +. . , ,p - , .-e... .+-*==*w.e..,p.i., e,. -
+.
e.
PART 50 -- DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FAGILITIES ,
. The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: Secs. 103, 104, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, 1244, 1246, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846),
unless otherwise noted.
Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Sections 50.58, 50.91 and 50.92 also issued under Pub.
L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.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, 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)[
N Forthepurposesofsec.223,68 Stat.958,asamended(42U.S.C.2273),
- ll50.10(a),(b),and(c), 50.44,50.46,50.48,50.54,and50.80(a)areissued f
undersec.161b,68 Stat.948,asamended(42U.S.C.2201(b));ll50.10(b)and (c) and 50.54 are issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2201(i)); and il 50.55(e), 50.59(b), 50.70, 50.71, 50.72, and 50.78 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
CSSL \hSh 0%f0fV L E ICL
( gage &
~
[7590-01]
t Accordingly, there is no new, significant economic impact on these licensees, nor do the affected licensees fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or within the Small Business Size Standards set forth in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.
VII. LIST.0F SUBJECTS IN 10 CFR PART 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Fire prevention .Irtergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors. Penalty, Radiation Protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting requirements.
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorgani-zation Act of 1974, as amanded, and section 552 and 553 of Title 5 of the United States Code, the following amendments to Title 10, Chapter I, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 are published as a document subject to codification.
h PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF
(\ SU ri PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES i* 1. The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:
t.
AUTHOR:Ty. s re int ina ici, le2, 132, 100, 100, SS Stat. 9 36,-937v-948,--.
-053, ;;4, 055, 055, 55 =^ a d *A cae ??', 93 St:t. 1?AA . 2: =:nded-(4EHh&C 2133, 2100, 2001.-2232 ????, ??36.. 2239,42??); cete ?01, 202, 205,-88-Stat .
--1242, 1244, 1215, :r =^adad Id? Il ( C. 5941, 5 '? 5815), e 1=ss-etherwise w ed.
Section 50.7 ei x !!!"*d "ader ad . '_ .00-001, m. 10, ;2-5 tai.. 2001 s#b ked
-(12 L'.S.C. 50:1) .1; S :tf er.-50.58,. 60.91-and 50.92 also tssued undee 4secr-442,-
StatM39-(42 UA C. 210). Sectian 0 0.80-50.81 21so-issued e der n c.-184.
-00 St;t. 954 :: : ::td (42 U.5.C. 22 4). Secti=: 50.100 50.102 :1:o issad
=&r ee laA 59 Stat. 055-(4fHf?xC-fE3fr)r
. . . . . . . . . . . , . . . , _ . . ~. - , . . . . . . . . _ . . - _ . _z,., . _ _ .
r -
- [7590-01]
release that exceeds 2 times the limiting combined Maximum Permissible Concentration (MPC) at the point'of entry into the receiving water (i.e., unrestricted area) for all radionuclides except tritium and dissolved noble gases, when averaged over a time period of one hour.
Immediate notifications made under this paragraph also satisfy the 2.
requirements of paragraphs and (a)(2) and (b)(2) of if0.403 of Part 20 of this chapter.
(E) Any event recuiring the transport of a radioactively contaminated person to an offsite medical facility for treatment.
~
(F) Any event or situation related to the health and sa'fety of the public or onsite personnel or protection of the environment and for which a news release is planned or notification to other government agencies has been or will be made. These events may include an onsite fatality or inadvertent release of radioactively contaminated materials.
(c) Followup Notification. (1) With respect to the telephone notifications madeunderparagraphs(a)and(b)ofthissection,inadditiontomaking the required initial notification, each licensee, shall during the course of the event:
(i) Immediately report any further degradation in the level of safety of the plant or other worsening plant conditions including those that require the declaration of any of the Emergency Classes if such a declaration has not been previously made, or the change from one Emergency Class to another or a termination of the Emergency Class.
(ii) Immediately report: (A) the results of ensuing evaluations or assessmentsofplantconditions,(B)theeffectivenessofresponseor i
- w. . . . , . == , , . , , .-...+,-..p,ee==,ppe.,,___ ,,g , m - . _ , ___
r 2-These letters were generally supportive of the proposed revision of 10 CFR 50.72 and these letters were most useful in'the development of this final rule.
ALTERNATIVES
- At the outset of this rulemaking, a wide variety of regulatory alternatives were considered. One alternative that was rejected was the possibility of simply revising 10 CFR 50.72 without regard for coordination with other , reporting requirements. The need for coordination with other provisions of 10 CFR, most notably the new LER system (10 CFR 50.73), resulted in the selection of the approach defined in the final rule. Each of the reporting criteria adopted in the final rule was selected frem a range of possible alternatives and each was considered carefully, usually by a committee representing the various elements of the NRC staff familiar with the required information and the way the informa-tion could be collected from licensees in the least burdensome manner through a particular reporting requirement.
The alternatives considered for the reporting requirements contained in 150.72 would have the following results:
- 1. have approximately the same number of reports,
- 2. reduce the number of reports, or
- 3. increase the number of reports Alternative 1 would impose the approximately same burden on licensees.
However, the Commissio as determined that some reports now required are not necessary.
Alternative 2 would eliminate reports that have not been useful to the Commission. Experience with telephone notifications to the NRC Operations Center has demonstrated that there are three categories of reports that have not been useful. One category is worker injury reports. Worker injury reports typically
. . . . _ .. . . ._.-.,_.m.
g i
The present cost of reporting under $50.72 for the entire industry is estimated to be $46,000 per year exclusive of the costs incurred in order to comply with NRC's emergency preparedness regulation. This basis of'this cost
- estimate is as follows:
The person who makes the notification pursuant to $50.72 is usually'the shift supervisor who is a licensed senior reactor erator. When taking into
-Hus Mat a)'s -
account salary, cost of training, and overhead time is worth approximately
$100 per hour. i;j 3eg;g{ l% , v6 gg Each telephone notification to the NRC Operations Center pursuant to 150.72 takes on average about 15 minutes, although most notifications take less time and a few take much more time.
The NRC Operations Center typically receives 5 telephone notification pursuant to $50.72 per day.
A computation at the present cost to the industry is:
calls ) x ( _1, hours ) x ( 365 days ) x 100 dollars = S45,525 (5
day 4 call year hour If the revised $50.72 is promulgated, the cost of reporting is estimated to remain unchanged. A survey of telephone notifications made to the NRC Operations Center during January 1983 showed the following:
[r .
e 95 - were reports by licensees which would still be reported under the revised $50.72.
67 - were reports which would not be required by the revised $50.72.
+
11 - were courtesy calls and other calls made by licensees which are not required by 650.72.
WCtb 6-fcourtesycallsandothercallsrequestingassistanceregardingevents not related to powdr reactors.
179 - total event oriented calls.
This suggests an approximate 41% (
ucdon in de nuder of 95+67 reports mode pursuant to $50.72. However, a small countervailing increase in reporting could be expected from such new reporting criteria as " loss of emergency I
assessmentorcommunicationscapability"p0.72(b)(1)(i)(E))and"newsrelease or notification to other government agencies" (50.72(b)(2)(1)(F)). -
A Public Improvements to the immediate notification requirements would provide increased confidence that the health and safety of the public would be protected during a radiological emergency because State and local governments would be better infonned.
Decision on the Action Since the final rule reflects many of the public comments on the proposed rule, and should improve the public health and safety, the final rule changes should be approved and published in the Federal Register to become effective within 60 days of the date of publication.
SPECIFICATION OF CRITERIA A number of commenters found the revised 150.72 to be an improvement. The changes adopted for promulgation in the final rule reflect many of the changes reconnended by commenters.
The revised 50.72 should be a substantial improvement in terms of: ------
Clarity The final rule clearly and explicitly includes reporting criteria for events that were previously described by examples in NUREG-0654.
Order The order of the criteria in the final rule has changed from that in the proposed rule. By reorganizing the criteria, improvements can be made in consistency with similar criteria in 10 CFR 50.73. The final rule incorporates many of the same types of reporting criteria used in 10 CFR 50.73.
Report timing Both the proposed and final rules contain a provision that requires licensee to notify the NRC "as soon as possible and in all cases within one hour of the occurrence" of certain events. In addition, the final r l' incorporates Swr onc.
a provision for reporting some occurrences within ,#' hours instead of'$shour.
This is permitted because occurrences satisfying some of the criteria are less ows-serious or have less immediate safety significance than other events. The is-hour 4bvr--
reports are covered in paragraph (b)(1) of 650.72 while the p hour reports are -----
coveredinparagraph(b)(2). i FINAL DECISION Based on the comments received on the proposed rule, and its own assessment of the impact of this rule, the staff has concluded that the revised 10 CFR
o' ..:
3-50.72 will: (1) not place an unacceptable burden on censees,(2)have -
significant safety benefits for the public, (3) reduce reporting burden on
~
Mcl licensees.g(4) increase the effectiveness of the Innediate Notification System.
M
. Therefore, the staff concludes thatfl0 CFR 50.72 rule should be promulgated. -
a
. . . . . .. . . . . . . , . . . , . . . . . . . _ . _ . ...,.._. ,...._ . _ . . . .. .. , .- ._- _ ._ - ._